People’s Access to Land,
Stuck in Agriculture
and Literacy Development:
Evidence from the Late Nineteenth-Century Greece
Stuck in Agriculture
and Literacy Development:
Evidence from the Late Nineteenth-Century Greece
by Tryfonas Lemontzoglou 1
Abstract
Many economists have argued that more equal patterns of landownership, as well as the supremacy of industry over agriculture, has been found to be associated with the rise of mass public education systems in the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries. The theoretical background behind this argument relies on the so-called capital-skill complementarity hypothesis, which states that land and industrial capital are characterized by different levels of complementarity with human skills. Thus, on the one hand, large landowning elites were often reluctant to promote and support mass public education, while, on the other hand, rising capitalists have been much more favoured by a better-educated workforce, promoting major educational reforms. The present paper attempts to provide some of the first evidence for the relationship between access to land and literacy development in the late nineteenth-century Greece based on data collected from the 1870 and 1879 Greek Population Censuses. My estimates largely confirm previous findings in the literature, indicating a positive and significant linkage between access to land and literacy levels. On the contrary, stuck in agriculture has been found to be negatively related to literacy expansion. These results remain robust even after controlling for various other factors, such as marital status, family size, urbanization, ethnicity, religion, student attainment and teacher availability.
Many economists have argued that more equal patterns of landownership, as well as the supremacy of industry over agriculture, has been found to be associated with the rise of mass public education systems in the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries. The theoretical background behind this argument relies on the so-called capital-skill complementarity hypothesis, which states that land and industrial capital are characterized by different levels of complementarity with human skills. Thus, on the one hand, large landowning elites were often reluctant to promote and support mass public education, while, on the other hand, rising capitalists have been much more favoured by a better-educated workforce, promoting major educational reforms. The present paper attempts to provide some of the first evidence for the relationship between access to land and literacy development in the late nineteenth-century Greece based on data collected from the 1870 and 1879 Greek Population Censuses. My estimates largely confirm previous findings in the literature, indicating a positive and significant linkage between access to land and literacy levels. On the contrary, stuck in agriculture has been found to be negatively related to literacy expansion. These results remain robust even after controlling for various other factors, such as marital status, family size, urbanization, ethnicity, religion, student attainment and teacher availability.
JEL Codes: I24, N93, N33, O15
Keywords: access to land, capital-skill complementarity hypothesis, industrialization, literacy development, mass public education
Keywords: access to land, capital-skill complementarity hypothesis, industrialization, literacy development, mass public education
1 Tryfonas Lemontzoglou is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Quantitative Economic History at the National Technical University of Athens (School of Applied Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Department of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law)
1 Introduction
2 Galor, Moav, and Vollrath
1 Introduction
For a long period of time, the main attention to the issue of regional development has been strongly attracted to the so-called geography hypothesis suggests that different climatic and geographical conditions are responsible for significant variations in growth rates across countries and regions (Bloom and Sachs 1998; Diamond 1997; Machiavelli 1519; Montesquieu 1748; Mydral 1968; Sachs 2001). However, such an approach could not always explain why some initially resource-rich areas suffer from low growth rates, while others, much poorer in natural resource endowments, enjoy higher levels of economic development and prosperity (Acemoglu et al. 2001). In fact, another approach for better understanding regional disparities has emerged, highlighting the important role of different-quality institutions in generating widely divergent growth paths across economies (Acemoglu et al. 2005; Engerman and Sokoloff 1997; Hall and Jones 1999; North 2005). Following the institutional line of thought, a significant number of scholars have provided evidence for the existence of a negative relationship between inequality and growth (Aghion et al. 1999; Alesina and Perotti 1996; Barro 2000; Kuznets 1955 Stiglitz 1969). Additionally, many other scholars have reported significant negative associations between land asset distribution and economic growth (Alesina and Rodrik 1994; Deininger and Olinto 2000; Easterly 2007; Frankema 2010; Keefer and Knack 2002; Lipton 1974). Even more recently, some other researchers have further expanded the existing literature, emphasizing the negative effects of landownership concentration on human capital development (Cinnirella and Hornung 2016; Goni 2013; Ramcharan 2010; Tapia and Martinez-Galarraga 2015; Vollrath 2013). Within this framework, the society’s transitional passage from agrarian to modern industrial modes of production can provide the best chance of testing the so-called capital-skill complementarity hypothesis (Galor and Moav 2006; Galor, Moav and Vollrath 2009). According to GMV approach, during that era, the powerful landowning elites were used to largely exploit the poor and landless peasants through the expansion of sharecropping relations. Thus, from the landlord’s point of view, greater poor people’s access to mass public education would result in even greater social mobility from villages to cities, potentially increasing wage demands and lowering land exploitation rates. On the contrary, early capitalists had great incentives to promote and support mass public education, being mainly favoured by high levels of complementarity between productivity of physical capital in manufacturing activities and human capital development (Galor 2011; Galor and Moav 2006).
However, the case of late nineteenth-century Greece remains almost totally unexplored in the empirical literature, providing the opportunity to re-test GMV 2 hypothesis in a very different institutional domain. More specifically, medieval and early modern Greece had never completely experienced the Western-type of feudalism (Mouzelis 1990, 1983; Ricks and Magdalino 1998). Even the Byzantine or the Ottoman land-grant institutions were both limited to a specific period of time, revocable, and not transferable (Imber 2002; Papademetriou 2015; Papastathes 1998). Moreover, contrary to most Western European societies, the vast majority of landholdings throughout Greek territories remained strictly state- controlled, at least until the late sixteenth century (Laiou 2002; Bartusis 2012; Tucker 2010). It was only late in the seventeenth century when the decline of the Ottoman Empire eventually allowed the transformation of land-grant institutions into a system of private ownership in land, the so-called chifliks (Mouzelis 1978). Nevertheless, in the years following the Greek War of Independence (1821-1830), the agrarian question became an issue of major importance in liberated Greece. Immediately after the Revolution, the First National Assembly of Epidaurus (1822) declared that all former Muslim lands had to be radically transformed into national landsunder the direct control of the newly founded Greek state (Davis and Pereira 2003; Milios 2018; Mouzelis 1978; Petropoulos 1985). In this sense, major redistributive land reforms took place in Greece between 1828 and 1871, such as the Kapodistrias’s efforts for land reform, the King Otto’s reform (Law for the Donation of Greek Families) and the first large-scale redistribution of lands by Koumoundouro’s government. Paradoxically, these redistributive attempts did not affect the whole country equally. On the one hand, Southern areas have all been found to be associated with mass expropriation of all former Muslim lands that later became national property and redistributed among landless Greek peasants (Aroni-Tsichli 2002). On the other hand, the Treaty of Constantinople (1832) granted to Muslim individuals located in Central areas some exceptional rights to dispose of their lands through sale (Bantekas 2015; Katsikas et al. 2012). These lands were finally purchased by wealthy Greek individuals (the Phanariotes), who became a new class of landowners in Central Greece (Petmezas 2003). Consequently, a highly diversified structure of landownership emerged in late nineteenth-century Greece, with small-scale family farming has been found to prevail in almost all Southern areas, while large landed estates and semi-feudal relations of production remained dominant in Central Greece (Evangelinides 1980; Mouzelis 1990). At the same time, Greece’s modernization process has been also accompanied by important educational changes, such as the introduction of free elementary education for all Greeks (1822), the Primary and Communal Education Law (1833) and the foundation of the Pedagogical Institute of Athens (1834), leading to a significant increase in the numbers of schools and students in Greece during the second half of the nineteenth century.
