text:
Sharecropping
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
An automated process has detected links on this page on the local or global blacklist. If the links are appropriate you may request whitelisting by following these instructions; otherwise consider removing or replacing them with more appropriate links. (To hide this tag, set the "invisible" field to "true")
List of blacklisted links:[show]
http://www.econlib.org/library/Marshall/marP.html
Triggered by \beconlib\.org\b on the local blacklist
Agriculture
History
History of organic farming
Neolithic Revolution
Arab Agricultural Revolution
British Agricultural Revolution
Green Revolution
On land
Animal husbandry
cattle
pig
poultry
sheep
Dairy
Dryland
Extensive
Free-range
Grazing
Hobby
Intensive
animal
crop
Natural
Orchard
Organic
Ranching
Sharecropping
Slash-and-burn
In water
Aquaculture
Aquaponics
Hydroponics
Related
Agribusiness
Agricultural engineering
Agricultural science
Agroecology
Agroforestry
Agronomy
Animal-free
Crop diversity
Ecology
Livestock
Mechanisation
Permaculture
Sustainable
Urban
Lists
Government ministries
Universities and colleges
Categories
Agriculture
by country
companies
Biotechnology
Livestock
Meat industry
Poultry farming
Agriculture and agronomy portal
v
t
e
A FSA photo of a cropper family chopping the weeds from cotton near White Plains, in Georgia, US (1941).
Sharecropping is a form of agriculture in which a landowner allows a tenant to use the land in return for a share of the crops produced on their portion of land. Sharecropping has a long history and there are a wide range of different situations and types of agreements that have used a form of the system. Some are governed by tradition, and others by law. Legal contract systems such as the Italian mezzadria, the French métayage, the Spanish mediero, or the Islamic system of muqasat, occur widely.[citation needed]
Contents
[hide]
1 Overview
1.1 Advantages
1.2 Disadvantages
2 Regions
2.1 Africa
2.2 United States
3 Sharecropping agreements
4 Farmers' cooperatives
5 Economic theories of share tenancy
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
Overview[edit]
Sharecropping has benefits and costs for both the owners and the tenant. Everyone encourages the cropper to remain on the land, solving the harvest rush problem[clarification needed]. At the same time, since the cropper pays in shares of his harvest, owners and croppers share the risks of harvests being large or small and of prices being high or low. Because tenants benefit from larger harvests, they have an incentive to work harder and invest in better methods than in a slave plantation system. However, by dividing the working force into many individual workers, large farms no longer benefit from economies of scale. On the whole, sharecropping was not as economically efficient as the gang agriculture of slave plantations.[1]
In the U.S., "tenant" farmers own their own mules and equipment, and "sharecroppers" do not, and thus sharecroppers are poorer and of lower status. Sharecropping occurred extensively in Scotland, Ireland and colonial Africa, and came into wide use in the Southern United States during the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). The South had been devastated by war - planters had ample land but little money for wages or taxes. At the same time, most of the former slaves had labor but no money and no land - they rejected the kind of gang labor that typified slavery. A solution was the sharecropping system focused on cotton, which was the only crop that could generate cash for the croppers, landowners, merchants and the tax collector. Poor white farmers, who previously had done little cotton farming, needed cash as well and became sharecroppers.[2]
Jeffery Paige made a distinction between centralized sharecropping found on cotton plantations and the decentralized sharecropping with other crops. The former is characterized by political conservatism and long lasting tenure. Tenants are tied to the landlord through the plantation store. Their work is heavily supervised as slave plantations were. This form of tenure tends to be replaced by wage slavery as markets penetrate. Decentralized sharecropping involves virtually no role for the landlord: plots are scattered, peasants manage their own labor and the landowners do not manufacture the crops. Leases are very short which leads to peasant radicalism. This form of tenure becomes more common when markets penetrate.[3]
Use of the sharecropper system has also been identified in England[4] (as the practice of "farming to halves"). It is still used in many rural poor areas today, notably in Pakistan and India.
Although there is a perception that sharecropping was exploitative, "evidence from around the world suggests that sharecropping is often a way for differently endowed enterprises to pool resources to mutual benefit, overcoming credit restraints and helping to manage risk."[5] According to Dr. Hunter, "a few acres to the cottage would make the labourers too independent."[6]
It can have more than a passing similarity to serfdom or indenture, particularly where associated with large debts at a plantation store that effectively tie down the workers and their family to the land. It has therefore been seen as an issue of land reform in contexts such as the Mexican Revolution. However, Nyambara states that Eurocentric historiographical devices such as 'feudalism' or 'slavery' often qualified by weak prefixes like 'semi-' or 'quasi-' are not helpful in understanding the antecedents and functions of sharecropping in Africa.[7]
