Abstract
Descriptions of the postbellum South vary. Farmers either were postharvest debt peons, were subject to "seasonal credit peonage" to a monopolistic store, or relied on seasonal credit from stores that faced spatial competition. Analysis of Georgia Agricultual Departmenta data shows that postharvest debt peonage was not a major problem in the 1880s. Most other results are consistent with both monopolistic and competitive views of the stores. Increases in income reduced indebtedness; and reliance on purchased supplies increased the likelihood of indebtedness and of future reliance on purchased supplies. Past reliance on purchased supplies, however, did not affect the crop mix.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 219-236 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Explorations in Economic History |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Apr 1989 |
| Externally published | Yes |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- History
- Economics and Econometrics
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Debt peonage in postbellum Georgia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS