English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

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