Sharecropping agreements can however be made fairly, as a form of tenant farming or sharefarming that has a variable rental payment, paid in arrears. There are three different types of contracts.[8]
Workers can rent plots of land from the owner for a certain sum and keep the whole crop.
Workers work on the land and earn a fixed wage from the land owner but keep some of the crop.
No money changes hands but the worker and land owner each keep a share of the crop.
Advantages[edit]
The advantages of sharecropping in other situations include enabling access for women[9] to arable land where ownership rights are vested only in men.
It has been pointed out that sharecropping was economically inefficient in a free market. However, many outside factors make it efficient. One factor is slave emancipation: sharecropping provided the freed slaves of the US, Brazil and the late Roman Empire with land access. It is efficient also as a way of escaping inflation, hence its rise in 16th-century France and Italy.[10]
It also gave sharecroppers a vested interest in the land, incentivizing hard work and care. However, American plantation were wary of this interest, as they felt that would lead to African Americans demanding rights of partnership. Many black laborers denied the unilateral authority that landowners hoped to achieve, further complicating relations between landowners and sharecroppers.[11]
Landlords opt for sharecropping to avoid the administrative costs and shirking that occurs on plantations and haciendas. It is preferred to cash tenancy because cash tenants take all the risks, and any harvest failure will hurt them and not the landlord. Therefore, they tend to demand lower rents than sharecroppers.[12]
Disadvantages[edit]
The practice was harmful to tenants with many cases of high interest rates, unpredictable harvests, and unscrupulous landlords and merchants often keeping tenant farm families severely indebted. The debt was often compounded year on year leaving the cropper vulnerable to intimidation and shortchanging.[13] Nevertheless, it appeared to be inevitable, with no serious alternative unless the croppers left agriculture.[14][15]
A new system of credit, the crop lien, became closely associated with sharecropping. Under this system, a planter or merchant extended a line of credit to the sharecropper while taking the year's crop as collateral. The sharecropper could then draw food and supplies all year long. When the crop was harvested, the planter or merchants who held the lien sold the harvest for the sharecropper and settled the debt.
Regions[edit]
Africa[edit]
In settler colonies of colonial Africa, sharecropping was a feature of the agricultural life. White farmers, who owned most of the land, were frequently unable to work the whole of their farm for lack of capital. They therefore allowed African farmers to work the excess on a sharecropping basis. In South Africa the 1913 Natives' Land Act[16] outlawed the ownership of land by Africans in areas designated for white ownership and effectively reduced the status of most sharecroppers to tenant farmers and then to farm laborers. In the 1960s, generous subsidies to white farmers meant that most farmers could afford to work their entire farms, and sharecropping faded out.
The arrangement has reappeared in other African countries in modern times, including Ghana[17] and Zimbabwe.[7]
United States[edit]
Sharecroppers on the roadside after eviction (1936).
Sharecropping became widespread in the South as a response to economic upheaval caused by the end of slavery during and after Reconstruction.[18][19] Sharecropping was a way for very poor farmers, both white and black, to earn a living from land owned by someone else. The landowner provided land, housing, tools and seed, and perhaps a mule, and a local merchant provided food and supplies on credit. At harvest time, the sharecropper received a share of the crop (from one-third to one-half, with the landowner taking the rest). The cropper used his share to pay off his debt to the merchant.[20]
The system started with Blacks when large plantations were subdivided. By the 1880s, white farmers also became sharecroppers. The system was distinct from that of the tenant farmer, who rented the land, provided his own tools and mule, and received half the crop. Landowners provided more supervision to sharecroppers, and less or none to tenant farmers. Sharecropping in the United States probably originated in the Natchez District, roughly centered in Adams County, Mississippi with its county seat, Natchez.[21]
Sharecroppers worked a section of the plantation independently, usually growing cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar, and other cash crops, and receiving half of the parcel's output.[22][23] Sharecroppers also often received their farming tools and all other goods from the landowner they were contracted with.[24] Landowners dictated decisions relating to the crop mix, and sharecroppers were often in agreements to sell their portion of the crop back to the landowner, thus being subjected to manipulated prices.[25] In addition to this, landowners, threatening to not renew the lease at the end of the growing season, were able to apply pressure to their tenants.[26] Sharecropping often proved economically problematic, as the landowners held significant economic control.[27]