The main object of this paper is to provide some new empirical evidence of the existence of a positive and significant linkage between people’s access to land and literacy rates in the late nineteenth-century Greece. For this purpose, a totally new dataset has been constructed based on information obtained from the 1870 and 1879 Greek Population Censuses 3 . This dataset includes various socio-economic and demographic indicators, such as literacy rates, student attainment, teacher availability, access to land, family size, stuck in agriculture, marital status, urbanization, sex ratio, ethnicity and religion, covering 350 Greek municipalities for the years 1870 and 1879. My empirical estimates seem consistent with earlier literature’s findings, indicating a positive and significant linkage between people’s access to land and literacy levels. On the contrary, the supremacy of agriculture over industry (stuck in agriculture) appeared to have negative and significant effects on literacy expansion. These results remain robust even after controlling for all other factors. The positive and significant coefficient of access to land reflects the important role that more equal patterns of landownership played in the expansion of literacy in the late nineteenth-century Greece. Redistributive policies have been implemented by the newly independent Greek state throughout the period 1828-1871 totally changed the country’s production profile in agricultural sector, supporting small-scale family farming as better suited to the capitalist relations of production. According to Mouzelis (1976), small peasant cultivators in Greece perfectly served the interests of urban industrial and merchandise capitalism. However, the negative and significant coefficient of stuck in agriculture expresses the negative effects of the high-level concentration of the labour force in agricultural and livestock activities on literacy development. This evidence confirms the GMV’s capital-skill complementarity hypothesis.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the related literature and provides the theoretical background of the capital-skill complementarity hypothesis. Section 3 offers an introduction and outline of landownership patterns and education system in early modern Greece. Section 4 describes the data and presents some descriptive statistics. Section 5 analyzes methods and models used in this paper. Section 6 reports the empirical results. Conclusions are presented in Section 7.
3 The 1870 and 1879 Population Censuses of Greece are available from the Digital Library of EL.STAT. (Hellenic Statistical Authority): http://dlib.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/categoryyears?p_cat=10007862&p_topic=10007862
2 Literature Review
Contrary to the traditional approach regarding the theory of economic growth, many scholars have reported low-quality institutions as the main factor behind growing disparities between countries and regions over time (Acemoglu and Robinson 2008; Acemoglu et al. 2005, 2013; Landes 1999; North 1981). Along this line of thought, a significant number of other scholars have provided evidence that land inequality adversely affects economic growth (Alesina and Rodrik 1994; Fort and Ruben 2006; Frankema 2010; Keefer and Knack 2002; Lipton 1974). In the same vein, Engerman and Sokoloff’s distributional approach to institutions has further expanded the existing literature, arguing that unequal distribution of landholdings in Latin America had a direct negative effect on the public provision of education (Engerman and Sokoloff 1997, 2005). Similarly, other studies on the late nineteenth and early twentieth- century United States have also found negative associations between land inequality and the rise of mass public education (Easterly 2007; Go and Lindert 2010; Ramcharan 2010; Vollrath 2013). In addition, Cinnirella and Hornung (2016) have shown that extreme landownership concentration in the nineteenth-century Prussia was negatively related to school enrollment rates, while Tapia and Martinez-Galarraga (2015) have identified a significant negative linkage between the fraction of farm labourers and literacy rates in the mid-nineteenth century Spain. Furthermore, Goni (2013) and Lindert (2004) have indicated that high levels of land ownership concentration in the nineteenth-century England and Wales appeared to be positively related to underfunded public education. Lastly, Chaudhary (2009) has demonstrated that uneven distribution of lands in the nineteenth-century British India had negative impacts on the provision of public education.
In a much more detailed analysis, Galor, Moav and Vollrath have provided the theoretical framework for the negative linkage between uneven distribution of landownership and the spread of mass public education systems (Galor, Moav and Vollrath 2009). Following the GMV approach, the society’s transitional passage from agrarian to modern industrial modes of production expanded and deepened the class conflict between owners of capital and land; two factors of production that were characterized by different complementarities with human skills (Galor and Moav 2006). On the one hand, landowning elites did not benefit so much from the massive expansion of the public school system (low level complementarity between agricultural labour and human capital), while, on the other hand, rising capitalists had increased incentives to support and promote mass public education, mainly because the productivity of physical capital in manufacturing activities was increased by increasing inputs of human skills (Acemoglu and Robinson 2000; Galor et al. 2004; Galor, Moav and Vollrath 2009). The important role that industrialization played in the emergence of mass public education has been also pointed out by Berman, Bound and Machin (1998), Deininger (2003), Federman and Levine (2005), Goldin and Katz (1998), Hippe and Baten (2012), Jacod (1997), and Ruly (2002). In a similar vein, Bowles and Gintis (2002), Brockliss and Sheldon (2012), Green (2013) and Lindert (2004, 2000) have claimed that behind the rise of modern educational systems was the capitalist class need to better control working-class children (social control hypothesis), while the role of public schools as agents of social reproduction (hidden curriculum theory) has been also examined by Apple (2001), Drebeen (1967), Gaffield (1986), Jackson (1968), Parsons (1959) and Willis (1976).
3 The Greek Context
It is commonly known that as a whole, the economic, social, and political structure of medieval and early modern Greece has differed widely from the Western European feudalism of the same period (Geanakoplos 1984; Mouzelis 1983, 1990; Ricks and Magdalino 1998; Milios 1999). For instance, both the Byzantine and the Ottoman land tenure systems, were strictly characterized by the existence of large state-owned landholdings, while some small independent peasants’ communities were still visible throughout Greek territories until the late eleventh century (Bartusis 2012; Hathaway 2008; Islamoglu-Inan 1987; Kaser 2011; Laiou 2002). Moreover, even the Byzantine and the Ottoman land-grant institutions (pronoias and timars), were both lifetime, evocable and not transferable or hereditary (Imber 2002; Papademetriou 2015; Papastathes 1998). By the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, however, some of the free small peasants within Greek areas began to sell their lands to powerful people, giving up their independence, and thus becoming serfs on large landed estates (Kaser 2011; Setton 1976). This trend went forward till the late sixteenth century, when the decline of the power of Ottoman Empire led to the transformation of the timar and mirilands to a system of latifundia, the so-called chiftliks (Mouzelis 1978). Contrary to previous landownership institutions, these large inheritable chiftlik properties could be leased or transferred to private stewards and effective owners, who steadily became a new class of landlords known as the chiftlik-sahibi (Karakasidou 2009; McGonan 1981).
Indeed, the early nineteenth century found the vast majority of the Greeks engaged in agricultural activities, even most of the Greek peasant families were still landless (Koliopoulos and Veremis 2010). Nevertheless, after the Greek War of Independence (1821-1832) a total of over 10.000.000 square metres of land, which before belonged to the Ottoman State, Muslim individuals and charitable institutions, became an issue of major importance on the part of the Greeks (Mouzelis 1976). As the First National Assembly of Epidaurus declared (1822), all ex-Ottoman lands had to be radically transported into state lands with a view to be redistributed among landless and poor Greek peasants (Strong 1842). Therefore, in the years following the Greek Independence, Ioannis Kapodistrias, the first governor of the Greek state (1828-1831), as well as the Bavarian King Otto (1832- 1862), tried to impose a framework of necessary reforms in order to promote land redistribution and ensure the protection of small landowner’s rights. In that sense, a new law was passed in 1830 granting a plot of 1 stremma (1,000 square metres) to all Greeks so they could build a house with a garden and yard (Tzinieri 2015). In the same direction, King Otto’s land reform (the so-called Donation law of 1835) has also helped thousands of small and poor Greek farmers by extending low-cost loans (Aroni-Tsichli 2002). According to this law, all family heads (also included war widows) were entitled to buy land in public auction by using a promissory note of 2,000 drachma nominal value granted to them by the government, payable in 36 annuities, each equal to 6% (Franghiadis 1990). Additionally, no one could obtain more than four hectares of national land (Gallant 2015). In practice, however, these reforms were often blocked by the powerful landowning elites or they met with silent indifference from the part of Greek peasants (Frary 2015). It is worth mentioning that no more than 35,000 hectares of planted and cultivated lands had been effectively distributed until 1871 (Franghiadis 1990). However, a series of important socio-economic and political transformations took place in early nineteenth-century Greece, such as the Revolution of the 3rd September (1843), the establishment of Greece’s first constitution (1844), the Revolution of 1862 and the dethronement of King Otto at the same year, leading to the first large-scale redistribution of national lands in 1871. Contrary to all previous attempts, the main emphasis of 1871 Law was to provide land to landless and to allow those who owned only a small amount of land to expand their holdings (Gallant 2015). Learning form the mistakes of the earlier scheme, the land parcels were not purchased through auctions, in which the prices could rise outside of the range that peasants could pay, but instead government assessors set the prices (Franghiadis 1990; Gallant 2015). The outcomes of this reform can be summarized as follows: 265,000 hectares of the former Ottoman land were distributed into 357,217 individual plots, which given the fact that the population of the countryside was no more than 254,000 families in 1879, suggests that almost all Greek farmers became owners of land (Fraghiadis 1993; Gritsopoulos 1955; Hadjimichalis 1986; Mouzelis 1976; Petmezas1991).
