An endless debate focuses on whether enclosure did contribute to a raise in agricultural productivity or not. The parliamentary enclosure laws began in the 1750s, exactly when an increase in output and population can be observed (Allen, 2009, 59). The main difference between enclosed and open field farmers was in arable land. Enclosed farmers had most of their land under grass whereas open farmers had most of it under crops. However, this difference in cropping was not relevant as it showed no big loss in productivity (Allen, 2009, 64). From 1500 to 1750, labor productivity increased by over 50% thanks to the open field farmers; enclosure accounted for little of the growth (Allen, 2009, 66). In the 18th century, both open and enclosed farms were improving their techniques because of the development of urban economy. Open field farmers started cultivating new crops, but enclosed farmers cultivated them in a more innovative way. Crop choice was therefore not the problem; land-use choice was. There was no flexibility, therefore the choice between arable and pastoral activities was very limited. This shows that open fields farmers were far from backward: they would mix elements of the old system along with the new, considering enclosure as not “necessary” (Turner, 1986, 671-672). Productivity can be measured in terms of increasing yields per unit of land, for example by bushels per acre. Enclosure raised total yield, therefore the total product, but not unit yields. We could observe greater yields of wheat, barley, and oats in enclosed farms than in open farms, and in general they were much greater. In Britain, comparing open field and enclosed farms in 1801, the percentage of differences of yields was of 23.2% for wheat, 22.8% for barley, and 10.5% for oats (Turner, 1986, 686). The problem
An endless debate focuses on whether enclosure did contribute to a raise in agricultural productivity or not. The parliamentary enclosure laws began in the 1750s, exactly when an increase in output and population can be observed (Allen, 2009, 59). The main difference between enclosed and open field farmers was in arable land. Enclosed farmers had most of their land under grass whereas open farmers had most of it under crops. However, this difference in cropping was not relevant as it showed no big loss in productivity (Allen, 2009, 64). From 1500 to 1750, labor productivity increased by over 50% thanks to the open field farmers; enclosure accounted for little of the growth (Allen, 2009, 66). In the 18th century, both open and enclosed farms were improving their techniques because of the development of urban economy. Open field farmers started cultivating new crops, but enclosed farmers cultivated them in a more innovative way. Crop choice was therefore not the problem; land-use choice was. There was no flexibility, therefore the choice between arable and pastoral activities was very limited. This shows that open fields farmers were far from backward: they would mix elements of the old system along with the new, considering enclosure as not “necessary” (Turner, 1986, 671-672). Productivity can be measured in terms of increasing yields per unit of land, for example by bushels per acre. Enclosure raised total yield, therefore the total product, but not unit yields. We could observe greater yields of wheat, barley, and oats in enclosed farms than in open farms, and in general they were much greater. In Britain, comparing open field and enclosed farms in 1801, the percentage of differences of yields was of 23.2% for wheat, 22.8% for barley, and 10.5% for oats (Turner, 1986, 686). The problem