Although the sharecropping system was primarily a post-Civil War development, it did exist in antebellum Mississippi, especially in the northeastern part of the state, an area with few slaves or plantations,[28] and most likely existed in Tennessee.[29] Sharecropping, along with tenant farming, was a dominant form in the cotton South from the 1870s to the 1950s, among both blacks and whites.
An early 20th century Texas sharecropper's home diorama at the Audie Murphy American Cotton Museum, 2015.
Following the Civil War of the United States, the South lay in ruins. Plantations and other lands throughout the South were seized by the federal government, and thousands of former slaves, known as freedmen, found themselves free, yet without means to support their families. The situation was made more complex due to General William T. Sherman's Special Field Order Number 15, which in January 1865, announced he would temporarily grant newly freed families 40 acres of land on the islands and coastal regions of Georgia. This policy was also referred to as Forty Acres and a Mule. Many believed that this policy would be extended to all former slaves and their families as repayment for their treatment at the end of the war.
An alternative path was selected and enforced. In the summer of 1865, President Andrew Johnson, as one of the first acts of Reconstruction, instead ordered all land under federal control be returned to its previous owners. This meant that plantation and land owners in the South regained their land but lacked a labor force. The solution was sharecropping, which enabled the government to match labor with demand and begin the process of economically rebuilding the nation via labor contracts.
In Reconstruction-era United States, sharecropping was one of few options for penniless freedmen to support themselves and their families. Other solutions included the crop-lien system (where the farmer was extended credit for seed and other supplies by the merchant), a rent labor system (where the former slave rents his land but keeps his entire crop), and the wage system (worker earns a fixed wage, but keeps none of their crop). Sharecropping was by far the most economically efficient, as it provided incentives for workers to produce a bigger harvest. It was a stage beyond simple hired labor, because the sharecropper had an annual contract. During Reconstruction, the federal Freedmen's Bureau ordered the arrangements[30] and wrote and enforced the contracts.
After the Civil War, plantation owners had to borrow money to farm, at around 15 percent interest. The indebtedness of cotton planters increased through the early 1940s, and the average plantation fell into bankruptcy about every 20 years. It is against this backdrop that the wealthiest owners maintained their concentrated ownership of the land.[31]
Cotton sharecroppers, Hale County, Alabama, 1936
A sharecropper family in Walker County, Alabama (c. 1937)
Sharecropper's cabin displayed at Louisiana State Cotton Museum in Lake Providence, Louisiana (2013 photo)
Inside living room/bedroom combination of sharecroppers in Lake Providence
The commissary or company store for sharecroppers at Lake Providence as it appeared in the 19th century
Sharecroppers' chapel at Cotton Museum in Lake Providence
Croppers were assigned a plot of land to work, and in exchange owed the owner a share of the crop at the end of the season, usually one half. The owner provided the tools and farm animals. Farmers who owned their own mule and plow were at a higher stage, and were called tenant farmers: They paid the landowner less, usually only a third of each crop. In both cases the farmer kept the produce of gardens.
The sharecropper purchased seed, tools, and fertilizer, as well as food and clothing, on credit from a local merchant, or sometimes from a plantation store. At harvest time, the cropper would harvest the whole crop and sell it to the merchant who had extended credit. Purchases and the landowner's share were deducted and the cropper kept the difference—or added to his debt.
Though the arrangement protected sharecroppers from the negative effects of a bad crop, many sharecroppers (both black and white) remained quite poor. Arrangements typically left a third of the crop to the sharecropper.
By the early 1930s, there were 5.5 million white tenants, sharecroppers, and mixed cropping/laborers in the United States; and 3 million blacks.[32][33] In Tennessee, whites made up two thirds or more of the sharecroppers.[29] In Mississippi, by 1900, 36% of all white farmers were tenants or sharecroppers, while 85% of black farmers were.[28]
Sharecropping continued to be a significant institution in Tennessee agriculture for more than 60 years after the Civil War, peaking in importance in the early 1930s, when sharecroppers operated approximately one-third of all farm units in the state.[29]
The situation of landless farmers who challenged the system in the rural South as late as 1941 has been described thus: "he is at once a target subject of ridicule and vitriolic denunciation; he may even be waylaid by hooded or unhooded leaders of the community, some of whom may be public officials. If a white man persists in 'causing trouble', the night riders may pay him a visit, or the officials may haul him into court; if he is a Negro, a mob may hunt him down."[34]