Besides changes in the country’s production profile through the reinforcement of small-scale family farming, the Greek Revolution has also brought significant changes to Greece’s educational system. Before the Greek Independence, local elementary schools in Greek areas were operated, organized, and controlled by the Greek Orthodox Church, under a self-ruling institution that had been granted by the Sultan, the so- called millet (Braude 1982; Hatzopoulos 1991; Mackridge 2009; Zervas 2017). Although after the Revolution of 1821, the newly founded Greek state had already proclaimed free elementary education for all Greek citizens (1822), however, there were essentially no modern schools in Greece since the end of the 1830s (Antoniou 2002; Zervas 2016). It was only after the King Otto’s educational reform (1834-1836), the so-calledBavarian Plan, when Greece’s education system was fairly re-established, leading to a massive expansion in the numbers of schools and students enrolled in primary and secondary education (Antoniou 2002; Bouzakis 2009). By 1834, the Primary and Communal Education Law came into force in Greece, establishing compulsory public education for all children from five to twelve years of age (Bouzakis 2005). Additionally, the Pedagogical Institute of Athens was founded in the same year, with the mission of preparing new teachers for entering elementary schools throughout the country (Bouzakis 2011; Zervas 2017). As a result, public elementary schools in Greece grew even more in number and enrollments during the second half of the nineteenth century, with more than a quarter of all peasant children and almost half of all boys to finally attend school (Tsoukalas 1977).
4 Data Analysis and Descriptive Statistics
4 provincial level data
5 Non-Greek population, especially in the island areas of Greece that experienced the Venetian rule, was mainly constituted by Italians. As a result, these areas enjoyed a much more gender egalitarian regime similar to the Western Europe’s ethical norms and practices
6 Areas that have been effectively affected by the 1871 land reform appeared higher levels of literacy after the implementation of the reform, as compared to the areas remained uninfluenced. However, this case stands only for men
References
Acemoglu, D. et al. (2013), ”Democracy, Redistribution and Inequality”, Handbook of Income Distribution, Vol. 2, pp. 1885-1966.
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J.A. (2005), ”Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth”, in Aghion, P.and Durlauf, S.N. (eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1, Part 1, Elsevier: pp. 385-472.
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J. (2001), ”The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation”, American Economic Review, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 1369-1401.
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J. (2005), ”Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth”, In Philippe Aghion and Steven N. Durlauf, Handbook of economic growth, Vol. 1, Part: A, pp. 385-472.
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (2008), ”Persistence of Power, Elites, and Institutions”, American Economic Review, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 267-93.
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (2000), ”Why Did the West Extend the Franchise? Democracy, Inequality, and Growth in Historical Perspective”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 115, No. 4, pp. 1167-99.
Aghion, P., Caroli, E. and Garcia-Penalosa, C. (1999), ”Inequality and Economic Growth: The perspective of the New Growth Theories”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 1615-1660.
Alesina, A. and Perotti, R. (1996), ”Income Distribution, Political Instability, and Investment”, European Economic Rewiew, Vol. 40, pp. 1203-1228.
Alesina, A. and Rodrik, D. (1994), ”Distributive Politics and Economic Growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 109 (2), pp. 465-90.
Apple, M. W. (2001), ”Markets, Standards, Teaching, and Teacher Education”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, pp. 182-196.
Antoniou, D. (2002), ”Education During the Greek Revolution”, Athens: Hellenic Parliament.
Aroni-Tsichli, K. (2002), ”The Agrarian Question: The Agrarian Movement and Issues of Land Ownership in Greece, 1821-1923”, MARTOR Publishing House.
Bartusis, M. (2012), ”Land and Privilege in Byzantium: The Institution of Pronoia”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bantekas, I. (2015), ”Land Rights in Nineteenth – Century Ottoman State Succession Treaties”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 375-390.
Barro, R. (2000), ”Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries”, Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 5-32.
Berman, E., Bound J. and Machin, S. (1998), ”Implications of Skill-Biased Technological Change: International Evidence”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 113, pp. 1245-79.
Bloom, D. and Sachs, J. (1998), ”Geography, Demogpraphy, and Economic Growth in Africa”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, vol. 2, pp. 207-73.
Bourguignon, F. and Verdier, T. (2000), ”Oligarchy, Democracy, Inequality and Growth”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 62 Issue 2, pp. 285-313.
Bouzakis, S. (2011), ”Greek Teacher’s Mastery (1834-2010): From the Teacher of the National State to the Teacher of Intercultural and the European Dimension”, in Anastasiades et. al. (Eds.), Teacher Education in the Modern Era: Trends and Issues, Athens: Pedagogical Institute.
In order to provide some of the first evidence for the existence of a positive and significant relationship between people’s access to land and literacy development in the late nineteenth-century Greece, a totally new dataset has been constructed based on information available from the 1870 and 1879 Greek Population Censuses. This specific time period has been chosen for the following reasons: (1) data on literacy levels are not available in the Greek Censuses prior to 1870; (2) the first large-scale redistribution of lands in modern Greece has taken place within the above period (1871); (3) specific data referred to class relations in agricultural production are not available after the 1879 Census; and (4) the period 1870-1879 remained unaffected by major social, political, and economic changes occurred in Greece, such as the annexation of the new provinces (1881, 1913, 1920 and 1923), the collapse of the Greek currant economy (1890), the Trikoupis’s financial default (1893), the Greco-Ottoman War (1897), the Goudi Coup (1909) and the arrival of the Asia Minor Greek refugees (1922). This dataset contains a wide set of socio-economic and demographic indicators, such as literacy levels, student attainment, access to land, stuck in agriculture, marital status, family size, sex ratio, urbanization, ethnic differences, religious affiliation, etc., covering 350 Greek municipalities for the years 1870 and 1879. Tables 1 and 2 present the definitions of the variables and some descriptive statistics, respectively.
