Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-14T02:38:15.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tariffs and Trees: The Effects of the Austro-Hungarian Customs Union on Specialization and Land-Use Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2018

Jennifer Alix-Garcia ,
Sarah Walker ,
Volker Radeloff  and
Jacek Kozak
Jennifer Alix-Garcia*
Affiliation:
Department Head and Professor, Department of Applied Economics, Oregon State University, 207 Ballard Extension Hall, Corvallis, OR, 57331.
Sarah Walker*
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, School of Economics, UNSW Business School, Level 4 459, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Volker Radeloff*
Affiliation:
Professor, ILVIS Lab, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53706.
Jacek Kozak*
Affiliation:
Professor, Institute of Geography and Spatial Management, Jagiellonian University, ul. Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Krakow, Poland.
*
E-mail: jennifer.alix-garcia@oregonstate.edu
E-mail: s.walker@unsw.edu.au
E-mail: radeloff@wisc.edu
E-mail: jacek.kozak@uj.edu.pl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the impact of the 1850 Austro-Hungarian customs union on production land-use outcomes. Using newly digitized data from the Second Military Survey of the Habsburg Monarchy, we apply a spatial discontinuity design to estimate the impact of trade liberalization on land use. We find that the customs union increased cropland area by 8 percent per year in Hungary between 1850 and 1855, while forestland area decreased by 6 percent. We provide suggestive evidence that this result is not confounded by the emancipation of the serfs, population growth, or technological change in agriculture.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 1142 - 1178
Copyright
© 2018 The Economic History Association. All rights reserved. 

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.)

Footnotes

For detailed comments on this manuscript, we thank Laura Schechter and Pauline Grosjean, as well as two anonymous referees. Seminar participants at the University of New South Wales, the University of Sydney, the University of Adelaide, and the University of Wisconsin in the Departments of Agricultural and Applied Economics and Forestry and Wildlife Ecology provided important feedback on this paper. We are very grateful for funding from the NASA Land Use and Land Cover Change program under grants NNX11AE93G and NNX12AG74G. E. Konkoly-Gyuró and T. Kuemmerle provided helpful feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. M. Boltiziar, G. Király, U. Gimmi, L. Halada, D. Kaim, J. Lieskovsky, D. Mueller, C. Munteanu, K. Ostafin, K. Ostapowicz, B. Pál, and O. Shandra contributed to the generation of the historical dataset, and shared their extensive knowledge of land-use history in the Carpathian Basin. M. Chmiel, E. Grabska, T. Kuchma, K. Kysucká, M. Mojses, A. Prociak, and P. Suglik digitized the historical maps. We are most grateful for all of their contributions.

References

Austria, Statistisches Central-Comission. Tafeln zur Statistik der Österreichischen Monarchie. Vienna: Kaiserliche-Königliche Hof- und Staats-Druückerei, 1828–1865.Google Scholar
Austria, Statistisches Central-Comission. Statistisches Jahrbuch der Österreichischen. Vienna: Kaiserliche-Königliche Hof- und Staats-Druu¨ckerei, 1862–1881.Google Scholar
Austria, Statistisches Central-Comission. Östrreichisches statistisches Handbuch fur die im Reichsrathe vertretenen Konigreiche und Lander. Vienna: Kaiserliche-Königliche Hof- und Staats-Druückerei, 1882–1914.Google Scholar
Balassa, Bela. “An Empirical Demonstration of Classical Comparative Cost Theory.” Review of Economics and Statistics 45, no. 3 (1963): 231–238.Google Scholar
Barbier, Edward B. “Links between Economic Liberalization and Rural Resource Degradation in the Developing Regions.” Agricultural Economics 23, no. 3 (2000): 299–310.Google Scholar
Basten, Cristoph, Betz, Frank. “Beyond Work Ethic: Religion, Individual, and Political Preferences.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5, no. 3 (2013): 67–91.Google Scholar