Sharecroppers formed unions in the 1930s, beginning in Tallapoosa County, Alabama in 1931, and Arkansas in 1934. Membership in the Southern Tenant Farmers Union included both blacks and poor whites. As leadership strengthened, meetings became more successful, and protest became more vigorous, landlords responded with a wave of terror.[35]
Sharecroppers' strikes in Arkansas and the Missouri Bootheel, the 1939 Missouri Sharecroppers' Strike, were documented in the film Oh Freedom After While.[36] The plight of a sharecropper was addressed in the song Sharecropper's Blues recorded by Charlie Barnet and His Orchestra with vocals by Kay Starr (Decca 24264) in 1944.[37] It was rerecorded and released by Capitol with Starr being backed by the David Beckham Ork" (Capitol Americana 40051).[38] Decca then reissued the Barnet/Star recording.[39]
In the 1930s and 1940s, increasing mechanization virtually brought the institution of sharecropping to an end in the United States.[29][40] The sharecropping system in the U.S. increased during the Great Depression with the creation of tenant farmers following the failure of many small farms throughout the Dustbowl. Traditional sharecropping declined after mechanization of farm work became economical in the mid-20th century. As a result, many sharecroppers were forced off the farms, and migrated to cities to work in factories, or become migrant workers in the Western United States during World War II.
Sharecropping agreements[edit]
Typically, a sharecropping agreement would specify which party was expected to cover certain expenses, like seed, fertilizer, weed control, irrigation district assessments, and fuel. Sometimes the sharecropper covered those costs, but they expected a larger share of the crop in return. The agreement would also indicate whether the sharecropper would use his own equipment to raise the crops, or use the landlord's equipment. The agreement would also indicate whether the landlord would pick up his or her share of the crop in the field or whether the sharecropper would deliver it (and where it would be delivered.)
For example, a landowner may have a sharecropper farming an irrigated hayfield. The sharecropper uses his own equipment, and covers all the costs of fuel and fertilizer. The landowner pays the irrigation district assessments and does the irrigating himself. The sharecropper cuts and bales the hay, and delivers one-third of the baled hay to the landlord's feedlot. The sharecropper might also leave the landlord's share of the baled hay in the field, where the landlord would fetch it when he wanted hay.
Another arrangement could have the sharecropper delivering the landlord's share of the product to market, in which case the landlord would get his share in the form of the sale proceeds. In that case, the agreement should indicate the timing of the delivery to market, which can have a significant effect on the ultimate price of some crops. The market timing decision should probably be decided shortly before harvest, so that the landlord has more complete information about the area's harvest, to determine whether the crop will earn more money immediately after harvest, or whether it should be stored until the price rises. Market timing can entail storage costs and losses to spoilage for some crops as well.
Farmers' cooperatives[edit]
Main article: Agricultural cooperative
Cooperative farming exists in many forms throughout the United States, Canada, and the rest of the world. Various arrangements can be made through collective bargaining or purchasing to get the best deals on seeds, supplies, and equipment. For example, members of a farmers' cooperative who cannot afford heavy equipment of their own can lease them for nominal fees from the cooperative. Farmers' cooperatives can also allow groups of small farmers and dairymen to manage pricing and prevent undercutting by competitors.
Economic theories of share tenancy[edit]
The theory of share tenancy was long dominated by Alfred Marshall's famous footnote in Book VI, Chapter X.14 of Principles[41] where he illustrated the inefficiency of agricultural share-contracting. Steven N.S. Cheung (1969),[42] challenged this view, showing that with sufficient competition and in the absence of transaction costs, share tenancy will be equivalent to competitive labor markets and therefore efficient.[43]
He also showed that in the presence of transaction costs, share-contracting may be preferred to either wage contracts or rent contracts—due to the mitigation of labor shirking and the provision of risk sharing. Joseph Stiglitz (1974,[44] 1988),[45] suggested that if share tenancy is only a labor contract, then it is only pairwise-efficient and that land-to-the-tiller reform would improve social efficiency by removing the necessity for labor contracts in the first place.
Reid (1973),[46] Murrel (1983),[47] Roumasset (1995)[48] and Allen and Lueck (2004)[49] provided transaction cost theories of share-contracting, wherein tenancy is more of a partnership than a labor contract and both landlord and tenant provide multiple inputs. It has also been argued that the sharecropping institution can be explained by factors such as informational asymmetry (Hallagan, 1978;[50] Allen, 1982;[51] Muthoo, 1998),[52] moral hazard (Reid, 1976;[53] Eswaran and Kotwal, 1985;[54] Ghatak and Pandey, 2000),[55] intertemporal discounting (Roy and Serfes, 2001),[56] price fluctuations (Sen, 2011)[57] or limited liability (Shetty, 1988;[58] Basu, 1992;[59] Sengupta, 1997;[60] Ray and Singh, 2001).[61]
