Measurement of English farming technological change, 1523–1900

I have argued that for the period from 1661 to 1850, patent data in England were consistent in that no official changes in methods and standards of issuance occurred. Book data on titles published on farming production methods were similarly consistent from 1523 to the mid-19th century because the market for books developed gradually and the technology of printing was not substantially changed until the mid-19th century.My main point is that data on output of titles of books on farming productive techniques in England are useful measures of technological change. Books did have information on good production methods and could express productive ideas where a patent may not be issued. Further, the literacy rate of farmers was high so that books were likely an important source of ideas on farming production methods. Finally, the fluctuations in the book data were highly related to the fluctuations in the patent data, suggesting that a common set of factors caused those fluctuations. The high correlations between the detrended book and patent data indicate that if we accept patenting as a useful measure of technology we may also accept book title output of a technical nature as a good measure of technical change.I used the data for a simple analysis of the trend growth rate of agricultural technology in England from 1551 to 1850. While there is limited evidence to show that the subperiod 1651–1750 saw a slowing in the trend of development of farming technology, I argue that a division of the entire period into subperiods is too simplistic. A more fruitful approach would be an analysis of the underlying forces that determined the trend of development of the technology of English agriculture.The next step is an analysis of the forces that influenced technological development of English farming. From an economic point of view, market forces play an important role in influencing technology. Because such an analysis deserves careful consideration, I leave that to another paper (see Sullivan and Simon, 1983).     

Book Reviews

Rashid Amjad (ed.), The Development of Labour Intensive Industry in ASEAN Countries, Geneva: Asian Employment Programme, International Labour Office, 1981, pp. v + 337. US$10.00.

G. J. Viksnins, Financial Deepening in ASEAN Countries, Pacific Forum. University of Hawaii Press, 1980, pp. ix + 76.

C. Sosya, L-S. Chia, W. L. Collier (eds). Man, Land and Sea, Bangkok: Agricultural Development Council, 1982, pp. ix + 320.

Joachim K. Metzner, Agriculture and Population Pressure in Sikka, Isle of Flores, (A contribution to the study of the stability of agricultural systems in the wet and dry tropics). Development Studies Centre Monograph No. 28. Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1982, pp. xxxii + 355. $A15.00.

Dwight Y. King, Interest Groups and Political Linkages in Indonesia 1800–1965. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies Special Report No. 20, pp. vii + 192, index.

Improving Access to Indonesian Collections in the Netherlands, Leiden: Intercontinenta No. 2, 1981, pp. 78. Dlf. l4.75.     

Jackknifing Bond Option Prices

Prices of interest rate derivative securities depend cruciallyon the mean reversion parameters of the underlying diffusions.These parameters are subject to estimation bias when standardmethods are used. The estimation bias can be substantial evenin very large samples and much more serious than the discretizationbias, and it translates into a bias in pricing bond optionsand other derivative securities that is important in practicalwork. This article proposes a very general and computationallyinexpensive method of bias reduction that is based on Quenouille's(1956; Biometrika, 43, 353–360) jackknife. We show howthe method can be applied directly to the options price itselfas well as the coefficients in the models. We investigate itsperformance in a Monte Carlo study. Empirical applications toU.S. dollar swap rates highlight the differences between bondand option prices implied by the jackknife procedure and thoseimplied by the standard approach. These differences are largeand suggest that bias reduction in pricing options is importantin practical applications.