Economics of the Size of Farms 155 



desirable type of holding ; others, with equal conviction, declared for 

 the latter. The actual historical development in England has proved 

 both sides to be mistaken ; the champions of the small farm were 

 contradicted by the facts of 1760 to 1880, their opponents by more 

 recent developments. Their common error was in discussing the 

 question of holdings apart from any reference to the uses which they 

 might serve. They aimed at discovering perfectly general advantages 

 and disadvantages of this or that type of farm, and so determining 

 the type which at all times and for all purposes was absolutely the 

 best. It is true that some such general advantages and disadvantages 

 do exist, irrespective of the particular branch of agriculture pursued. 

 But history has proved that the economic superiority of one type 

 over another is mainly dependent on their respective relative ad- 

 vantages in regard of certain kinds of product. The large farm, for 

 instance, flourished when the price of corn was high and failed to 

 maintain itself when the price fell. Moreover many of the particular 

 superiorities adduced as absolutely valid were really only valid in 

 regard of some special branch of production. The large farmers 

 of the eighteenth century were undoubtedly better educated than the 

 peasant holders : but whereas this was held to be a general advantage 

 of the large farm system, it was really only of importance where arable 

 farming made demands upon the intelligence of the agriculturist in 

 order that the new scientific and technical discoveries might be applied. 

 The lack of such intelligence was of no great importance on, say, a 

 small dairy farm, which depended mainly on the intensive personal 

 activity of the occupier. Again, the great advantage which the large 

 arable farmer had in the purchase and use of labour-saving machinery 

 was indeed significant so far as concerned the competition between 

 large and small arable farmers, but not for any comparison between 

 large arable farms and, say, small pasture farms, where such machinery 

 was either not needed at all, or at any rate was not a conspicuous 

 item in determining the profitableness of the holding. If these 

 mistakes of the old and indeed of many recent 1 students of the 

 question are to be avoided, the advantages and disadvantages of the 

 various units of holding must be considered separately in regard of 

 the various branches of agriculture. By this method the danger of 

 ascribing general importance to relative advantages will be avoided. 

 Such a discussion must of course be limited to the chief points in 

 each case, all secondary matters being dismissed as briefly as possible. 



1 See my review of Dr Eduard David's book, Sozialismus und Landwirtschaft, Vol. I, 

 Berlin, 1903, in Deutschland, November 1903, pp. 191 ff. 