See also[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sharecroppers.
Convict lease
Wage slavery
Peonage
Rural tenancy
Sharefarming
Sharemilking
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Larry J. Griffin; Don Harrison Doyle (1995). The South As an American Problem. U. of Georgia Press. p. 168. ISBN 9780820317526.
Jump up ^ Eva O'Donovan, Becoming Free in the Cotton South (2007); Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy Since the Civil War (1986); Roger L. Ransom and David Beckham, One Kind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences of Emancipation (2nd ed. 2008)
Jump up ^ Jeffery Paige, Agrarian Revolution, page 373
Jump up ^ Griffiths, Liz Farming to Halves: A New Perspective on an Absurd and Miserable System in Rural History Today, Issue 6:2004 p.5, accessed at British Agricultural History Society, 16 February 2013.
Jump up ^ Heath, John & Binswanger, Hans P. (October 1998). "Chapter 3: Policy-Induced Effects of Natural Resource Degradation: The Case of Colombia". In Lutz, Ernest. Agriculture and the Environment: Perspectives on Sustainable Rural Development (PDF). Washington, DC: The World Bank. p. 32. ISBN 0-8213-4249-5. Retrieved 2011-04-01.
Jump up ^ George Roberts: " The Social History of the People of the Southern Counties of England in past centuries." Lond., 1856, pp. 181-186.
^ Jump up to: a b Pius S. Nyambara (2003). "Rural Landlords, Rural Tenants, and the Sharecropping Complex in Gokwe, Northwestern Zimbabwe, 1980s–2002" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-05-18. , Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe and Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, March 2003 (200Kb PDF)
Jump up ^ Arthur F. Raper and Ira De A. Reid, Sharecroppers All (1941); Gavin Wright, Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy since the Civil War (1986).
Jump up ^ Bruce, John W.- Country Profiles of Land Tenure: Africa, 1996 (Lesotho, p. 221) Research Paper No. 130, December 1998, Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison accessed at UMN.edu Archived 2001-11-25 at the Wayback Machine. June 19, 2006
Jump up ^ Sharecropping and Sharecroppers, T J Byres
Jump up ^ Royce, Edward, ed. (1993). The Origins of Southern Sharecropping. Temple University Press. pp. 181–222. ISBN 9781566390699.
Jump up ^ Sharecropping and Sharecroppers, T J Byres
Jump up ^ "Sharecropping | Slavery By Another Name Bento | PBS". Sharecropping | Slavery By Another Name Bento | PBS.
Jump up ^ Rufus B. Spain (1967). At Ease in Zion: Social History of Southern Baptists, 1865-1900. p. 130. ISBN 9780817350383.
Jump up ^ Johnny E. Williams (2008). African American Religion and the Civil Rights Movement in Arkansas. Univ. Press of Mississippi. p. 73. ISBN 9781604731866.
Jump up ^ South African History Online, 19 June 1913 – The native land act was passed
Jump up ^ Leonard, R. and Longbottom, J., Land Tenure Lexicon: A glossary of terms from English and French speaking West Africa International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, 2000
Jump up ^ Sharon Monteith, ed. (2013). The Cambridge Companion to the Literature of the American South. Cambridge U.P. p. 94. ISBN 9781107036789. CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)
Jump up ^ Joseph D. Reid, "Sharecropping as an understandable market response: The postbellum South." Journal of Economic History (1973) 33#1 pp: 106-130. in JSTOR
Jump up ^ Ronald L. F. Davis "The U. S. Army and the Origins of Sharecropping in the Natchez District-A Case Study" The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 62, No.1 (January 1977), pp. 60–80 in JSTOR
Jump up ^ Ronald L. F. Davis "The U. S. Army and the Origins of Sharecropping in the Natchez District-A Case Study" The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 62, No.1 (January, 1977), pp. 60–80 in JSTOR
Jump up ^ Woodman, Harold D. (1995). New South – New Law: The legal foundations of credit and labor relations in the Postbellum agricultural South. Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0-8071-1941-5.
Jump up ^ F. N. Boney (2004-02-06). "Poor Whites". The New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2006-05-18.
Jump up ^ Mandle, Jay R. Not Slave, Not Free: The African American Economic Experience Since the Civil War. Duke University Press, 1992, 22.
Jump up ^ Royce, Edward, ed. (1993). The Origins of Southern Sharecropping. Temple University Press. pp. 181–222. ISBN 9781566390699.
Jump up ^ Royce, Edward, ed. (1993). The Origins of Southern Sharecropping. Temple University Press. pp. 181–222. ISBN 9781566390699.
Jump up ^ Ransom, Roger L., and Richard Sutch. One Kind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences of Emancipation. 2 edition. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 149.
^ Jump up to: a b Charles Bolton, "Farmers Without Land: The Plight of White Tenant Farmers and Sharecroppers," Mississippi History Now, March 2004.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Robert Tracy McKenzie, "Sharecropping," Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture.
Jump up ^ Gregorie, Anne King (1954). History of Sumter County, South Carolina, p. 274. Library Board of Sumter County.
Jump up ^ Sharecroppers All. Arthur F Raper and Ira De A. Reid. Chapell Hill 1941. The University of North Carolina Press. pp. 35–36
Jump up ^ The Rockabilly Legends; They Called It Rockabilly Long Before they Called It Rock and Roll by Jerry Naylor and Steve Halliday DVD
