Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T22:25:39.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technological Change and the Relative Share of Labor: The Case of Tobacco Production in the U.S.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Pradeep Ganguly
Pradeep Ganguly*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of South Carolina at Aiken
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Tobacco production traditionally has been a highly labor-intensive operation in this country. Although the entire crop is grown on only .3 of 1 percent of the total cropland, tobacco requires more labor than is required for all vegetable crops and about the same amount as needed for cotton and food grains combined (USDA, Agricultural Statistics). However, in recent years a growing trend toward mechanization of harvesting-curing operations has, among other effects, greatly reduced labor usage. During the time period 1949–1976, total man-hours in tobacco production in the United States declined from 747 million to only 275 million—a reduction of more than 63 percent (USDA, Agricultural Statistics). Much of this reduction has been due to the introduction of bulk curing barns and mechanical harvesters (multipass and once-over types), which have replaced tying by hand or machines, conventional barns, and walking or riding primers. Mechanization of tobacco production has been relatively slow because of the special growing, harvesting, and curing requirements. However, the present state of mechanization is not insignificant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , December 1980 , pp. 105 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, R. G. D.. Mathematical Analysis for Economists. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1971.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J., Chenery, H. B., Minhas, B., and Solow, R. M.. “Capital Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency.” Rev. Econ. Statist. 43 (1961):225–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E.The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. E. and Moroney, J. R.. “The Sources of Change in Labor’s Relative Share: A Neoclassical Analysis.” S. Econ. J. 35(1969):308–22.Google Scholar
Ganguly, Pradeep and Thompson, C. Stassen. The Nature of the Demand Function for Hired Labor in Tobacco Production: A Case for Output-Constant Demand Function. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Clemson University, WP 4379, April 1979.Google Scholar
Grise, V. N., Shugars, O. K., Givan, W. D., and Hoff, F. L.. Structural Characteristics of Flue-Cured Tobacco Farms and Prospects for Mechanization. USDA, ERS, AER No. 277, Jan. 1975.Google Scholar
Hamilton, James L. “The Demand for Cigarettes: Advertising, the Health Scare, and the Cigarette Advertising Ban.” Rev. Econ. Statist. 54(1972):401–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, F. L., Givan, W. D., Shugars, O. K., and Grise, V. N.. Flue-Cured Tobacco Mechanization and Labor: Impacts of Alternative Production Levels. USDA, ERS, AER No. 368, Jan. 1977.Google Scholar
Kravis, Irving B. “Relative Income Shares in Fact and Theory.” Am. Econ. Rev. 49(1959):917–49.Google Scholar
Lianos, Theodore P. “The Relative Share of Labor in United States Agriculture, 1949-1968.” Am. J. Agr. Econ. 53(1971):411–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Charles K.Tobacco: The Ants and the Elephants. Utah: Olympus Publishing Co., 1975.Google Scholar
Martin, M. A. and Havlicek, J. Jr. “Technological Change and Labor’s Relative Share: The Mechanization of U.S. Cotton Production.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 9(Dec. 1977):137–41.Google Scholar
Ruttan, V. and Stout, Thomas T.. “Regional Differences in Factor Shares in American Agriculture: 1925-1957.” J. FarmEcon. 42(1960):52–68.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. “Resources and Economic Growth.” Am. Economist. 22(1978):5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, U. K. and Heady, E. O.. “Technological Change and Relative Factor Shares in Indian Agriculture: An Empirical Analysis.” Am. J. Agr. Econ. 55(1973):509–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, annual issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture., Agricultural Marketing Service.Tobacco in the United States, recent issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture., Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service.Tobacco Situation, recent issues.Google Scholar