{"title":"An economic rationale for the different methods of feeding enslaved people in the antebellum South and British West Indies","authors":"Eleanor Brown , Ian Ayres","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2024.106206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article focuses on two different systems of feeding enslaved people. In the first system, primarily associated with the cotton, tobacco, and rice plantations of antebellum South and the <em>early</em> sugar plantations of the British West Indies, the obligation to feed enslaved people was executed by the plantation. In contrast, under a second system known as provisioning associated with the <em>later</em> British West Indian colonies, the master allocated land to enslaved people on which they would grow their own food. Over time, this land was understood, in the wider community of both those enslaved and the planters, to be the “property” of the enslaved person. This article offers potential explanations both for why provisioning was adopted in the West Indies, and why provisioning did not take hold in southern U.S. plantations. Following Ronald Coase’s <em>Nature of the Firm</em>, we should expect to see provisioning when doing so economizes on transaction and agency costs. As it became more difficult to purchase imported food, plantations had to provide their own food. Provisioning sacrificed the plantations’ claims to surplus food, but in the West Indies such decentralized production could enhance incentives for enslaved people to produce their own food while economizing on the need for supervision.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 106206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818824000267","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article focuses on two different systems of feeding enslaved people. In the first system, primarily associated with the cotton, tobacco, and rice plantations of antebellum South and the early sugar plantations of the British West Indies, the obligation to feed enslaved people was executed by the plantation. In contrast, under a second system known as provisioning associated with the later British West Indian colonies, the master allocated land to enslaved people on which they would grow their own food. Over time, this land was understood, in the wider community of both those enslaved and the planters, to be the “property” of the enslaved person. This article offers potential explanations both for why provisioning was adopted in the West Indies, and why provisioning did not take hold in southern U.S. plantations. Following Ronald Coase’s Nature of the Firm, we should expect to see provisioning when doing so economizes on transaction and agency costs. As it became more difficult to purchase imported food, plantations had to provide their own food. Provisioning sacrificed the plantations’ claims to surplus food, but in the West Indies such decentralized production could enhance incentives for enslaved people to produce their own food while economizing on the need for supervision.
本文重点介绍两种不同的奴役者供餐制度。第一种制度主要与前贝鲁姆时期南方的棉花、烟草和稻米种植园以及英属西印度群岛早期的蔗糖种植园有关,为奴隶提供食物的义务由种植园承担。与此相反,在与后来的英属西印度群岛殖民地有关的第二种被称为 "供给 "的制度下,主人将土地分配给奴隶,让他们自己种植粮食。随着时间的推移,在更广泛的被奴役者和种植园主的社区中,这块土地被理解为被奴役者的 "财产"。本文提供了一些可能的解释,既解释了为什么西印度群岛采用了供给制,也解释了为什么供给制没有在美国南部种植园流行起来。根据罗纳德-科斯(Ronald Coase)的《企业的性质》(Nature of the Firm)一书,我们应该想到,如果实行供给制可以节约交易成本和代理成本,那么就应该实行供给制。随着购买进口食品变得越来越困难,种植园不得不自己提供食品。供应牺牲了种植园对剩余粮食的要求,但在西印度群岛,这种分散的生产方式可以提高被奴役者生产自己的粮食的积极性,同时节省监督的需要。
期刊介绍:
The International Review of Law and Economics provides a forum for interdisciplinary research at the interface of law and economics. IRLE is international in scope and audience and particularly welcomes both theoretical and empirical papers on comparative law and economics, globalization and legal harmonization, and the endogenous emergence of legal institutions, in addition to more traditional legal topics.