Jump up ^ The Devil's Music: A History of the Blues By Giles Oakley Edition: 2. Da Capo Press, 1997, p. 184. ISBN 0-306-80743-2, ISBN 978-0-306-80743-5
Jump up ^ Sharecroppers All. Arthur F. Raper and Ira De A. Reid. Chapell Hill 1941. The University of North Carolina Press.
Jump up ^ The Devil's Music: A History of the Blues By Giles Oakley Edition: 2. Da Capo Press, 1997, p. 185. ISBN 0-306-80743-2, ISBN 978-0-306-80743-5
Jump up ^ California Newsreel – Oh Freedom After While
Jump up ^ Charlie Barnet - Sharecropper's Blues. YouTube. 26 August 2011.
Jump up ^ Billboard Oct 25, 1947 Advance Record Releases Hot Jazz p 137
Jump up ^ Billboard - Dec 20, 1947 - p. 98
Jump up ^ Gordon Marshall, "Sharecropping," Encyclopedia.com, 1998.
Jump up ^ Alfred Marshall (1920). Principles of Economics (8th ed.). London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd.
Jump up ^ Cheung, Steven N S (1969). "Transaction Costs, Risk Aversion, and the Choice of Contractual Arrangements". Journal of Law & Economics. 12 (1): 23–42. doi:10.1086/466658. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
Jump up ^ Formalized in Roumasset, James (1979). "Sharecropping, Production Externalities and the Theory of Contracts". American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 61 (4): 640–647. doi:10.2307/1239911. JSTOR 1239911.
Jump up ^ Stiglitz, Joseph (1974). "Incentives and Risk Sharing in Sharecropping". The Review of Economic Studies. 41 (2): 219–255 j. doi:10.2307/2296714. JSTOR 2296714.
Jump up ^ Stiglitz, Joseph (1988). "Principal And Agent". Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School – Discussion Paper (12). Retrieved 2009-06-14.
Jump up ^ Reid, Jr., Joseph D. (March 1973). "Sharecropping As An Understandable Market Response: The Post-Bellum South". The Journal of Economic History. 33 (1): 106–130. doi:10.1017/S0022050700076476. JSTOR 2117145.
Jump up ^ Murrell, Peter (Spring 1983). "The Economics of Sharing: A Transactions Cost Analysis of Contractual Choice in Farming". The Bell Journal of Economics. 14 (1): 283–293. doi:10.2307/3003555. JSTOR 3003555.
Jump up ^ Roumasset, James (March 1995). "The nature of the agricultural firm". Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 26 (2): 161–177. doi:10.1016/0167-2681(94)00007-2. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
Jump up ^ Allen, Douglas W.; Dean Lueck (2004). The Nature of the Farm: Contracts, Risk, and Organization in Agriculture. MIT Press. p. 258. ISBN 9780262511858.
Jump up ^ Hallagan, William (1978). "Self-selection by contractual choice and the theory of sharecropping". Bell Journal of Economics. 9 (2): 344–354. doi:10.2307/3003586. JSTOR 3003586.
Jump up ^ Allen, Franklin (1982). "On share contracts and screening". Bell Journal of Economics. 13 (2): 541–547. doi:10.2307/3003473. JSTOR 3003473.
Jump up ^ Muthoo, Abhinay (1998). "Renegotiation-proof tenurial contracts as screening mechanisms,". Journal of Development Economics. 56: 1–26. doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(98)00050-9. Retrieved 2011-04-22.
Jump up ^ Reid, Jr., Joseph D. (1976). "Sharecropping and agricultural uncertainty,". Economic Development and Cultural Change. 24 (3): 549–576. doi:10.1086/450897. JSTOR 1153005.
Jump up ^ Eswaran, Mukesh; Ashok Kotwal (1985). "A theory of contractual structure in agriculture,". American Economic Review. 75: 352–367. JSTOR 1814805.
Jump up ^ Ghatak, Maitreesh; Priyanka Pandey (2000). "Contract choice in agriculture with joint moral hazard in effort and risk,". Journal of Development Economics. 63 (2): 303–326. doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(00)00116-4. Retrieved 2011-04-22.
Jump up ^ Roy, Jaideep; Konstantinos Serfes (2001). "Intertemporal discounting and tenurial contracts,". Journal of Development Economics. 64 (2): 417–436. doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(00)00144-9. Retrieved 2012-09-04.
Jump up ^ Sen, Debapriya (2011). "A theory of sharecropping: the role of price behavior and imperfect competition,". Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 80 (1): 181–199. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2011.03.006. Retrieved 2012-09-04.
Jump up ^ Shetty, Sudhir (1988). "Limited liability, wealth differences, and the tenancy ladder in agrarian economies,". Journal of Development Economics. 29: 1–22. doi:10.1016/0304-3878(88)90068-5. Retrieved 2011-04-22.
Jump up ^ Basu, Kaushik (1992). "Limited liability and the existence of share tenancy,". Journal of Development Economics. 38: 203–220. doi:10.1016/0304-3878(92)90026-6. Retrieved 2011-04-22.
Jump up ^ Sengupta, Kunal (1997). "Limited liability, moral hazard and share tenancy,". Journal of Development Economics. 52 (2): 393–407. doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(96)00444-0. Retrieved 2011-04-22.
Jump up ^ Ray, Tridip; Nirvikar Singh (2001). "Limited liability, contractual choice and the tenancy ladder,". Journal of Development Economics. 66: 289–303. doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(01)00163-8. Retrieved 2011-04-22.
Further reading[edit]
Adams, Jane, and D. Gorton, "This Land Ain’t My Land: The Eviction of Sharecroppers by the Farm Security Administration," Agricultural History, 83 (Spring 2009), 323–51.
Agee, James, and Walker Evans. 1941. Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: Three Tenant Families. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Allen, D. W. and D. Lueck. "Contract Choice in Modern Agriculture: Cash Rent versus Cropshare," Journal of Law and Economics, (1992) v. 35, pp. 397–426.
