Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 4.5
Logit regression estimates: Cash rent adjustment clauses, Nebraska and South Dakota (1986)
(dependent variable=1ifadjustment clause is present)
Independent variables
Full sample
Farmer sample
Predicted sign
CONSTANT
−
2.44
−
1.96
9.19)
∗
4.83)
∗
(
−
(
−
Output division
HAY
−
0.75
−
1.18
−
(
−
1.95)
∗
(
−
1.92)
∗
INSTITUTION
−
1.15
−
(
−
1.85)
∗
Soil exploitation
DENSITY
0.001
0.002
−
(2.37)
∗
(1.59)
IRRIGATED
−
0.06
−
0.16
−
(
−
0.22)
(
−
0.46)
ROW CROP
0.90
0.72
+
(3.67)
∗
(2.10)
∗
Controls
ACRES
−
0.0001
0.0001
(
−
1.04)
(0.46)
−
0.066
FAMILY
0.46
(2.07)
∗
−
(
0.20)
ROW*HAY
−
1.08
−
0.22
(-1.52)
(0.25)
Observations
1,008
437
Chi-square (df )
45.76(7)
22.21(8)
Log likelihood
−
300.88
−
144.31
Note:
t-statistics in parentheses.
∗
significant at the 5 percent level (one-tailed t-test for coefficient with predicted signs).
replaced by owned farms that often rented out land. Smith takes pains to point out that he
viewed cropsharing as little better than slavery. For example, Smith stated (1992 [1776]):
To the slave cultivators of ancient times, gradually succeeded a species of farmers known at present
in France by the name of metayers. They have been so long in disuse in England that at present I
know no English name for them. The proprietor furnished them with the seed, cattle, and instruments
of husbandry, the whole stock, in short necessary for cultivating the farm. The produce was divided
equally between the proprietor and the farmer. (P. 366)
Adam Smith was not particularly interested in explaining why a cropsharing system
survived in most of France while it failed to exist in England. Possibly influenced by the near
continuous wars with France during the time, Smith made certain to argue the inferiorities