Becker, Sascha O., Boeckh, Katrin, Hainz, Christa, Woessmann, Ludger. “The Empire Is Dead, Long Live the Empire! Long-Run Persistence of Trust and Corruption in the Bureaucracy.” Economic Journal 126, no. 590 (2016): 40–74.Google Scholar
Bernhofen, Daniel M., and Brown, John C.. “A Direct Test of the Theory of Comparative Advantage: The Case of Japan.” Journal of Political Economy 112, no. 1 (2004): 48–67.Google Scholar
Brander, James, Taylor, M. Scott. “International Trade and Open-Access Renewable Resources: The Small Open Economy Case.” Canadian Journal of Economics 30, no. 3 (1997): 526–552.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. Colin, Gelbach, Jonah B., Miller, Douglas L.. “Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Standard Errors.” Review of Economics and Statistics 90, no. 3 (2008): 414–427.Google Scholar
Chichilnisky, Graciela. “North-South Trade and the Global Environment.” American Economic Review 84, no. 4 (1994): 851–874.Google Scholar
Copeland, Brian R., and Taylor, M. Scott. “Trade, Growth, and the Environment.” Journal of Economic Literature 42, no. 1 (2004): 7–71.Google Scholar
Costinot, Arnaud. “An Elementary Theory of Comparative Advantage.” Econometrica 77, no. 4 (2009): 1165–1192.Google Scholar
Costinot, Arnaud, Rodriguez-Clare, Andres. “Trade Theory with Numbers: Quantifying the Consequences of Globalization.” In The Handbook of International Economics, Vol. 4, edited by Elhanan Helpman, Kenneth Rogoff, and Gita Gopinath, chapter 4. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2014.Google Scholar
Costinot, Arnaud, Donaldson, Dave. “How Large Are the Gains from Economic Integration? Theory and Evidence from U.S. Agriculture, 1880–1997.” NBER Working Paper No. 22946, Cambridge, MA, 2016.Google Scholar
Costinot, Arnaud, Komunjer, Ivana. “What Goods Do Countries Trade? A Quantitative Exploration of Ricardo’s Ideas.” Review of Economic Studies 79, no. 2 (2012): 581–608.Google Scholar
Dell, Melissa. “The Persistent Effects of Peru’s Mining Mita.” Econometrica 78, no. 6 (2010): 1863–1903.Google Scholar
Dux, Katharine. “Estimating the Number of the Population by Superposing Trend Functions.” Colloquium on Historical Demography Budapest, 1965–1968.Google Scholar
Eaton, Jonathan, Kortum, Samuel. “Technology, Geography, and Trade.” Econometrica 70, no. 5 (2002): 1741–1779.Google Scholar
Eddie, Scott. “The Changing Pattern of Landownership in Hungary, 1867–1914.” Economic History Review 20, no. 2 (1967): 293–310.Google Scholar
Eddie, Scott. “The Terms of Trade as a Tax on Agriculture: Hungary’s Trade with Austria, 1883–1913.” Journal of Economic History 32, no. 1 (1972): 298–315.Google Scholar
Eddie, Scott. “The Terms of Trade and Pattern of Hungarian Foreign Trade, 1882–1913.” Journal of Economic History 37, no. 2 (1977): 329–358.Google Scholar
Eddie, Scott. “Economic Policy and Economic Development in Austria-Hungary, 1867–1913.” In The Cambridge Economic History of Europe from the Decline of the Roman Empire Volume 8: The Industrial Economies: The Development of Economic and Social, edited by Peter Mathias and Sidney Pollard, 814–886. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Egger, Peter H., and Lassmann, Andrea. “The Causal Impact of Common Native Language on International Trade: Evidence from a Spatial Regression Discontinuity Design.” Economic Journal 125, no. 584 (2015): 699–745.Google Scholar
European Soil Database (ESDB). “The European Soil Database Distribution Version 2.0.” European Commission and the European Soil Bureau Network, CD-ROM, EUR 19945 EN 2004.Google Scholar
Faria, Weslem Rodrigues, de Almeida, Alexandre Nunes. “Relationship between Openness to Trade and Deforestation: Empirical Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon.” Working Paper, The University of São Paulo, Regional and Urban Economics Lab, São Paulo, Brazil, 2013.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Susana. “Deforestation, Property Rights, and International Trade.” Land Economics 80, no. 2 (2004): 174–193.Google Scholar