Barbagallo, Tricia (June 1, 2005). "Black Beach: The Mucklands of Canastota, New York" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 13, 2013. Retrieved 2008-06-04.
Davis, Ronald L. F. Good and Faithful Labor: From Slavery to Sharecropping in the Natchez District, 1860-1890 Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood Press, 1982
Ferleger, Louis. "Sharecropping Contracts in the Late-Nineteenth-Century South," Agricultural History Vol. 67, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 31–46 in JSTOR
Garrett, Martin A., and Zhenhui Xu. "The Efficiency of Sharecropping: Evidence from the Postbellum South," Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 69, 2003
Grubbs, Donald H. Cry from the Cotton: The Southern Tenant Farmer's Union and the New Deal (1971)
Hurt, R. Douglas Hurt. African American Life in the Rural South, 1900–1950 (2003)
Liebowitz, Jonathan J. "Tenants, Sharecroppers, and the French Agricultural Depression of the Late Nineteenth Century," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter, 1989), pp. 429–445 in JSTOR
Reid, Jr., Joseph D. "Sharecropping in History and Theory," Agricultural History Vol. 49, No. 2 (April 1975), pp. 426–440 in JSTOR
Roll, Jarod. "Out Yonder on the Road": Working Class Self-Representation and the 1939 Roadside Demonstration in Southeast Missouri", Southern Spaces, March 16, 2010. Southernspaces.org
Shaban, R. A. "Testing Between Competing Models of Sharecropping," Journal of Political Economy, (1987) 95(5), pp. 893–920.
Singh, N. "Theories of Sharecropping," in P. Bardhan. ed., The Economic Theory of Agrarian Institutions, (1989) pp. 33–72.
Southworth, Caleb. "Aid to Sharecroppers: How Agrarian Class Structure and Tenant-Farmer Politics Influenced Federal Relief in the South, 1933–1935," Social Science History, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 33–70
Stiglitz, J. "Incentives and Risk Sharing in Share Cropping," Review of Economic Studies, (1974) v.41 219–255.
Turner, Howard A. "Farm Tenancy Distribution and Trends in the United States," Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 4, No. 4, Farm Tenancy (October, 1937), pp. 424–433 in JSTOR
Virts, Nancy. "The Efficiency of Southern Tenant Plantations, 1900–1945," Journal of Economic History, Vol. 51, No. 2 (June 1991), pp. 385–395 in JSTOR
Wayne, Michael The Reshaping of Plantation Society: The Natchez District, 1860-1880 Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Louisiana State University Press, 1983.
[show]
v
t
e
Plantation agriculture in the Southeastern United States
The plantation
Plantations in the American South
Plantation economy
Plantation complexes in the Southern United States
Cash crops
Cotton
Indigo
Rice
Sugarcane
Tobacco
Slavery
Slavery in the United States
Slave breeding
Slave trade
Atlantic
Internal
Interregional
Fugitive slave laws
Other labor
Sharecropping
Convict leasing
Lists of plantations
United States
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
[show]
v
t
e
Horticulture and gardening
Gardening
History
Design
computer-aided
Garden tool
Green wall
Arboretum
Allotment
Butterfly
Community
Forest
French intensive
Guerrilla
Garden
Historic conservation
Landscape
Native
Parterre
Raised bed
Square foot
Sustainable
Xeriscaping
Types of gardens
Back
Biblical
Botanical
Butterfly
Byzantine
Cactus
Cantonese
Chinese
Color
Container
Cottage
Dutch
English
Fernery
Floating
Flower
French
formal
landscape
Renaissance
Front
Greek
Greenhouse
Hanging
Hügelkultur
Islamic
Italian
Japanese
Kitchen
Knot
Korean
Market
Mary
Monastic
Mughal
Orangery
Orchard
Persian
Bagh
Charbagh
Paradise
Philosophical
Pleasure
Roman
Spanish
Rain
Rose
Roof
Sacred
Scottish
Sculpture
Sensory
Shade
Therapeutic
Trial
Tropical
Victory
Vineyard
Walled
Water
Wildlife
Winter
Zen
Zoological
Horticulture
Agriculture
stock-free
sustainable
urban
Arboriculture
Botany
Companion planting
Crop
most valuable
Flora
Floriculture
Fruticulture
Genetically modified tree
Hydroculture
Indigenous
Intercropping
Landscape architecture
Oenology
Olericulture
Plant
breeding
propagation
drought tolerance
hardiness
Pomology
Postharvest physiology
Tropical
Urban
agriculture
horticulture
forestry
reforestation
Viticulture
Organic
Biodynamic agriculture
List of organic gardening and farming topics
Vegan organic gardening
Plant protection
Fungicide
Herbicide
Index of pesticide articles
List of fungicides
Pesticide
Plant disease forecasting
Pruning
Weed control
Agriculture and agronomy portal
Gardening portal
Commons
Agriculture and agronomy portal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharecropping&oldid=836669383"
Categories:
Crops
Agricultural labor
Landowners
Real property law
Land tenure
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list
Tagged pages containing blacklisted links
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from May 2012
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from April 2016
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
العربية
Català
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
हिन्दी
Íslenska
Italiano
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Sicilianu
Simple English
Svenska
Українська
中文
10 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 16 April 2018, at 04:16.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

