第21章 《佃農理論》英語原著 (15)

Metayersarealwaysfoundreadytoacceptasubdivision[ofland]……Theirmultiplication,aswehaveseeninthecaseofFrance,usuallygoesontilltheyarestoppedbythesmallnessoftheirmaintenance,or,asmoreoftenhappens,bythepolicyoftheproprietorsrefusingtosubdividelands,alreadysuppliedwithlaborbeyondthepointtheydeemmostadvantageoustothemselves.[22]

FollowingthistrackoneexpectsthatJoneswouldgoontosaythat,atleastinsomecases,nonlandinputsrelativetolandinputswereequallyintensive（oroutputyieldsequallyhigh）undermetayageasunderfixed-rentfarmingorownercultivation.Buthedidnot,andinsteadheconcluded:

Iftherelationbetweenthemetayerandtheproprietorhassomeadvantageswhenparedwith……theserf……,ithassomeveryseriousinconveniencespeculiartoitself.Thedividedinterestwhichexistsintheproduceofcultivation,marsalmosteveryattemptatimprovement.[23]

ItisdifficulttosaywhetherJones'sconclusioncontradictshisearlierstatements.Byimprovementorwhattheycalled"stock"intheland,classicaleconomistsseemtomean"investment"inland,butexactlywhattheydidmeanisnotclear.Accordingtoourconvention,investmentisthebalancingofconsumptionovertime;thatis,presentsacrificeforfuturebenefit.Amanisinvestingwhenhetillsthesoiltodayforcorntomorrow,pullsaweed,orremovesarock.Thevarioustimelengthsoftheinvestmentreturnsaretreatedinageneralframework.Anditisconceptuallythesamewhethertheworkisdonebyamanorahorse,orthroughtheuseofmorefertilizers,betterirrigation,orotherassets.Itisonlywithintheframeworkofatimelessinput-outputmodelthatwedonotspeakofinvestment.Underourconvention,therefore,tosayboththattheintensityoflaborinput（whichcanbeusedtoimproveland）canbefreelyadjustedandalsothat"thedividedinterestmarsalmosteveryattemptatimprovement"iscontradictoryindeed.

ButtoJonesandhiscontemporaries,andeventoMillandothersafterhim,theconceptof"improvement"or"investment"wasambiguousontwocounts.First,theyfailedtodistinguishfarminginputsatonemomentintimefrominvestmentovertime.Thusitisnotalwaysclearwhethertheylaidtheblameontheproductsharingoronthenonperpetuallease.Second,insteadofviewinglaborandnonlaborinputsasdifferentphysicalentitiesperformingdifferentfunctionsinproduction,theyviewedthemasdifferentconceptually.Tothem,"labor"is"short"andnon-laboris"long,"and"improvements"weremadeonlyby"capital"andnotby"labor."

Evenacceptingtheirconventioninvagueterms,however,Jonesmighthaveseenthatsince"labor"couldbeadjustedsocould"capital,"orthat"labor"couldbetradedfor"capital."ButJonesdidnot.Indeed,onecannothelpbutspeculatethathisabruptconclusionwasdrawnnotfromlogicalreasoning,butfromthepreconceptionthattheBritishsystemwassuperior.AnditisamatterofconjecturewhetherJoneswouldhavealteredhisconclusionhadheconsideredtheaccountsontheItalianmetayerswrittenbySimondedeSismondisomefifteenyearsearlier.Sismondiwashimselfametayerlandlord,and,ofcourse,hewrotefavorablyofthesystem:

Thesystemofcultivationbymetayers……contributes,morethananythingelse,todiffusehappinessamongthelowerclasses,toraiselandtoahighstateofculture,andaccumulateagreatquantityofwealthuponit……Underthissystem,thepeasanthasaninterestintheproperty,asifitwerehisown……Theaccumulationofanimmensecapitaluponthesoil,theinventionofmanyjudiciousrotations,andindustriousprocesses,……thecollectionofanumerouspopulation,uponaspaceverylimitedandnaturallybarren,showsplainlyenoughthatthismodeofcultivationisasprofitabletothelanditselfastothepeasant.[24]

ThisexuberantendorsementofmetayageisquitecontradictorytoYoung'scondemnations.ButitwasnotuntilJohnStuartMilltackledtheissuethatargumentsweretakenfrombothsides.[25]

Withanimpressivecoverageoftheliterature,Millnotedthat"themetayersystemhasmetwithnomercyfromEnglishau-thorities."[26]Heclaimed"thattheunmeasuredvituperationlav-isheduponthesystembyEnglishwriters,isgroundedonanextremelynarrowviewofthesubject."[27]Mill'sownanalysisisessentiallyamodificationofJones's,and,moreexplicitly,healsotreatedlaborinputandimprovementoflandastwoconceptuallydifferentthings.

MillquotedandacceptedSmith'sviewthatsharerentisanalogoustoatax,andthereforefeltthatthetenantwouldnotbeinterestedinmaking"improvements."[28]Thus,"theimprovementsmustbemadewiththecapitalofthelandlord,"but"custom"is"aserioushindrancetoimprovement."[29]Inregardtolaborinput,Mill'sargumentgoesfrom"notenough"toapossibilityof"toomuch,"whichmayappearinconsistentatfirstsight:

Themetayerhaslessmotivetoexertionthanthepeasantproprietor,sinceonlyhalfthefruitsofhisindustry,insteadofthewhole,arehisown……Iamsupposingthatthishalfproducedissufficienttoyieldhimafortablesupport.Whetheritisso,dependsonthedegreeofsubdivisionoftheland;whichdependsontheoperationofthepopulationprinciple……Thereisalandlord,whomayexertacontrollingpower,byrefusinghisconsenttoasubdivision.Idonot,however,attachgreatimportancetothischeck,becausethefarmmaybeloadedwithsuperfluoushandswithoutbeingsubdivided;andbecause,solongastheincreaseofhandsincreasesthegrossproduce,whichisalmostalwaysthecase,thelandlord,whoreceiveshalftheproduce,isanimmediategainer,theinconveniencefallingonlyonthelaborers.[30]