Page 20 - Mocarelli, Luca, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2020. Maize to the People! Cultivation, Consumption and Trade in the North-Eastern Mediterranean (Sixteenth-Nineteenth Century). Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 20
maize to the people!
years, it is possible to observe an unusual phenomenon, namely that maize
prices overtook those of wheat. That happened especially during food cri-
ses, e.g. in May 1764, July-August 1773, July 1794 (Zalin 1990, 351). On the
contrary, in markets located in areas with great producers of grain the dif-
ference between wheat and maize prices was huge, often more than double,
as it is possible to note in the case of Mantua (Vivanti 1967, 423).
Prices and their trend are the second important issue to deal with con-
sidering markets. As Manuel Vaquero clearly shows in this volume, many
questions are still open. If and how wheat and maize prices interacted; if
there are any co-movements; if the prices show a possible integration of
markets or not; who the buyers were; the kind of relation existing between
production and market (in the case of Umbria, it seems that the sale of
maize on markets preceded its widespread cultivation). I can add two oth-
er issues. The first is the relation between the level of prices and the availa-
bility of grain. In the case of Desenzano, there is, in fact, evidence of high
prices in spite of a good availability of grain. In 1780, for example, 71,000
some of wheat were sold at prices between 36 and 38 lire per soma, while in
1790, when 86,000 some were sold, the price exceeded 70 lire (Zalin 1990,
345, 349-351). The same happened in Cuneo where in 1765 93,000 emine of
wheat were sold at an average price of 2.16 lire, and in 1776 only 12,450 em-
ine at 2.14 lire. Therefore, it is possible to think that the prices depended not
only on the quantity of supply, as is usually believed, but in some cases also
on the level of demand. Such is the case of Cuneo, where in 1765 an extraor-
dinary demand from the army was recorded (Bonelli 1968, 824-828).
The second issue is the role played by maize on the market. According
to Coppola, the growing production of maize in the State of Milan, start-
ing in the eighteenth century, resulted in a lower price of wheat, to the point
that maize determined the general price of grain in Milano (Coppola 1979,
104). But if it is true that people bought maize when wheat prices rose, then
there is the problem of determining at which price level this shift occurred.
Moreover: what happened when wheat and maize prices were similar? Did
consumers shift toward wheat or not?
In my opinion, the only certainty is that the advent of maize not only
offered peasants the opportunity to escape hunger but also made the grain
market wider and more complex. This evidence calls for a radical re-think-
ing of the debate about the standard of living and the “great” or “little”
divergence that dominated economic history over the last two decades.
In fact, we have a bulk of studies in which real wages, the living condi-
18
years, it is possible to observe an unusual phenomenon, namely that maize
prices overtook those of wheat. That happened especially during food cri-
ses, e.g. in May 1764, July-August 1773, July 1794 (Zalin 1990, 351). On the
contrary, in markets located in areas with great producers of grain the dif-
ference between wheat and maize prices was huge, often more than double,
as it is possible to note in the case of Mantua (Vivanti 1967, 423).
Prices and their trend are the second important issue to deal with con-
sidering markets. As Manuel Vaquero clearly shows in this volume, many
questions are still open. If and how wheat and maize prices interacted; if
there are any co-movements; if the prices show a possible integration of
markets or not; who the buyers were; the kind of relation existing between
production and market (in the case of Umbria, it seems that the sale of
maize on markets preceded its widespread cultivation). I can add two oth-
er issues. The first is the relation between the level of prices and the availa-
bility of grain. In the case of Desenzano, there is, in fact, evidence of high
prices in spite of a good availability of grain. In 1780, for example, 71,000
some of wheat were sold at prices between 36 and 38 lire per soma, while in
1790, when 86,000 some were sold, the price exceeded 70 lire (Zalin 1990,
345, 349-351). The same happened in Cuneo where in 1765 93,000 emine of
wheat were sold at an average price of 2.16 lire, and in 1776 only 12,450 em-
ine at 2.14 lire. Therefore, it is possible to think that the prices depended not
only on the quantity of supply, as is usually believed, but in some cases also
on the level of demand. Such is the case of Cuneo, where in 1765 an extraor-
dinary demand from the army was recorded (Bonelli 1968, 824-828).
The second issue is the role played by maize on the market. According
to Coppola, the growing production of maize in the State of Milan, start-
ing in the eighteenth century, resulted in a lower price of wheat, to the point
that maize determined the general price of grain in Milano (Coppola 1979,
104). But if it is true that people bought maize when wheat prices rose, then
there is the problem of determining at which price level this shift occurred.
Moreover: what happened when wheat and maize prices were similar? Did
consumers shift toward wheat or not?
In my opinion, the only certainty is that the advent of maize not only
offered peasants the opportunity to escape hunger but also made the grain
market wider and more complex. This evidence calls for a radical re-think-
ing of the debate about the standard of living and the “great” or “little”
divergence that dominated economic history over the last two decades.
In fact, we have a bulk of studies in which real wages, the living condi-
18
