The Increase In Sharecropping Contracts

After the Bubonic Plague, researchers realized there was an increased use of sharecropping. Sharecropping is a type of contract between a landlord and their tenant that the landlord will split any profits the tenant receives from the land. In the time frame discussed, three “contracts” existed in the form of an owner cultivating their own land, a tenant paying for the use of a plot of land, and a tenant who shared the profits they received with their landlord. We see the lasting effects of these contracts on the area today. As mentioned in our discussions, clear variation in properties exist in the soil and type of crop placed in the surrounding area. From the tower we could see the many different soils and how this could be caused from the previous use of the land.

To explain the increase in sharecropping contracts, researchers developed three hypotheses, the first being a result of the recent Bubonic Plague. Researchers believed that the plague caused tenants to be more risk-averse, resulting in the risk-sharing hypothesis. By sharing in the tenant’s success or failure, landlords were able to encourage tenants to use their land because they had lass consequences from an unproductive crop. The second theory is called the moral hazard or multitasking theory, describing that the landlord would allow their tenants to use their livestock. Sharecropping was a way to ensure they wouldn’t injure their animals. Finally, the researchers developed the imperfect capital market theory, stating that the trend could be a general shift in the minds of the populace and therefore the market just preferred this type of contract.

From these three hypotheses came an overarching idea that the increase of cropmix caused an increase in the use of sharecropping contracts. Cropmix is the variation in the crops planted to ensure the profitability in the crop. This would mean increasing the vines and grains planted, opposed to a less variable cropmix of only vines. Vines were mentioned to be especially risky, as they would be easily affected by the weather.

To determine the validity of these hypotheses, the researchers used a 1427 catasto, or extensive consensus, taken of the households in Pescia and San Gionignano. From these, they narrowed the information to the data surrounding landlords that had registered tenants in the census. Interestingly, they found of these verified landlords, tenants with a sharecropping contract consisted of 61% of the landlord/tenant contracts. The remaining 39% were fixed pay contracts to the landlords by the tenants, similar to today’s renting agreements.

The researchers found that from these contracts, the cropmix of the land affected the contract used. Perennials used for riskier investments, such as vines, increased the likelihood a sharecropping contract existed. This data confirms the previous hypotheses that cropmix was a major factor of the contract used. Additionally, livestock increased the likelihood a landlord would enter into a sharecropping contract with their tenant. This is thought to be because by sharing the risk, the tenants would find it important to ensure the health of the landlord’s livestock. This ultimately supports the multitasking theory developed by researchers. The wealth, occupation, and gender of the landlord had no significant impact on the type of contract entered into. In addition, looking at data received on the loans given to individuals, the better the occupation the more loans an individual could take out. This is connected to the risk-sharing hypothesis because it is believed the higher professions would be more likely to pay back interest. Another interesting factor was that having male dependents increased the loans taken, most likely because more males meant more land had to be cultivated.

In conclusion, the evidence seems to support that sharecropping was used to decrease the amount of damage by the tenants. Both risky cropmix and livestock seem to increase the use of sharecropping and support the multitasking theory. However, researchers found that landlords would also give loans in the form of seeds and required supplies to poor tenants who were unlikely to pay them back. This means that the evidence cannot support the theory that reducing risk was the main motive of the landlord’s decisions. Instead, the desire for the land to be utilized seems to be the major factor influencing the landlord’s decision. The different contracts served as a form of diversification, while at the same time ensuring their land was used to its full potential.