1a. (20%). What was the Neolithic Revolution? Explain what basic factors caused this “revolution” and what basic changes in property rights accompanied it. In what fundamental way did society change? 1b. (10%). Why was this change a necessary condition for the emergence of complex societies and civilizations? What was the role of learning in the Neolithic Revolution? How did relations between individuals change? 1c. (10%). Following the Neolithic Revolution labour was scarce in many places, but good land was plentiful, and this often resulted in bondage (see problem #3). Would this combination of endowments—plentiful land and scarce labour—be favourable to the development of industry, or more generally, to the development and growth of non-agricultural production? What combination of endowments of labour and land would be most favourable to the development and growth of nonagricultural production? Explain briefly. 2. (15%). What is meant by the “scattering of strips” in medieval agriculture? Explain how this was a response to conditions existing in Europe during the Middle Ages and what its advantages were under these conditions. (Please give two different advantages.) What factors would cause this practice to disappear? 3a. (30%). In 1970, the economic historian, Evsey Domar, said that it would be impossible to have at one and the same time “free” land, “free” labour, and a landowning aristocracy. If “free” land means land that is in excess supply—and therefore has a zero price—and “free” labour means labour that is free of bondage, explain why this combination would be impossible. 3b. (5%). Show that there is a labour theory of value when land is “free” as above. That is, show that the total value of output equals the value contributed by labour. (Hint: A unit of labour can be said to contribute the value of its marginal product to output value.) 3c. (10%). If land is “free,” what three organizations of an agrarian economy are possible? Show that these three are the only possibilities. If bondage arises in conditions where land is “free,” what basic change in economic conditions could bring about its peaceful demise? Would the result necessarily be to make labour better off? Explain briefly.