Goetz, Stephan J., and Rupasingha, Anil. “The Returns to Education in Rural Areas.” Review of Regional Studies 34, no. 3 (2004): 245–259.Google Scholar
Golub, Stephen S., and Hsieh, Chang-Tai. “Classical Ricardian Theory of Comparative Advantage revisited.” Review of International Economics 8, no. 2 (2000): 221–234.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Val, Rafael, Pueyo, Fernando. “Trade Liberalisation and Global-Scale Forest Transition.” Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper, Milan, Italy, 2013.Google Scholar
Good, David F. “The Great Depression and Austrian Economic Growth after 1873.” Economic History Review 31, no. 2 (1978): 290–294.Google Scholar
Good, David F. The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire: 1750–1914. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Good, David F., and Ma, Tongshu. “New Estimates of Income Levels in Central and Eastern Europe, 1870–1910.” In Von der Theorie zur Wirtschaftspolitik – ein österreichischer Weg: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Erich W. Streissler, edited by F. Baltzarek, F. Butschek, and G. Tichy, 147–168. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 1998.Google Scholar
Grosfeld, Irena, Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina. “Cultural vs. Economic Legacies of Empires: Evidence from the Partition of Poland.” Journal of Comparative Economics 43, no. 1 (2015): 55–75.Google Scholar
Grosjean, Pauline, Senik, Claudia. “Democracy, Market Liberalization, and Political Preferences.” Review of Economics and Statistics 93, no. 1 (2011): 365–381.Google Scholar
Imbens, Guido W., and Lemieux, Thomas. “Regression Discontinuity Designs: A Guide to Practice.” Journal of Econometrics 142, no. 2 (2008): 615–635.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, Dean. “The Impact of Education in Rural Ghana: Examining Household Labor Allocation and Returns on and off the Farm.” Journal of Development Economics 73, no. 1 (2004): 287–314.Google Scholar
Kausel, Anton. “Österreichs Volkseinkommen 1830–1913.” In “Geschichte und Ergebnisse der zen-tralen amtlichen Statistik in Österreich 1829–1979.” Vienna: Österreichisches Statistisches Zen-tralamt, 1979.Google Scholar
Kir, Statistikai Hivátalos Országos Magyar. Magyár Statistikai Közlemények. Budapest: Kon. Ung. Statistische Bureau, 1871–1911.Google Scholar
Kir, Statistikai Hivátalos Országos Magyar. Magyár Statistikai Évkönyv. Budapest: Kon. Ung. Statistische Bureau, 1893–1918.Google Scholar
Komlos, John. The Habsburg Monarchy as a Customs Unions: Economic Development in Austria-Hungary in the Nineteenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Konkoly-Gyuró, Éva. “A tájhasználat és a népesség alakulása a Zempléni-hegység térségében [Land use and population change in the Zemplén mountains region].” Gazdálkodás [Land Management], 1991.Google Scholar
Konkoly-Gyuró, Éva. “A táj mező-és erdőgazdasági hasznosítása a Zempléni hegységben [Agricultural and sylvicultural land use in the Zemplén regions from the settlement to the middle of the 19th century].” Historia Forestalis 20 (1995): 5–53.Google Scholar
Konkoly-Gyuró, Éva. “Tájkaraktert formáló törtëneti tájaít´as és jelenkori konfliktusok a Fertő-Hanság vidékén.” In A Dunántúl és a Kisalföld történeti földrajza, edited by S. Frisnyák, 95–109. Nyíregyháza-Pécs, 2003 Google Scholar
Kozak, Jacek. “Forest Cover Change in the West Carpathians in the Past 180 Years - A Case Study in the Orawa Region in Poland.” Mountain Research and Development 23, no. 4 (2003): 369–375.Google Scholar
Lee, David, Lemieux, Thomas. “Regression Discontinuity Designs in Economics.” NBER Working Paper Series No. 14723, Cambridge, MA, 2009.Google Scholar
López, Ramón, Galinato, Gregmar I.. “Trade Policies, Economic Growth, and the Direct Causes of Deforestation.” Land Economics 81, no. 2 (2005): 145–169.Google Scholar
MacDougall, G. Donald. “British and American Exports: A Study Suggested by the Theory of Comparative Costs, Part I.” Economic Journal 61, no. 244 (1951): 691–724.Google Scholar
