Two parallel systems: the political economy of enclosures and open fields on the plains of Västergötland, Western Sweden, 1805-65

Abstract

One of the contradictions of enclosures is that they both promoted and threatened property rights. The reforms aimed at establishing modern, uncontested land ownership also undermined existing property rights. In many countries reform legislation required unanimity or a qualified majority of landowners in order for it to be implemented. However, in Sweden, a single landowner was enough to start an enclosure. This study takes developments in a plain region of Western Sweden as emblematic of the economic and institutional mechanisms of enclosures. The first villages in the area were enclosed in 1805, the last in 1865. The fact that the two systems coexisted for six decades in this area provides a “historic laboratory” for the reconstruction of technological, productive and land value changes. One important research question relates to the slow advance of enclosures: how could open fields have survived for so long when every landowner could veto their very existence? Results show that up until the early 1850s, enclosed land offered few advantages for local farmers. This system was not more productive than open fields, nor did the reform stimulate the adoption of innovations such as convertible husbandry or iron ploughs. Still, in the long run, strong legal imperatives made enclosures almost inevitable. Consequently, the long period of parallel existence can be understood as the outcome of a situation in which the open fields still possessed an economic advantage, while enclosures enjoyed an institutional advantage.

Historical Ecology of Scandinavian Infield Systems

“…When the land reforms were introduced, about a third of Sweden's farmers were free-holders, i.e., they owned their land [71]. The reforms were not always accepted voluntarily by these farmers, as they saw no immediate advantage of the reorganization of land, e.g., [72]. An important feature of the land reforms was that the outland, hitherto managed as commons, also started to become enclosed and allocated to individual farms [71,73].…”

“…These processes premised the end of infield systems. The expansion of crop fields was partly executed by exploiting productive hay-meadows, and several detailed accounts of agriculture around the turn of the 18th-19th centuries show that deficiency of fodder became recognized as a problem, in turn implying deficiency in manure for fertilizing crop fields, e.g., [72,82]. This dilemma was ultimately solved by the introduction (from mid-19th century) of commercial fertilizers and leys, i.e., grass-legume mixtures cultivated on fields [111].…”