4.1 Literacy Levels
As Table 2 shows, literacy levels in late nineteenth-century Greece have shown a remarkable increase between 1870 and 1879. More specifically, total literacy has risen by 1.90%, male literacy by 2.74%, and female literacy by 0.60%. Moreover, during the same period, the gender gap in literacy has been significantly reduced by 1.92 units, even though it still remained relatively high in favour of men. However, some noticeable regional and gender differences in literacy levels were observed throughout Greek territories (Maps 1-8)4. In 1870, the highest literacy rates for men were reported in Attica (46.52%), Kynouria (39.54%), Kalamata (38.47%), Aigio (38.40%) and Nafplio (38.26%), while the lowest rates appeared in Istiaia (12.08%), Valtos (12.98%), Livadeia (13.94%) and Megalopoli (14.33%). In the same year, the highest levels of female literacy were found in Hydra-Troizinia (22.49%), Attica (19.08%), Patra (12.71%) and Nafplio (12.50%), whereas the lowest rates were observed in Megalopoli (0.60%), Istiaia (0.74%), Evrytania (0.89%), Dorida (0.43%), Oitylo (0.45%), Valtos (0.46%) and Vonitsa (0.58%). In 1879, Attica (48.22%), Elis (44.51%), Aigina (41.97%), Nafplio (41.95%), Kynouria (41.18%) and Kalamata (40.81%) were the regions with the highest male literacy rates, while the lowest levels were found in Megalopoli (13.58%), Pylos (16.10%), Istiaia (16.12%), Thebes (17.41%), Kalavryta (18.18%), Epidavros (18.98%) and Valtos (19.16%). That same year, Attica (26.46%), Hydra-Troizinia (16.28%), Spetses-Ermioni (15.40%), Nafplio (13.51%) and Aigina (13.28%) had the highest literacy rates for women, while the lowest ones were seen in Megalopoli (0.23%), Sparta (0.26%) and Dorida (0.36%).
4.2 Access to Land & Stuck in Agriculture
Although the Greek Population Censuses of 1870 and 1879 contain information on many different aspects of population characteristics, they do not include any specific information on the size-distribution of agricultural landholdings per district. Thus, the more adequate way of measuring people’s access to land was to use the ratio of landowners to the total agricultural population. In short, low values of this ratio imply greater concentration of landownership (land inequality), while higher values indicate a more equal distribution of landholdings. In fact, as we see in Table 2, people’s access to land in Greece has been slightly increased by 0.39% between 1870 and 1879. However, looking the data at the provincial-level, we can easily see the co-existence of two highly diversified patterns of landownership throughout Greek territories (see Maps 9-11). More specifically, most of the Central areas have been characterized by high levels of land ownership concentration (access to land < 10%) for the whole period 1861-1879. There were, however, some noticeable exceptions, such as Attica, Megara, Messolonghi, Aegina (island), and Skopelos (island), enjoying a far more egalitarian land ownership pattern in comparison to their neighboring areas. On the contrary, the vast majority of Southern areas have been shown to be associated with higher levels of access to land compared to Central ones. Even more importantly, most of Southern areas have been almost completely transformed over the period 1861-1879, from areas with high levels of land inequality to areas with a more equitable distribution of lands (see Patra, Elis, Nafplio, Corinthos, Gytheio, Pylos, Messini, Olympia, Sparta and Oitylo). By the late 1870s, only a limited number of the Southern Greek areas were associated with high levels of land ownership concentration (see Argos, Kalavryta, Epidavros, Megalopoli and Mantinia). Moreover, an area’s tend to remain stuck in agriculture is another variable has been used in my analysis in order to investigate whether or not the prevalence of agriculture over modern professions had negative effects on literacy development in the late nineteenth-century Greece. Results from Table 2 have shown that stuck in agriculture in Greece was remarkably decreased during the period 1870-1879 (-3.52 units). At the same time, workers (%) and merchants (%) both appeared to have a considerable increase from 1870 to 1879 (+3.59% and +2.59%, respectively).
4.3 Other Factors
Table 2 has also reported trends in marriage patterns in the late nineteenth-century Greece. Although there were no significant differences in marriage rates from 1870 to 1879, however, some significant gender differences can be observed. More specifically, married women ratios had significantly outnumbered that of men in both 1870 and 1879. Furthermore, all the gender indices were used to examine women’s social position in late nineteenth-century Greece, such as the ratio of female to male students, the ratio of female to male teachers, and the ratio of female to male workers, have been found to be decreased in the period 1870- 1879, indicating increasing gender inequalities within Greek society. Lastly, student attainment ratios have been shown a small decrease, non- Greek population appeared to have a significant increase, while factors such as sex ratio, family size, and priests have been all shown a slight increase over time.
4.4 Correlation Analysis
A preliminary analysis of my municipal-level data (n=350) provides some support for the existence of a positive relation between people’s access to land and literacy levels in the late nineteenth-century Greece (see Figures 1 and 2). In addition, Figures 3 and 4 illustrate a strong negative association between stuck in agriculture and literacy rates. More precisely, the correlation coefficients between literacy rates and various other variables have employed in my study are presented in Table 3. These findings have shown that factors such as access to land, workers, merchants, urbanization, student attainment, non-Greek population, widows, and priests, have all been shown to be positively related to literacy rates, while other factors such as stuck in agriculture, agricultural labourers, farm size, marriage, family size, and sex ratio, have been found to be negatively correlated with literacy.
5 Model Building
5.1 Cross-Sectional Estimates
In order to statistically test the significance of the relations presented above, the following ordinary least squares (OLS) cross-sectional regression model has been estimated using heteroskedasticity- and autocorrelation-consistent (HAC) standard errors:
literacy level (i, t) = bo + b1*access to land (i, t) + b2*stuck in agriculture (i, t) + c*V’ (i, t) + e (i, t) (1)
where literacy level (i,t) represents the literacy rate in each municipality i (i=1, 2, ... ,350 Greek municipalities) in the year t (t = 1870 and 1879, respectively), bo is the constant term, access to land is the ratio of landowners to the total agricultural population, b1 is the effect of access to land on literacy development (we expect b1 > 0), stuck in agriculture is the ratio of people working in agricultural activities to people working in modern occupations, b2 is the effect of stuck in agriculture on literacy (we expect b2 < 0), V is a vector of control variables (marriage, family size, sex ratio, non-Greek population, urbanization, female widowhood and priests), c is a vector of coefficients measuring the effect of covariates on literacy, and e (i,t) is the error term.
5.2 Difference-in-Differences Approach
Alternatively, a difference-in-differences (DiD) regression model has been applied to explore possible variations in literacy rates between “affected” and “unaffected” Greek municipalities by the 1871 land reform. With respect to the 350 municipalities covered by this study, nearly half of them have been reported to be effectively influenced by the 1871 land reform (treatment group), while the other half have been found to be associated with lower levels of access to land in the period following the redistribution (control group). In fact, my difference-in-difference regression model can be represented as follows:
literacy levels (i,t) = do + d1*reform (i) + d2*time (t) + d3*[reform (i) * time (t)] + w*Z’(i,t) + u (i,t) (2)
where literacy level (i,t) denotes the literacy rate in each municipality i at year t, do is the constant term, reform (i) is a dummy variable indicating treatment status (it takes the value of 1 when a municipality i had been positively affected by the 1871 land reform, and 0 otherwise), d1 is the coefficient of the treatment variable representing the differences between reformed and unreformed municipalities at the time before the land redistribution, time (t) is a time dummy (it takes the value of 1 in the post-reform period, and 0 otherwise), d2 represents the time trend in control group, [reform (i) * time (t)] is an interaction dummy indicating when time (t)=reform (i)=1 , d3 is the difference in difference estimate (we expect d3 > 0) representing the difference in the changes between the two groups over time, Z is a vector of control variables, w is a vector of coefficients measuring the impact of each covariate on literacy development, and u (i,t) is the error term.