Matsuyama, Kiminori. “Agricultural Productivity, Comparative Advantage, and Economic Growth.” Journal of Economic Theory 58, no. 2 (1992): 317–334.Google Scholar
Michalopoulos, Stelios, Papaioannou, Elias. “National Institutions and Subnational Development in Africa.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 129, no. 1 (2014): 151–213.Google Scholar
Munteanu, Catalina, Kuemmerle, Tobias, Bolitziar, Martin, et al. “Forest and Agricultural Land Change in the Carpathian Region - A Meta-Analysis of Long-Term Patterns and Drivers of Change.” Land Use Policy 38 (2014): 685–697.Google Scholar
Munteanu, Catalina, Kuemmerle, Tobias, Keuler, Nicholas S., et al. “Legacies of 19th Century Land Use Shape Contemporary Forest Cover.” Global Environmental Change 34 (2015): 83–94.Google Scholar
Nagy, Dezsö. A Gömör-Tornai Karszt törtëneti felszínborítása. ANP füzetek V. Jósvafő, 2008a.Google Scholar
Nagy, Dezsö. “A törtëneti felszínborítás és tájhasználat a Bodrogközben.” In Élet a folyók között. A Bodrogköz tájhasználati monográfiája, edited by Dobs Endre and Jozef Terek, 133–150. Miskolc, 2008b.Google Scholar
Nagy, Dezsö. “A történeti felszínborítás térképezése a Tisza-völgyben [Historical land cover mapping in the Tisza valley].” In A történeti felszínborítás térképezése a Tisza-völgyben, edited by Zsuzsanna Flachner, Andras Kovacs, and Éva Kelemen, 40–58. Budapest: SzVÖET, 2008c.Google Scholar
Nunn, Nathan, Puga, Diego. “Ruggedness: The Blessing of Bad Geography in Africa.” Review of Economics and Statistics 94, no. 1 (2012): 20–36.Google Scholar
Ostafin, Krzysztof. Zmiany granicy rolno-leśnej w środkowej cęści Beskidu Średniego od polowy XIX wieku do 2005 roku. Kraków: Wydawnictwo UJ, 2009.Google Scholar
Oster, Emily. “Unobservable Selection and Coefficient Stability: Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics (2017): 1–18.Google Scholar
Sandgruber, Roman. “Österreichische Agrarstatistik, 1750–1918.” Wien, 1978.Google Scholar
Schulze, Max-Stephan. “Patterns of Growth and Stagnation in the Late Nineteenth Century Habsburg Economy.” European Review of Economic History 4, no. 3 (2000): 311–340.Google Scholar
Sandgruber, Roman. “Origins of Catch-Up Failure: Comparative Productivity Growth in the Habsburg Empire, 1870–1910.” European Review of Economic History 11, no. 3 (2007): 189–218.Google Scholar
Schumann, Abel. “The Persistence of Population Shocks: Evidence from the Occupation of West Germany after World War II.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 6, no. 3 (2014): 189–205.Google Scholar
Shandra, Alya, Weisberg, Peter, Martazinova, Vazira. “Influences of Climate and Land Use History on Forest and Timberline Dynamics in the Carpathian Mountains During the Twentieth Century.” In The Carpathians: Integrating Nature and Society Towards Sustainability, edited by Jacek Kozak, Katarzyna Ostapowicz, Andrezej Bytnerowicz, and Bartlomiej Wyzga, 209–223. Berlin: Springer, 2013.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert M. “British and American Productivity and Comparative Costs in International trade.” Oxford Economic Papers 14, no. 3 (1962): 275–296.Google Scholar
Tetsuya, Tsurumi, Shunsuke, Managi. “The Effect of Trade Openness on Deforestation: Empirical Analysis for 142 Countries.” Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 16, no. 4 (2012): 1–20.Google Scholar
Timár, Gábor, Molnár, Gábor, Székeley, Balázs, et al. “The Map Sheets of the Second Military Survey and their Georeferenced Version.” Budapest: Arcanum Project, 2006.Google Scholar
van Zanden, Jan Luiten. “The First Green Revolution: The Growth of Production and Productivity in European Agriculture, 1870–1914.” Economic History Review 44, no. 2 (1991): 215–239.Google Scholar
Veres, Madalina Valeria. “Constructing Imperial Spaces: Habsburg Cartography in the Age of Enlightenment.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 2015.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Alix-Garcia et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Alix-Garcia et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.2 MB