By Phillip W. Magness. Phil Magness is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.
"Journalist and political commentator Ta-Nehisi Coates drew attention
to the political cause of slavery reparations during a heavily
publicized congressional hearing
this week. While commentators on both sides of the issue agree that his
case was eloquently argued, one of its central claims rested on faulty
economic data.
Specifically, Coates contends that the case for
reparations comes from the economic measurement of the antebellum slave
economy in the United States. He testified, “By 1836 more than $600
million, almost half of the economic activity in the United States,
derived directly or indirectly from the cotton produced by the
million-odd slaves.”
This stunning statistical claim was widely repeated in commentary on the hearing. It is, however, unambiguously false.
Coates’s numbers come from Cornell University historian Ed Baptist’s 2014 book The Half Has Never Been Told.
In a key passage in the book, Baptist purports to add up the total
value of economic activity that derived from cotton production, which at
$77 million made up about 5 percent of the estimated gross domestic
product (GDP) of the United States in 1836. Baptist then committed a
fundamental accounting error. He proceeded to double and even triple
count intermediate transactions involved in cotton production — things
like land purchases for plantations, tools used for cotton production,
transportation, insurance, and credit instruments used in each.
Eventually that $77 million became $600 million in Baptist’s accounting,
or almost half of the entire antebellum economy of the United States.
There’s
a crucial problem with Baptist’s approach. The calculation of GDP, the
main formulation of national accounts and a representation of the dollar
amount of economic activity in a country in a given year, only
incorporates the value of final goods and services produced. The
rationale for doing so comes from accounting, as the price of the final
good already incorporates intermediate transactions that go into its
production and distribution. Baptist’s numbers are not only wrong — they
reflect a basic unfamiliarity with the meaning and definition of GDP.
When The Half Has Never Been Told
first appeared in print, economists immediately picked up on the error.
Bradley Hansen of Mary Washington University kicked off the scrutiny by
posting a thorough dissection of Baptist’s errors on his personal blog. Economic historians Alan Olmstead (UC-Davis) and Paul Rhode (University of Michigan) chimed in with a devastating critique
of Baptist’s empirics, observing that a continuation of his “faulty
methodology by summing the ‘roles’ of cotton with a few other primary
products” would yield an amount that “easily exceed[ed] 100 percent of
GDP” in the antebellum United States — an economic impossibility.
Stanley Engerman, perhaps the foremost living expert on the economics of slavery, weighed in next:
Baptist's
economic analysis, intended to demonstrate the essential role of the
slave-grown cotton economy for Northern economic growth, is weakened by
some variants of double and triple counting and some confusion of assets
and income flows. To go from a value of the Southern cotton crop in
1836 of "about 5 percent of that entire gross domestic product," to
"almost half of the economic activity of the United States in 1836" (pp
312-22) requires his calculation to resemble the great effects claimed
by an NFL club when trying to convince city taxpayers that they should
provide the money to build a new stadium because of all the stadium's
presumed primary and secondary effects.
The main takeaways are
that (1) the actual percentage of GDP derived from slavery is measured
from final goods and services that involved slave-based production, and
(2) Ed Baptist clearly did not understand what he was doing when he
calculated his statistic. Cotton was by far the biggest item on the list
of final goods and services, and, while its output varied year by year,
it is probably reasonable to place slave-based goods in the mid to high
single digits, not the 50 percent claim that Coates repeated.
Unfortunately,
historians who work on the “New History of Capitalism” — a school of
historiography that emerged after the financial crisis of 2007–8 and
that purports to study the relationship between slavery and capitalism —
have proven remarkably ill-suited at grasping the fundamentals of GDP
and other economic concepts.
Not to be outdone by Baptist’s
erroneous 50 percent estimate, Emory University historian Carol Anderson
offered an even-higher figure from the eve of the Civil War itself.
According to Anderson, “80 percent of the nation’s gross national
product was tied to slavery” in 1860. Following Coates’s testimony using
Baptist’s erroneous numbers for 1836, several historians began
circulating this estimate from Anderson’s 2016 book White Rage as evidence of the growing influence of slavery on American capitalism in the late antebellum period.
Like
Baptist’s book, it too derives from a fundamentally erroneous
understanding of national accounts. Anderson’s footnote points to the
late historian David Brion Davis’s foreword
to a 2010 book on abolitionism. Davis makes a very different claim,
however, in noting that the total value of slaves on the eve of the
Civil War was equal to 80 percent of a single year’s gross
national product (GNP). Anderson appears to have misread Davis’s data
point and transformed it into a broader claim about slavery’s share of
the entire economy.
While this figure is admittedly astounding and
signifies the vast amount of wealth tied up in Southern slavery,
Anderson mistakes it for the recurring yearly value of
slave-produced economic output. She therefore commits the basic economic
error of confusing stocks — by definition, a one-time measurement — and
flows, which are measured over time. As we’ve already seen from
Baptist’s example though, the actual percentage of GDP (or GNP) tied up
in slavery was actually a small fraction of that amount.
Basic
statistical errors of this type are a pervasive feature of the “New
History of Capitalism” genre of scholarship — even to the point that
they are now entering into the discourse over policy discussions, as
Coates’s widely touted testimony at the reparations hearing illustrates.
In
each case, the historians’ demonstrably wrong GDP and GNP numbers make
for a shocking claim that appears to situate slave production at the
very core of all American economic activity before the Civil War. This
claim appears to confirm many of the ideological expectations of the
same historians, who also evince a pronounced hostility to market
capitalism throughout their work. Linking historical capitalism to
slavery is more of a political exercise for the present day than a
scholarly inquiry into the past, and in fact the most virulent defenders of slavery in the mid-19th century actually presented their cause as an expressly anti-capitalist
venture (for those interested in further explorations, I’ve written
about this deficiency of the “New History of Capitalism” literature at greater length here).
There
is a great moral gravity to discussions of slavery, not only as a
historical problem but also an institution with persistent and adverse
legacies that remain with us. It is therefore a timely and ever-present
subject of scholarly inquiry and discussion.
Regardless of where one
stands on the reparations debate or other causes in the modern political
scene, academics owe the public an honest, accurate, and scientific
assessment of slavery’s history, including its economic dimensions. That
assessment is harmed when the discussion forgoes scientific rigor or
even basic statistical practices to rally around a mistaken number to
support a misleading and grossly inaccurate conclusion about the nature
of the antebellum economy. Baptist, Coates, and the other public figures
who have repeated this faulty statistic have an obligation to correct
their error."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.