5.3 Binary Probit Models
Finally, binary probit models have been estimated to analyze the effects of access to land on female participation in education in the late nineteenth- century Greece. In this case, female participation in education (female student attainment and female teacher participation) is a binary choice variable that equals to 1 if at least one woman attend school (as student or teacher respectively) in municipality i at time t, and 0 if not. The model is, as follows:
Pr [female participation =1 I X ] = F(X’ b) (3)
where Pr [female participation =1 I X ] is the probability of girls attending school (as students and teachers respectively), F is the standard normal cumulative distribution function, X is a set of regressors, and b is a vector of estimated coefficients.
6 Results
My cross-sectional OLS regression estimates (see equation 1) have shown that the coefficients of both access to land and stuck in agriculture have the expected signs (positive and negative, respectively) and are statistically significant in all regressions (see Tables 4 and 5). Columns (1) to (4) report the effects of access to land and stuck in agriculture on literacy levels (my baseline specification), while columns (5) to (20) progressively add all the control variables. The positive and significant coefficients of access to land provide strong evidence that more equal patterns of land ownership in the late nineteenth-century Greece played an important role in the spread of literacy. On the other hand, the negative and significant coefficients of stuck in agriculture imply that the overall supremacy of agricultural and livestock activities over modern occupations had significant negative effects on literacy development. These results remain robust even after controlling for various other factors that potentially affect literacy, such as marriage, family size, sex ratio, ethnic differences, urbanization, female widowhood and religion. More specifically, my findings have demonstrated that female marriage was negatively related to female literacy levels, but statistically significant only in 1879, while marriage for men was not found to significantly affect men’s literacy. Moreover, family size has been found to have negative associations with female literacy (significant in almost all regressions), whereas male literacy has been negatively and significantly affected by family size only in 1870. Sex ratio has been shown to negatively affect male literacy (though not always significantly), while non-Greek population5has been found to have positive and significant impacts on female literacy, but only in 1879. Furthermore, urbanization appeared to have a significant positive impact on both male and female literacy rates (in almost all regressions). Lastly, widows had a positive and significant effect on male literacy, while priests were not found to significantly affect male and female literacy rates. Additionally, Table 6 reports the difference-in-differences estimates (see equation 2). As we can see, the difference-in-differences coefficient is positive and statistically significant but only for men, indicating a degree of gender inequality in the late nineteenth-century Greece. In other words, the positive impacts of land reform on literacy development involved only men6. Stuck in agriculture and marriage have been reported to have negative and significant impacts on both male and female literacy rates, while teacher availability and student attainment have been shown to be positively associated with literacy expansion. Sex ratio appeared to negatively influence male literacy, whereas non-Greek population had a positive impact on female literacy, even though both coefficients are not always significant. Lastly, urbanization and southern dummy seemed to have positive effects on literacy rates, but only for men. The results from the binary probit models (see equation 3) are shown in Tables 7and 8. We see that the probability of girls attending school, as well as the probability that there was at least one female teacher in a municipality i, were both found to have positive and significant associations with people’s access to land, but only in 1870. On the contrary, stuck in agriculture had a negative and significant influence on female participation in education. Moreover, factors such as female marriage, family size and sex ratio had no significant effects on female student attainment, however, they had some significant impacts on female teacher availability. Finally, non- Greeks and urbanization appeared to have positive and significant relationships with female participation in education.
6 Areas that have been effectively affected by the 1871 land reform appeared higher levels of literacy after the implementation of the reform, as compared to the areas remained uninfluenced. However, this case stands only for men
7 Conclusion
The present paper represents the first empirical attempt to explore possible linkages between people’s access to land and literacy development in the late nineteenth-century Greece, using information obtained from the 1870 and 1879 Greek Population Censuses. My newly created dataset contains various socio-economic and demographic indicators, such as literacy levels, student attainment, teacher availability, access to land, stuck in agriculture, marital status, family size, sex ratio, urbanization, ethnic differences and religious affiliation, covering 350 Greek municipalities for the years 1870 and 1879. In fact, my estimates seem consistent with previous findings in the empirical literature, indicating a positive and significant relationship between access to land and literacy rates. On the contrary, the overall supremacy of agriculture over modern professions (stuck in agriculture) has been found to be negatively related to literacy expansion. These results remain robust even after controlling for other variables that potentially affect literacy. The positive and significant linkage between access to land and literacy levels reflects the positive role that small-scale family farming has played in the spread of literacy in Greece during the nineteenth-century, while the negative and significant relationship between stuck in agriculture and literacy confirms the so-called GMV’s hypothesis. My estimates have also reported significant negative associations between marriage and literacy rates, while family size has been identified as another important factor that adversely affected literacy. Moreover, urbanization, teacher availability and student attainment, were all found to have positive effects on literacy levels. Furthermore, sex ratio had a negative, though not always significant, relationship with male literacy, whereas non-Greek population appeared to have positive impacts on female literacy. Lastly, widows were found to be positively related to male literacy rates, while religion seemed to have no significant impact on literacy.
References
Acemoglu, D. et al. (2013), ”Democracy, Redistribution and Inequality”, Handbook of Income Distribution, Vol. 2, pp. 1885-1966.
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J.A. (2005), ”Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth”, in Aghion, P.and Durlauf, S.N. (eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1, Part 1, Elsevier: pp. 385-472.
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J. (2001), ”The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation”, American Economic Review, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 1369-1401.
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J. (2005), ”Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth”, In Philippe Aghion and Steven N. Durlauf, Handbook of economic growth, Vol. 1, Part: A, pp. 385-472.
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (2008), ”Persistence of Power, Elites, and Institutions”, American Economic Review, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 267-93.
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (2000), ”Why Did the West Extend the Franchise? Democracy, Inequality, and Growth in Historical Perspective”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 115, No. 4, pp. 1167-99.
Aghion, P., Caroli, E. and Garcia-Penalosa, C. (1999), ”Inequality and Economic Growth: The perspective of the New Growth Theories”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 1615-1660.
Alesina, A. and Perotti, R. (1996), ”Income Distribution, Political Instability, and Investment”, European Economic Rewiew, Vol. 40, pp. 1203-1228.
Alesina, A. and Rodrik, D. (1994), ”Distributive Politics and Economic Growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 109 (2), pp. 465-90.
Apple, M. W. (2001), ”Markets, Standards, Teaching, and Teacher Education”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, pp. 182-196.
Antoniou, D. (2002), ”Education During the Greek Revolution”, Athens: Hellenic Parliament.
Aroni-Tsichli, K. (2002), ”The Agrarian Question: The Agrarian Movement and Issues of Land Ownership in Greece, 1821-1923”, MARTOR Publishing House.
Bartusis, M. (2012), ”Land and Privilege in Byzantium: The Institution of Pronoia”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bantekas, I. (2015), ”Land Rights in Nineteenth – Century Ottoman State Succession Treaties”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 375-390.
Barro, R. (2000), ”Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries”, Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 5-32.
Berman, E., Bound J. and Machin, S. (1998), ”Implications of Skill-Biased Technological Change: International Evidence”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 113, pp. 1245-79.
Bloom, D. and Sachs, J. (1998), ”Geography, Demogpraphy, and Economic Growth in Africa”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, vol. 2, pp. 207-73.
Bourguignon, F. and Verdier, T. (2000), ”Oligarchy, Democracy, Inequality and Growth”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 62 Issue 2, pp. 285-313.
Bouzakis, S. (2011), ”Greek Teacher’s Mastery (1834-2010): From the Teacher of the National State to the Teacher of Intercultural and the European Dimension”, in Anastasiades et. al. (Eds.), Teacher Education in the Modern Era: Trends and Issues, Athens: Pedagogical Institute.
Bouzakis, S. (2009), ”Historiography of Greek Education: Creation, Development, Influences, Perspectives”, Educational Research and Review, Vol. 4, No. 12, pp. 596-601.
