Historical and Institutional Perspectives on American Agricultural Development

Abstract

Biological innovations played a far more important role in American agricultural development than previously thought. These innovations were essential in allowing farmers to combat pests and diseases, to move the agricultural production into new environments, and to increase farm productivity. Many biological advances, especially those aimed at fighting contagious animal diseases, required unprecedented federal government interventions to overcome the free‐rider problem and to transfer new knowledge into effective public policy. Early USDA animal disease programs significantly increased productivity and trade in the livestock sector and prevented hundreds of thousands of untimely deaths in the United States from food‐borne illnesses by 1940.

Malaria and economic activity: Evidence from US agriculture

“…Finally, the use of Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and newly discovered chemical components further reduced the burden of malaria to negligible levels during the early 1940s. 6 Economic literature has extensively studied the relationship between disease and economic growth loss, paying particular attention to malaria (Olmstead, 2020). Gallup and Sachs (2000) and Sachs and Malaney (2002) first highlighted the correlation between malaria transmission and economic growth, arguing that reversed causality would not pose a substantial problem.…”

“…Economic literature has extensively studied the relationship between disease and economic growth loss, paying particular attention to malaria (Olmstead, 2020). Gallup and Sachs (2000) and Sachs and Malaney (2002) first highlighted the correlation between malaria transmission and economic growth, arguing that reversed causality would not pose a substantial problem.…”

Everything that rises must converge

“…Francks 2015]. and straightforward model, which was once widely accepted without much qualification [Olmstead andRhode 1993, 1998;Liu and Shumway 2009;Olmstead 2020). That said, the Hayami-Ruttan model still holds up surprisingly well in explaining the development of the reconstituted U.S. rice industry.…”

“…To be more specific about mechanical and biological inputs in the rice revolution: Olmstead and Rhode are correct in arguing that the Hayami-Ruttan approach underestimates the role of biological inputs, particularly new seed varieties [Olmstead and Rhode 1993, 2008Olmstead 2020]. The land-extensive, mechanized cultivation regime came first, but from about 1900 on considerable emphasis was placed upon improving seed stocks both through the introduction of varieties from other parts of the world, particularly Japan, Honduras, and the Philippines, and through the development of new cultivars within the rice region itself through selective breeding.…”