value: mw-page-base noprint

value: mw-head-base noprint

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attr: alt src width height data-file-width data-file-height

tag: small

attr: class id href

value: NavToggle NavToggle1 #

value: background: transparent; text-align: left; font-weight:auto; padding:0.2em 0 0 0; display:inline;

attr: rel class href

tag: code

value: text-align: left; padding: 0px; display: none;

value: border-style: none; padding: 0px;text-align:left;

value:
plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style
presentation

value: Maler der Grabkammer des Sennudem 001.jpg

value:
/wiki/Sheep_husbandry
mw-redirect
Sheep husbandry

value: List of agricultural universities and colleges

value: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

value: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (May 2012)

value:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

value: The text near this tag may need clarification or removal of jargon. (April 2016)

value:
noprint Inline-Template
margin-left:0.1em; white-space:nowrap;

value:
/wiki/Indentured_servant
mw-redirect
Indentured servant

value:
/wiki/Tenant_farming
mw-redirect
Tenant farming

value:
/wiki/Harvest_failure
mw-redirect
Harvest failure

value:
/wiki/Natives%27_Land_Act
mw-redirect
Natives' Land Act

value:
/wiki/Antebellum_era
mw-redirect
Antebellum era

value:
/wiki/US_Civil_War
mw-redirect
US Civil War

value:
/wiki/Special_Field_Orders,_No._15
mw-redirect
Special Field Orders, No. 15

value:
/wiki/40_Acres_%26_A_Mule
mw-redirect
40 Acres & A Mule

value:
/wiki/President_Andrew_Johnson
mw-redirect
President Andrew Johnson

value:
/wiki/Reconstruction_Era
mw-redirect
Reconstruction Era

value:
/wiki/Cooperative_farming
mw-redirect
Cooperative farming

value: Edit section: Economic theories of share tenancy

value:
/wiki/Steven_N.S._Cheung
mw-redirect
Steven N.S. Cheung

value:
/wiki/Washington,_DC
mw-redirect
Washington, DC

value:
/wiki/The_World_Bank
mw-redirect
The World Bank

value: Category:CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list

value:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117145

value:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2717191

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F466658

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F1239911

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1239911

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F2296714

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/2296714

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/2117145

value:
/wiki/The_Bell_Journal_of_Economics
mw-redirect
The Bell Journal of Economics

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F3003555

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/3003555

value: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F3003586

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/3003586

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F3003473

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/3003473

value: Economic Development and Cultural Change

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1086%2F450897

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1153005

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1814805

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jebo.2011.03.006

value: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

value:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3744228

value:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/204363

value:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3741281

value:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1189524

value:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2122582

value: Template:Plantation agriculture in the Southeastern United States

value: Template talk:Plantation agriculture in the Southeastern United States

value: Plantation complexes in the Southern United States

value: List of plantations in the United States

value: List of plantations in Georgia (U.S. state)

value: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

value: Template talk:Horticulture and gardening

value: Conservation and restoration of historic gardens

value:
navbox-image
5
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

value:
/wiki/Gardens_in_Scotland
mw-redirect
Gardens in Scotland

value: List of most valuable crops and livestock products

value:
/wiki/Postharvest_physiology
mw-redirect
Postharvest physiology

value: Outline of organic gardening and farming

attr: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

value:
noprint metadata navbox
navigation
Portals
font-weight:bold;padding:0.4em 2em

value: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

value: Category:Tagged pages containing blacklisted links

value: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

value: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2012

value: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification from April 2016

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/Sharecropping
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

value: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

value: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

value: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

value: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

value: Permanent link to this revision of the page

value: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

value: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

value: مزارعة – Arabic

value:
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoveria
Masoveria – Catalan
ca
ca
interlanguage-link-target

value:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ca
display: none;

value: مساقات – Persian

value:
interlanguage-link interwiki-fa
display: none;

value:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ko
display: none;

value: बटाईदारी – Hindi

value:
interlanguage-link interwiki-is
display: none;

value:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezzadria
Mezzadria – Italian
it
it
interlanguage-link-target

value:
interlanguage-link interwiki-it
display: none;

value:
interlanguage-link interwiki-pl
display: none;

value: Издольщина – Russian

value:
https://scn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitateri
Mitateri – Sicilian
scn
scn
interlanguage-link-target

value:
interlanguage-link interwiki-scn
display: none;

value:
interlanguage-link interwiki-simple
display: none;

value:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avrad
Avrad – Swedish
sv
sv
interlanguage-link-target

value:
interlanguage-link interwiki-sv
display: none;

value: Скіпщина – Ukrainian

value:
interlanguage-link interwiki-uk
display: none;

value: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

value: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

value: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

value:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Sharecropping rootpage-Sharecropping skin-vector action-view