Bouzakis, S. (2005), ”Globalisation and Education: The Subordination of Education to the Economy of the Labor Market”, in Gravaris, D.N. and Papadakis, M. (Eds) Education and educational policy, pp. 135-149), Athens, Greece: Savvalas Publications (in Greek).
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2002), ”Social Capital and Community Governance”, The Economic Journal. Vol. 112, Issue 483, pp. 419-436.
Braude, B. (1982), ”Foundation Myths on the Millet System”, in Braude, B., and Lewis, B. (Eds.), Christian and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, pp. 69-88, Teaneck: Holmes Meier Publishers.
Brockliss, L. and Sheldon, N. (2012), ”Mass Education and the Limits of State Building, c.1870-1930”, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chaudhary, L. (2009), ”Determinants of Primary Schooling in British India”, Journal of Economic History , Vol. 69, pp. 269-302.
Cinnirella, F. and Hornung, E.(2016), ”Landowenrship Concentration and the Expansion of Education”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 121, Issue C, pp. 135-152.
Davis, D., and Pereira, A. (2003), ”Irregular Armed Forces and Their Role in Politics and State Formation”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deininger, K. (2003), ”Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction”, A World Bank Policy Research Group, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press.
Deininger, K., and Olinto, P. (2000), ”Asset Distribution, Inequality, and Growth”, Policy Research Working Paper No. 2375, Washington: World Bank.
Diamond, J. (1997), ”Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies”, New York: W.W.Norton and Company.
Dreeben, R. (1967), ”On What is Learned in School”, London: Addison-Wesley.
Easterly, W. (2007), ”Inequality Does Cause Underdevelopment: Insights from a New Instrument”, Journal of Development Economics, New York University, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 755-776.
Engerman, S. L. and Sokoloff, K.L. (2005), ”Colonialism, Inequality and Long-Run Paths of Development”, NBER Working Paper 11057, Cambridge MA.
Engerman, S. L. and Sokoloff, K.L. (1997), ”Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Paths of Growth Among New World Economies: A View from Economic Historians of the United States”, in How Latin America Fell Behind, edited by Stephen Haber, pp. 260-304. Stanford University Press.
Evangelinides, M. (1980), ”Transnational integration and national disintegration: Regional underdevelopment and spatial imbalance in Greek society”, Epitheorisi Koinonikos Erevnon, Vol. 38, pp. 121-140.
Fort, R., and Ruben, R. (2006), ”Land Inequality and Economic Growth: A Dynamic Panel Data Approach”, Paper presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, 12-18 August 2006, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Federman, M., and Levine, D. (2005), ”The Effects of Industrialization on School Enrollment and Child Labor in Indonesia”, Contributions to Macroeconomics, Vol. 5, Issue 1.
Franghiadis, A. (1993), ”Ŕeforme agraire et d́eveloppement de la propríet́e individuelle enGr`ece au 19`eme si`ecle: la distribution des ‘Domaines Nationaux’, 1871-1887”, in Espace et Familles dans l’Europe du sud a l’ˆage moderne, ed. Woolf, Stuart, pp. 53-75.
Franghiadis, A. (1990), ”Peasant Agriculture and Export Trade : Currant viticulture in Southern Greece, 1830-1893” , Ph.D., European Univerity Institute, Florence.
Frankema, E. (2010), ”The Colonial Roots of Land Distribution: Geography, Factor Endowments or Institutions?”, Economic History Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 418-51.
Bouzakis, S. (2005), ”Globalisation and Education: The Subordination of Education to the Economy of the Labor Market”, in Gravaris, D.N. and Papadakis, M. (Eds) Education and educational policy, pp. 135-149), Athens, Greece: Savvalas Publications (in Greek).
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2002), ”Social Capital and Community Governance”, The Economic Journal. Vol. 112, Issue 483, pp. 419-436.
Braude, B. (1982), ”Foundation Myths on the Millet System”, in Braude, B., and Lewis, B. (Eds.), Christian and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, pp. 69-88, Teaneck: Holmes Meier Publishers.
Brockliss, L. and Sheldon, N. (2012), ”Mass Education and the Limits of State Building, c.1870-1930”, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chaudhary, L. (2009), ”Determinants of Primary Schooling in British India”, Journal of Economic History , Vol. 69, pp. 269-302.
Cinnirella, F. and Hornung, E.(2016), ”Landowenrship Concentration and the Expansion of Education”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 121, Issue C, pp. 135-152.
Davis, D., and Pereira, A. (2003), ”Irregular Armed Forces and Their Role in Politics and State Formation”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deininger, K. (2003), ”Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction”, A World Bank Policy Research Group, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press.
Deininger, K., and Olinto, P. (2000), ”Asset Distribution, Inequality, and Growth”, Policy Research Working Paper No. 2375, Washington: World Bank.
Diamond, J. (1997), ”Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies”, New York: W.W.Norton and Company.
Dreeben, R. (1967), ”On What is Learned in School”, London: Addison-Wesley.
Easterly, W. (2007), ”Inequality Does Cause Underdevelopment: Insights from a New Instrument”, Journal of Development Economics, New York University, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 755-776.
Engerman, S. L. and Sokoloff, K.L. (2005), ”Colonialism, Inequality and Long-Run Paths of Development”, NBER Working Paper 11057, Cambridge MA.
Engerman, S. L. and Sokoloff, K.L. (1997), ”Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Paths of Growth Among New World Economies: A View from Economic Historians of the United States”, in How Latin America Fell Behind, edited by Stephen Haber, pp. 260-304. Stanford University Press.
Evangelinides, M. (1980), ”Transnational integration and national disintegration: Regional underdevelopment and spatial imbalance in Greek society”, Epitheorisi Koinonikos Erevnon, Vol. 38, pp. 121-140.
Fort, R., and Ruben, R. (2006), ”Land Inequality and Economic Growth: A Dynamic Panel Data Approach”, Paper presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, 12-18 August 2006, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Federman, M., and Levine, D. (2005), ”The Effects of Industrialization on School Enrollment and Child Labor in Indonesia”, Contributions to Macroeconomics, Vol. 5, Issue 1.
Franghiadis, A. (1993), ”Ŕeforme agraire et d́eveloppement de la propríet́e individuelle enGr`ece au 19`eme si`ecle: la distribution des ‘Domaines Nationaux’, 1871-1887”, in Espace et Familles dans l’Europe du sud a l’ˆage moderne, ed. Woolf, Stuart, pp. 53-75.
Franghiadis, A. (1990), ”Peasant Agriculture and Export Trade : Currant viticulture in Southern Greece, 1830-1893” , Ph.D., European Univerity Institute, Florence.
Frankema, E. (2010), ”The Colonial Roots of Land Distribution: Geography, Factor Endowments or Institutions?”, Economic History Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 418-51.
Frary, L. (2015), ”Russia and the Making of Modern Greek Identity, 1821-1844”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gaffield, C. (1986), ”Back to School: Towards a New Agenda for the History of Education”, Acadiensis, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 169-90.
Gallant, W. (2015), ”Modern Greece: From the War of Independence to the Present”, The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 5, Issue 1.
Galor, O. (2011), ”Inequality, Human Capital Formation and the Process of Development”, Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol . 4, Elsevier.
Galor, O. and Moav, O. (2006), ”Das Human-Kapital: A Theory of the Demise of the Class Structure”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 85-117.
Galor, O., Moav, O. and Vollrath, D., (2009), ”Inequality in Land Ownership, the Emergence of Human Capital Promoting Institutions, and the Great Divergence”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 76, Issue 1, pp. 143-179.
Galor, O., Moav, O. and Vollrath, D., (2004), ”Land Inequality and the Origin of Divergence and Overtaking in the Growth Process: Theory and Evidence”, Brown Economics (Working Paper).
