In comparison with the "stagnation" before the war, the development of French economy after the war is very remarkable. In the couse of its economic growth, the structural change of French economy has involved the diminution of labour forces engaged in agriculture, of number of small holdings. The author attempts to analyze the structural change of French farming caused by her economic development after the war. According to the results of agricultural censuses of 1955 and 1963, diminution rate of total holdings is 16.9%, and, the contrast between the rapid diminution of smaller holdings not exceeding 20 ha and the remarkable increase of larger holdings over 50 ha is very clear. Returns relating to the number of holdings owned and rented show that owner-operated holdings are dominant in smaller size and that rented farms are relatively large. So that, the diminution of small peasant holdings, or, exactly speaking, of too small holdings owned and operated by peasants is evident. But, the growth of large farming after the war dose not mean necessarily the increase of rented area, because the most developping mode is the enlargement of mixed tenure. An important problem of French agriculture has been the disparity of developped region (Northern part) and underdevelopped region. After the war, this regional disparity begins to diminish by the rapid decrease of small holdings and the growth of large holdings in the under-developped region where archaic small peasant holdings had been dominant since the 19th century. Thus, summing up, we can say that, the structure of French farming is in the way of changing: too small holdings owned by peasant proprietors being in rapid diminution, self-sustaining middle class of about 50 ha and large tenant farming of about 100 ha should be main components of today's French agriculture. When we consider the composition of agricultural labour, the relative importance of hired labour is very great especially in Parisian basin where capitalist tenant farming is dominant and where, now-a-days, small holdings are almost negligible. But, reference to the agricultural statistics of the second half of the 19th century reveals to us the fact that, in this Parisian basin, there had been a great deal of too small holdings beside capitalist tenant farmig. This fact suggests a characteristic of French farming in the 19th century. Thus, the author examines the agricultural statistics of 1862, 82, 92, and so on. The result is that, in the second half of the 19th century, the structure of French farming had been characterized by the co-existence of large holdings over 40 ha and a great deal of too small holdings not exceeding 5 ha. Summing up, the structural change of French farming from the end of the last century to our times should be schematized that the co-existence of large farmings and too small holdings has been changed to the co-existence of capitalist tenant farmings and self-sustaining middle holdings of family size. In closing this article, the author presents a problem which should be examined in the next occasion: what are the histosical conditions which had determined the land question of French capitalism in the 19th century?

View full abstract

Because "Walker Tariff" that depended upon free trade in principle was enacted and evolved, the period from 1846 to 1861 should be given a peculiar position in the tariff history of the United States of America where a protective tariff policy was formed the keynote of through the nineteenth century. In this paper, we put in order the factors to make it possible to enact and evolve this tariff act, and attempt to suggest the factors to reconvert the protective tariff policy after the Civil War. Conclusions are summarized as follows: (1) In order that the act was realized, it was presupposed that America was the exporter of raw cotton and food and the importer of manufacturing good at the classical world market built by the establishment of English industrial capital. (2) So, the interests to promote the act were mainly composed of slavery plantation of the South, commercial agriculture of the West, and a part of industrial capital. (3) The fundamental feature of the act was perceived by the adoption of low revenue standard to easure free trade. But there was a limitation to impede the development of such a policy in the financial structure of this period. (4) The development of free trade by itself aggravated the opposition and conflict on the land question between slavery plantation and commercial agriculture though both were unanimous for free trade. (5) Facing to the crisis of 1857, the principle of free trade was inconsistent with the actual financial structure definitively, and the system of such a policy was substituted for one to depend upon high protective tariff and domestic market. (6) This turning of the policy was realized by the forming alliance with protective tariff and "Homestead" interests.

View full abstract