You’ll reap what you sow:
A comparative study of sharecropping systems in Tuscany and De Meierij
Thomas J. Widdershoven
Master’s Thesis Comparative History
February 2007 | Utrecht University
Table of Contents
You’ll reap what you sow: 1
A comparative study of sharecropping systems in Tuscany and De Meierij 1
Table of Contents 1
Table of Contents 2
1. Introduction 3
3. Comparing regions 6
De Meierij 6
Tuscany 7
4: Systems of sharecropping 9
A: Mezzadria 9
The spread 9
The conditions 10
Social dimension 12
B: Halfpacht 14
The spread 14
The conditions 15
Social dimension 16
5: Various explanations 18
Economic Characteristics 18
1. Wealth distribution 18
Urban versus Rural 18
Rich versus Poor 19
2. Farm size 20
3. Transaction costs 22
4. Risk Minimization 25
Tuscany 26
De Meierij 26
Social Characteristics 27
1. Class relations 27
2. Property rights 30
6. Conclusions 33
Wealth distribution 34
Transaction costs 34
Class relations 34
Property rights 35
Farm Size 33
Risk Minimization 33
Bibliography 37
1. Introduction
Agricultural development holds an important position in the explanation of historical economic trends. Having been the primary economic sector up until the previous century, and in certain places continuing to be so up to this day, has ensured that explanations of economic change have often been sought in agricultural developments.
Within this field, agricultural leases have been of particular interest especially since the work of R. Brenner[1] and the ensuing Brenner-debate. Representing the shift from a feudal to a capitalist rural sector, agricultural leases and their effects have been thoroughly studied. In these works, the general economic model of feudalism, or Manorialism, i.e. serfdom, closed markets, no labor migration, is contrasted to the more modern capitalist variant of open markets and a freer labor market. Investigations into the relative value of lease systems, as well as their effects on the economy as a whole have answered many historical questions. This work wishes to continue in that tradition.
This essay compares two tenancy systems of sharecropping. It also contrasts them to two other tenancy systems those being wage labor and smallholding. Sharecropping is a form of fixed-term lease in which a tenant applies his labor to another’s land in return for a share of the crop[2]. This share ranged between half to about four fifth of the total production. A contract is set up stipulating a number of agreements, for example the duration of the lease and the mutual payments ensuing from it. Fixed-term or terminal lease is opposed to share-term or non-terminal lease, which last for an undetermined amount of time for example until someone’s death. Also, sharecropping is a commercial type of lease; it was set up with economic motives of profit. By virtue of this nature, the emergence of lease systems indicates a capitalist development in the rural sector. However, we must examine tenancy system individually to assess in how far they were part of the gradual rural transition from feudalism to capitalism.
The central aim of this thesis is to compare two lease market systems used in De Meierij and Tuscany, more specifically the sharecropping systems halfpacht and mezzadria. These two tenurial forms hold important similarities which enable a thorough comparison. However, there is an important difference between the two which gives rise to the central question of this thesis. Mezzadria and halfpacht emerged at roughly the same time, in the case of Mezzadria before 1400 and halfpacht came just after the turn of the century. However, Mezzadria proved a much more durable system then halfpacht, lasting until the 20th century whereas halfpacht started disappearing in the 15th century already and this gives rise to the central research question of this paper: why was the mezzadria system applied for so many centuries while halfpacht disappeared much sooner? This is the main question of this thesis and will be investigated upon by comparing the two systems and finding critical differences that can serve as an explanation. Drawing from, and intertwining, preceding research done in both cases, a comparative approach is used. As this issue is related to the economic struggle between peasants and lords aiming to change the system to their advantage, the answer lies in a combination of the economic situation and social relations and how these could either favour or weaken the sharecropping system. It is therefore important to investigate the two tenant systems in the light of the gradual rural transition from feudalism to capitalism.
By describing the economic and social characteristics of the two systems and the region in which they surfaced, significant factors which may explain the difference in longevity can be found. After a discussion of the method, a general description of the two regions in the late Middle Ages will be given. This will explain certain characteristics which influenced the way in which the individual sharecropping systems developed and manifested themselves. In the next chapter, the two systems will be described paying special attention to three typical features. First, the way in which the system spread is discussed. Then, the conditions governing the two systems are described. Ultimately, the social framework which enabled the systems to flourish is illuminated. Chapter four will focus on the differences between the two regions in relation to characteristics of sharecropping systems which can explain their relative success. These characteristics are divided into two categories, economic and social. This distinction is somewhat artificial as economic characteristics of the sharecropping systems are partly explained by social relations and vice versa. The economic characteristics of the systems that will be examined are three: wealth concentration, farm size and transaction costs. The social characteristics are made up of descriptions on class relations and property structures. These various possible explanations for the observed divergence will be brought together in the conclusion.
2. Method
In search for answers to the central question, how is the difference in duration of the sharecropping systems of halfpacht and mezzadria explained, we will first consider the viability of sharecropping in economic terms as the strongest determinant of the persistence of the system. The underlying assumption is that, as long as a tenant system remained more effective then others, it’s use would be continued. This presupposition is not of a solely economic nature however; the effectiveness, and survivability of a system is closely linked with the social framework in which it operates. Social circumstances determine the efficiency of a system and are thus included in this research. The systems must therefore be considered in both the economic and social setting of the two regions.
A comparative method is used to find the critical differences between mezzadria and halfpacht which explain the difference in durability. First, a list of characteristics of the tenant systems is made and then the way in which these characteristics respectively influence the tenant systems is investigated and these characteristics are described for each of the two regions. In this way, we will find dissimilarities between the systems that may answer our main question. However, finding these variations between the two systems is only the first step of this paper. To truly assess which characteristics of a tenancy system make it successful we must filter the significant differences from the insignificant. Having identified the differences between the two systems, we must find out which of these differences can explain our question. Or, to use more methodological terminology, we must assess the strength of each independent variable, these being the economic and social characteristics of the two regions, to explain the dependant variable, the success of the tenancy system.
In short, a comparative case study is made in which two cases are effectively compared. A larger number of cases would have resulted in stronger causal conclusions but would have also made the comparison more schematic and one-dimensional. The comparison is made in a descriptive way. The sources used for this work are all comprised of secondary literature. For mezzadria, the greater majority comes from scholarly journals specializing on the tenant system in question. Information on halfpacht was more difficult to come by and many sources are of a more general nature then was strictly necessary. In the choice between a variable oriented and a case oriented comparison, several issues have played part. If the comparison is done statistically, it would lack homogeneity since the data available from secondary sources on the two areas are usually not corresponding in area, era or otherwise. The statistic approach is also less desirable because the number of cases is limited. This allows for a deep examination of each case and effectively annuls one of the great advantages of the statistic approach: it's ability to systematically reduce a great number of cases to a workable set of data.
However, this comparison also borrows features of the variable-oriented approach. It is, for example, theory oriented. The main question is being answered by assessing the correspondence between the two cases, applying a macro-social picture so to say which is characteristic of the variable-oriented approach[3]. The method used in this paper is therefore not strictly case- or variable-oriented but combines characteristics of the two approaches.
A study of primary sources would possibly have provided more homogenous data, enabling a more detailed insight. Due to time constraints, primary research was however not possible. Further research in this field could shed light on matters which are still unclear. In De Meierij for example, the closer examination of population figures could help illuminate the role of the Black Death in the spread of sharecropping farming in Europe. Also, the inclusion of other sharecropping systems into the comparison could bring a deeper insight into the determinant of the success of tenancy systems to the fore.
3. Comparing regions
Before setting out to compare the two regions, it is important to first gain a clearer picture of their differences and similarities. De Meierij and Tuscany are different areas in many ways. Tuscany is larger in size and situated on the seaside whereas De Meierij is landlocked. The Mediterranean agricultural environment compares favorably with its Benelux counterpart in many ways. Geographically the two regions differ greatly; Tuscany is hilly and fertile, the Meierij sandy and level. In this way, neither is particularly well disposed for high agricultural productivity. The Tuscan lands have been densely populated since very early ages and have known many periods of blossoming, De Meierij was populated comparatively late and has always been less populated.
It is differences like these that make a comparison worthwhile. A lease market system is influenced by many social and economical aspects, often distinctive to the region the system surfaced. This chapter wishes to describe the regions in general terms before we can start the comparison in a more substantial matter. The issues at hand here are the geographical make-up of the regions and also their social-geographical orientation.
De Meierij
Situated in the southern parts of what is currently called the Netherlands, De Meierij of Den Bosch (also called Bailiwick of Den Bosch or of Bois le Duc) formed the north-eastern part of the Duchy of Brabant (see Figure 1). Having been founded by Frederik Barbarossa, the duchy initially formed a part of the German Empire. De Meierij constitutes the northeastern part of Brabant with Den Bosch as its capital. In 1477, the title fell to the Habsburgs by dowry of Mary of Burgundy. During the treaty of Westphalia, the northern part of the duchy, and with it the Meierij, became part of the United Provinces. The territory of De Meierij itself did not change much over the centuries. De Meierij always held a degree of independence from the rest of the duchy. In the 14th century, De Meierij constituted something of a buffer state between the richer areas of southern Brabant and Guelders, situated to the east of Brabant and a constant threat of invasion[4]. De Meierij was a relatively poor region in economic terms; the population density was fairly low, lower then in the rest of Brabant, and the soil was generally sandy and barren[5]. Data on total population in the 15th century show both a low total number as well as a reduction in the period of 1437-1480.
Tabel 1: Total Population of De Meierij of Den Bosch, 1437-1480
Year / Number of Households / Percentage (1437=100)1437 / 17.747 / 100
1464 / 17.966 / 101
1472 / 16.900 / 95
1480 / 16.162 / 91
Source: Cuvalier, J., (1913, p.97-110) as quoted in H.P.H. Jansen, (1955, p.27-28)
All in all, De Meierij was the least densely populated part of the duchy of Brabant and suffered from depopulation in the 15th century, although the degree of this depopulation was less severe then in surrounding areas[6].
De Meierij area consists of enormous heaths and marshlands, interrupted by woods and fenlands. In the north and east the area is surrounded by the river Maas. Numerous little rivers rise in the high sand areas and find their way to the rivers Aa and Dommel. Both rivers come together in the marshlands around 's-Hertogenbosch where they form the river Dieze that ends up in the Maas. The land is more fertile in these northern parts but there was also the constant danger of floods. Dykes were built to withstand the water but these were not always strong enough. Sometimes, in 1472 for example, this resulted in catastrophe.. The entire region shows very little difference in height levels. In the river areas in the north, ground level is just above sea level (between 2.5 and 5 meter in ‘s Hertogenbosch, further south and eastward, especially in the Peel region, the ground is some 25 meter higher. Mountains or hills are entirely absent[7]. Since the Middle Ages the waste lands of Peel and Kempen, in the south-east of the region have been cultivated. The northern part of De Meierij was better suited for agriculture and consequently more densely populated. Most common agricultural produce was grain, rye, barley and buckwheat. The further one moves south, the farther the towns are separated from eachother[8]
In the 14th and 15th century, the region was ruled by a representative of the duke called the villicus or meier. The latter of which gave the region its current name as well as the English language the term ‘mayor’. The largest city, and seat of government, was Den Bosch. Other cities, with full city right since the first half of the 13th century, were Helmond (1225-1241) and Eindhoven(1232). Places such as Oisterwijk and Sint Oedenrode were called ‘vrijheden’, they were close to cities in size and rights but were never walled and as such never received full city rights Nowadays the Meierij is formed out of the eastern part of the Dutch province of Noord Braband.