Geanakoplos, J. (1984), ”Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes”, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Go, S. and Lindert, P., (2010), ”The Uneven Rise of American Public Schools to 1850”, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 70, Issue 01, pp. 1-26.
Goldin, C. and Katz, L. (1998), ”The origins of capital-skill complementarity”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 113, pp. 693-732.
Goni, M., (2013), ”Landed Elites and Public Education in England and Wales. Evidence from School Boards, 1870-99”, (Working Paper: Universitat Pompeu Fabra).
Green, A. (2013), ”Education and State Formation: Europe, East Asia and the USA”, Palgrave Macmillan.
Gritsopoulos, E. (1955), ”The Agricultural Economy of Greece”, University of Wisconsin— Madison (M.S. Dissertation).
Hadjimichalis, C. (1986), ”Uneven Development and Regionalism: State, Territory and Class in Southern Europe”, London: Croom Helm. Hahn, F.
Hall, R., and Jones, C. (1999), ”Why do some countries produce so much more per worker than others?”, Quartely Journal of Economics, Vol. 114, pp. 83-116.
Hathaway, J. (2008), ”The Arab Lands under Ottoman Rule, 1516-1800”, London: Longman.
Hatzopoulos, K. (1991), ”The Greek school during Ottoman rule 1453-1821”, Thessaloniki: Vanias Publishers.
Hipe, R., and J.Baten (2012), ”Regional Inequality in Human Capital Formation in Europe 1790-1880”, Scandinavian Economic History Review, Vol. 60, pp. 254-289.
Imber, C. (2002), ”The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power”, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Islamo ̆glu-Inan, H. (1987), ”The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Jackson, P.W. (1968), ”Life in classrooms”, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Jacob, M (1997), ”Scientific Culture and the Making of the Industrial West”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaser, K. (2011), ”The Balkans and the Near East: introduction to a shared history”, M ̈unster:LIT.
Katsikas, S., Fortna, B.C., Kamouzis, D. and Konortas, P. (2012), ”State-Nationalisms in the Ottoman Empire, Greece and Turkey: Orthodox and Muslims, 1830-1945”, London: Routledge Studies on the Middle East.
Gaffield, C. (1986), ”Back to School: Towards a New Agenda for the History of Education”, Acadiensis, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 169-90.
Gallant, W. (2015), ”Modern Greece: From the War of Independence to the Present”, The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 5, Issue 1.
Galor, O. (2011), ”Inequality, Human Capital Formation and the Process of Development”, Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol . 4, Elsevier.
Galor, O. and Moav, O. (2006), ”Das Human-Kapital: A Theory of the Demise of the Class Structure”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 85-117.
Galor, O., Moav, O. and Vollrath, D., (2009), ”Inequality in Land Ownership, the Emergence of Human Capital Promoting Institutions, and the Great Divergence”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 76, Issue 1, pp. 143-179.
Galor, O., Moav, O. and Vollrath, D., (2004), ”Land Inequality and the Origin of Divergence and Overtaking in the Growth Process: Theory and Evidence”, Brown Economics (Working Paper).
Geanakoplos, J. (1984), ”Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes”, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Go, S. and Lindert, P., (2010), ”The Uneven Rise of American Public Schools to 1850”, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 70, Issue 01, pp. 1-26.
Goldin, C. and Katz, L. (1998), ”The origins of capital-skill complementarity”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 113, pp. 693-732.
Goni, M., (2013), ”Landed Elites and Public Education in England and Wales. Evidence from School Boards, 1870-99”, (Working Paper: Universitat Pompeu Fabra).
Green, A. (2013), ”Education and State Formation: Europe, East Asia and the USA”, Palgrave Macmillan.
Gritsopoulos, E. (1955), ”The Agricultural Economy of Greece”, University of Wisconsin— Madison (M.S. Dissertation).
Hadjimichalis, C. (1986), ”Uneven Development and Regionalism: State, Territory and Class in Southern Europe”, London: Croom Helm. Hahn, F.
Hall, R., and Jones, C. (1999), ”Why do some countries produce so much more per worker than others?”, Quartely Journal of Economics, Vol. 114, pp. 83-116.
Hathaway, J. (2008), ”The Arab Lands under Ottoman Rule, 1516-1800”, London: Longman.
Hatzopoulos, K. (1991), ”The Greek school during Ottoman rule 1453-1821”, Thessaloniki: Vanias Publishers.
Hipe, R., and J.Baten (2012), ”Regional Inequality in Human Capital Formation in Europe 1790-1880”, Scandinavian Economic History Review, Vol. 60, pp. 254-289.
Imber, C. (2002), ”The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power”, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Islamo ̆glu-Inan, H. (1987), ”The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Jackson, P.W. (1968), ”Life in classrooms”, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Jacob, M (1997), ”Scientific Culture and the Making of the Industrial West”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaser, K. (2011), ”The Balkans and the Near East: introduction to a shared history”, M ̈unster:LIT.
Katsikas, S., Fortna, B.C., Kamouzis, D. and Konortas, P. (2012), ”State-Nationalisms in the Ottoman Empire, Greece and Turkey: Orthodox and Muslims, 1830-1945”, London: Routledge Studies on the Middle East.
Karakasidou, A. (2009), ”Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood. Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia,1870-1990”, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Keefer, P., and Knack, S. (2002), ”Polarization, Politics, and Property Rights: Links between Inequality and Growth”, Public Choice, Vol. 111, Issue 1-2, pp. 127-154.
Koliopoulos, J. and Veremes, T. (2002), ”Greece: The Modern Sequel : From 1831 to the Present”, Hurst Co.
Kuznets, S. (1955), ”Economic Growth and Income Inequality”, American Economic Review, Vol. 45, pp. 1-28.
Landes, D.S. (1999), ”The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Why Some Are so Rich and Some Are so Poor”, New York: Norton Company.
Laiou, A. (2002), ”The Economic History of Byzantium from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century”, 3 vols, Washington, D.C.
Lindert, P. (2004), ”Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century”, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindert, P. (2000), ”Three Centuries of Inequality in Britain and America”, A.B. Atkinson and F.Bourguignon (eds.).
Lipton, M. (1974), ”Towards a Theory of Land Reform”, In : Lehmann D. (ed.) Peasants, Landloards and Governments: Agrarian Reform in the Third World, New York: Holmes and Meier.
McGowan, B. (1981), ”Economic Life in Ottoman Europe: Taxation, Trade, and the Struggle for Land, 1600-1800”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Machiavelli, N. (1987[1519]), ”Discourses on Livy”, New York, NY, Oxford University Press. Mackridge, P. (2009), ”Language and National Identity in Greece, 1766-1976”, Oxford: University Press.
Milios, J., (2018), ”The Origins of Capitalism as a Social System. The Prevalence of an Aleatory Encounter”, London and New York: Routledge.
Milios, J., (1999), ”Asiatic Mode of Production”, Encyclopedia of Political Economy, edited by Phillip Anthony O’Hara, Routledge Publishers, London, pp. 18-20.
Montesquieu, C.L., (1989[1748]), ”The Spirit of the Laws”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mouzelis, N. (1990), ”Post-Marxist Alternatives: The Construction of Social Orders”, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mouzelis, N. (1983), ”On the Demise of Oligarchic Parliamentarism in the Semi-Periphery: A Balkan-Latin American Comparison”, Sociology, Vol. 17, No. 1. pp. 28-43.
Mouzelis, N. (1978), ”Modern Greece: Facets of Underdevelopment”, London: MacMillan Press.
Mouzelis, N. (1976), ”Capitalism and the Development of Agriculture”, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 483-92.
Myrdal, G. (1968), ”Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations”, 3 volumes, New York: Pantheon Books.
North, D.C. (2005), ”Understanding the Process of Economic Change”, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
North, D.C. (1981), ”Structure and Change in Economic History”, New York: W.W.Norton Company.
Papademetriou, T. (2015), ”Render unto Sultan: Power, Authority, and the Greek Orthodox Church in the Early Ottoman Centuries”, Oxford University Press.
Papastathes, C. (1998), ”Byzantine Law: Proceedings of the International Symposium of Jurists”, Thessaliniki, 10-13 December 1998.
Parsons, T., (1959), ”The School Class as a Social System: Some of its Functions in American Society, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 297-318.
Keefer, P., and Knack, S. (2002), ”Polarization, Politics, and Property Rights: Links between Inequality and Growth”, Public Choice, Vol. 111, Issue 1-2, pp. 127-154.
Koliopoulos, J. and Veremes, T. (2002), ”Greece: The Modern Sequel : From 1831 to the Present”, Hurst Co.
Kuznets, S. (1955), ”Economic Growth and Income Inequality”, American Economic Review, Vol. 45, pp. 1-28.
Landes, D.S. (1999), ”The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Why Some Are so Rich and Some Are so Poor”, New York: Norton Company.
Laiou, A. (2002), ”The Economic History of Byzantium from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century”, 3 vols, Washington, D.C.
Lindert, P. (2004), ”Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century”, Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindert, P. (2000), ”Three Centuries of Inequality in Britain and America”, A.B. Atkinson and F.Bourguignon (eds.).
Lipton, M. (1974), ”Towards a Theory of Land Reform”, In : Lehmann D. (ed.) Peasants, Landloards and Governments: Agrarian Reform in the Third World, New York: Holmes and Meier.
McGowan, B. (1981), ”Economic Life in Ottoman Europe: Taxation, Trade, and the Struggle for Land, 1600-1800”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Machiavelli, N. (1987[1519]), ”Discourses on Livy”, New York, NY, Oxford University Press. Mackridge, P. (2009), ”Language and National Identity in Greece, 1766-1976”, Oxford: University Press.
Milios, J., (2018), ”The Origins of Capitalism as a Social System. The Prevalence of an Aleatory Encounter”, London and New York: Routledge.
Milios, J., (1999), ”Asiatic Mode of Production”, Encyclopedia of Political Economy, edited by Phillip Anthony O’Hara, Routledge Publishers, London, pp. 18-20.
Montesquieu, C.L., (1989[1748]), ”The Spirit of the Laws”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mouzelis, N. (1990), ”Post-Marxist Alternatives: The Construction of Social Orders”, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mouzelis, N. (1983), ”On the Demise of Oligarchic Parliamentarism in the Semi-Periphery: A Balkan-Latin American Comparison”, Sociology, Vol. 17, No. 1. pp. 28-43.
Mouzelis, N. (1978), ”Modern Greece: Facets of Underdevelopment”, London: MacMillan Press.
Mouzelis, N. (1976), ”Capitalism and the Development of Agriculture”, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 483-92.
Myrdal, G. (1968), ”Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations”, 3 volumes, New York: Pantheon Books.
North, D.C. (2005), ”Understanding the Process of Economic Change”, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
North, D.C. (1981), ”Structure and Change in Economic History”, New York: W.W.Norton Company.
Papademetriou, T. (2015), ”Render unto Sultan: Power, Authority, and the Greek Orthodox Church in the Early Ottoman Centuries”, Oxford University Press.
Papastathes, C. (1998), ”Byzantine Law: Proceedings of the International Symposium of Jurists”, Thessaliniki, 10-13 December 1998.
Parsons, T., (1959), ”The School Class as a Social System: Some of its Functions in American Society, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 297-318.
Petmezas, S, (2003), ”The Greek Agricultural Economy During the 19th Century”, Iraklio: Panepistimiakes Ekdoseis Kritis (in Greek).
Petmezas, S. (1991), ”The Land Tenure System, 1830-1880”, in Dertilis, G. and Kostis, C. (eds.), Athens.
Petropulos, A. (1985), ”Politics and Statecrat in the Kingdom of Greece, 1833-1843”, Athens: MIET .
Ramcharan, R., (2010), ”Inequality and Redistribution: Evidence from U.S. Countries and States, 1890-1930”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 92, No.3, pp. 729-744.
Ricks, D. and Magdalino, P. (1998), ”Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity”, Publications of the Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College, London.
Rury, J. (2002), ”Education and Social Change: Themes in the History of American Schooling”, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sachs, J.D. (2001), ”Tropical Underdevelopment”, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper: 8119.
Setton, K. (1976), ”The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571)”, Vol. 1: The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: DIANE Publishing.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1969), ”Distribution of Income and Wealth Among Individuals”, Econometrica, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 382-97.
Strong, F. (1842), ”Greece as a Kingdom”, London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans.
Tapia, B., and Martinez-Galarraga, J. (2015), ”Land access inequality and education in pre- industrial Spain”, Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers (137), pp. 1-50.
Tsoukalas, C. (1977), ”Dependence and Reproduction”, Athens: Themelio.
Tucker, S. (2010), ”The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq Conflicts”, 5 vols., Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Tzinieri , I. (2015), ”The Present Landscape of Land Registration in Greece”, European Land Registry Association.
Vollrath, D., (2013), ”The Efficiency of Human Capital Allocations in Developing Countries”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 108, pp. 106-118.
Willis, E. (1976), ”Learning to Labour. How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs”, Aldershot, Gower.
Zervas, T. (2017), ”From Ottoman Colonial Rule to Nation Statehood: Schooling and National Identity in the Early Greek School”, Espacio, Tiempo y Educaci ́on, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Zervas, T. (2016), ”The Making of a Modern Greek Identity: Education, Nationalism, and the Teaching of a Greek National History”, Athens: S.I. Zacharopoulos Press.
Petmezas, S. (1991), ”The Land Tenure System, 1830-1880”, in Dertilis, G. and Kostis, C. (eds.), Athens.
Petropulos, A. (1985), ”Politics and Statecrat in the Kingdom of Greece, 1833-1843”, Athens: MIET .
Ramcharan, R., (2010), ”Inequality and Redistribution: Evidence from U.S. Countries and States, 1890-1930”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 92, No.3, pp. 729-744.
Ricks, D. and Magdalino, P. (1998), ”Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity”, Publications of the Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College, London.
Rury, J. (2002), ”Education and Social Change: Themes in the History of American Schooling”, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sachs, J.D. (2001), ”Tropical Underdevelopment”, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper: 8119.
Setton, K. (1976), ”The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571)”, Vol. 1: The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: DIANE Publishing.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1969), ”Distribution of Income and Wealth Among Individuals”, Econometrica, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 382-97.
Strong, F. (1842), ”Greece as a Kingdom”, London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans.
Tapia, B., and Martinez-Galarraga, J. (2015), ”Land access inequality and education in pre- industrial Spain”, Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers (137), pp. 1-50.
Tsoukalas, C. (1977), ”Dependence and Reproduction”, Athens: Themelio.
Tucker, S. (2010), ”The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq Conflicts”, 5 vols., Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Tzinieri , I. (2015), ”The Present Landscape of Land Registration in Greece”, European Land Registry Association.
Vollrath, D., (2013), ”The Efficiency of Human Capital Allocations in Developing Countries”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 108, pp. 106-118.
Willis, E. (1976), ”Learning to Labour. How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs”, Aldershot, Gower.
Zervas, T. (2017), ”From Ottoman Colonial Rule to Nation Statehood: Schooling and National Identity in the Early Greek School”, Espacio, Tiempo y Educaci ́on, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Zervas, T. (2016), ”The Making of a Modern Greek Identity: Education, Nationalism, and the Teaching of a Greek National History”, Athens: S.I. Zacharopoulos Press.
***
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου