3rd Conference of the European Historical Economics Society

from its Independence to the Second World War. The research was a part of a larger project for the estimation of the Greek GDP `during this long period1. My estimate of the agricultural output served this global target but, in this paper, I will also try to go beyond the aggregate magnitudes and assess the overall development of the Greek agricultural sector. I will first present the available statistical data and assess their reliability. Then, I will compare my own estimate with the only existing previous estimate (KOSTELENOS 1995). George Kostelenos and I both used the output method and, what is more important, we shared the same objective : to use the estimate as a major component in the study of the Greek GDP. Iw ill comment extensively on this earlier attempt. I shall show that the new estimate is more satisfactory because it takes into consideration all the available sources, it has adopted better assumptions concerning the extrapolation of the movement of basic components of the agricultural output and, finally it has produced a more reliable deflator of current values. Nevertheless, I hope that at the end it will be clear how much this new estimate owes to the previous one2. After the presentation of the methodology adopted for estimating the volume and value of major agricultural products, I will try to compare the development of the per capita output of Greek agriculture with that of other Mediterranean and Balkan cases.

myself,

Emmanuel Kounaris (KEPE). The larger Research Program is coordinated by Prof. George Dertilis of the University of Athens and sponsored by the Historical Archives of the National Bank of Greece (HA/NBG). The first project, which comprises six separate research groups (GDP, Public Expenditure, Public Revenue, Public Debt, Price Index and Monetary circulation), has been completed and the results will be soon be published in written and electronic format.
2

pleasant cooperation I had with Dr. Kostelenos in evaluating the data sources and in the joint construction of the GDP deflator. Let me, in this occasion, express my gratitude to Dr. Sphakianakis, who is responsible for all the econometric operations, and to Dr. George Mitrophanis, who has generously let me use his data on prices. I bear, of course, full responsibility for all the various estimations and their eventual shortcomings.

)9391-3381( eceerG fo tuptuo larutlucirga eht rof setamitse eht gnisiveR

The purpose of this paper is to present a new estimate of the agricultural output of Greece
1

Socrates D. PETMEZAS

The Research group on the Greek GDP is composed of Dr. George Kostelenos (KEPE), Prof. Demetrius Vassileiou (EUA), Dr. Michael Sphakianakis (KEPE/EUA) and

I also wish to add that this new estimate was only made possible thanks to the intensive and

The small independent kingdom of Greece was founded in 1832, after 12 years of a long and extremely destructive War of Independence in the Southern provinces of present day Greece. It was a country of small-owners and small cultivators of state lands whose agricultural trade was characterized by its almost total dependence on currant exports to finance the imports of wheat and other basic foodstuffs. Nevertheless, in the 19th century its population increased with an unprecedented steady rate of growth (1,5% annually). The combination of the currant crisis (1893-1908) and the default of public finances (1893), which led to the imposition of the International financial control (1897-1945), has produced a chronic income crisis in the countryside in the 1890s. This crisis opened the way to a massive transatlantic emigration movement (1898-1924), which crippled the population growth rate (0.8% annually) and, consequently, partly cleared the latent rural underemployment and ameliorated labor productivity, without eliminating the structural deficiencies of the small-owner under-capitalized farms. In the Inter-war period the exchange of population between Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria swell the country with a mass of impoverished refugees, while the American outlet was sealed. Rural underemployment surged once again.

In the meantime, territorially the country was dramatically transformed. It relentlessly expanded and achieved its present configuration in 1947. In every expansion phase, the Greek territory and population increased, but at the same time the country incorporated new, usually extended and structurally different provinces (see Table 1). Only the first incorporation of the small but densely populated Ionian Republic, in 1865, had associated to the country a relatively more developed territory. The Ionian land tenure system was different from the independent small-owner economy of the Kingdom of Greece, but the specialization of the Ionian Islands in the same cash crops (currants and olive oil) and their heavy dependence on wheat imports made the incorporation relatively frictionless. Greeces structural cereal deficiency was aggravated, but the country had achieved an almost complete natural monopoly in the production of currants. The next expansion phase of Thessaly and the Epirotan province of Arta, in 1881, transformed radically the social profile of the countryside. The sparsely populated Thessalian plains, with their large estates cultivated by a sharecropping rural population, vividly contrasted with the rest of the country. The so-called agrarian problem of Greece was aggravated with the incorporation of Epirus and Greek Macedonia in 1913. In 1913-1919 the Greek territory and population more than doubled, but the new provinces were once again economically less developed than the southern nucleus.

seirotirret dna sreitnorf gnignahC

tnempoleved cihpargomeD

stcaf cisab emoS

I shall begin by making a quick reference to the main sociopolitical factors which influenced the Greek agricultural economy and, consequently, played a significant role in the medium-term development of the agricultural output.

Table 1 The expansion of the Modern Greek State (1832-1947)3

area km2 47.516 50.211 63.606 63.212 120.887 150.176 129.281 131.944 Population general population (.000) density (inh/km2) 753 15,85 1.365 27,19 2.072 32,58 2.466 39,01 4.775 39,50 5.536 36,86 5.802 44,88 7.563 57,32

1832 1864 1881 1897 1913 1919 1923 1947

Peloponnese, Continental Greece, Cyclades Ionian Islands Thessaly and the province of Arta small loss of territory, no population losses Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, Samos, Northern Aegean Islands Thrace (Eastern and Western) Eastern Thrace ceded to the Turkish Republic Dodecanese

After the long and bloody Wars of 1912-1922, Greece was financially indebted and politically divided. In the socially turbulent Inter-war period a series of major developments occurred. The country was burdened by a net inflow of one million refugees (i.e. a 20% increase of the population). A part of them were resettled in the countryside and profited, along with the former sharecroppers, from the radical Land Reform. If the social effects of the Reform (i.e. the end of the agrarian question in the northern provinces and the refugee resettlement) were undoubtedly positive, its economic results were, and still are, subject to debate. The Greek countryside was finally transformed into a sea of undercapitalized small-owners, indebted to the newly founded (in 1928) public Agricultural Bank. Plans were prepared to finance the necessary projects of refugee settlement, land amendment and drainage for the heavy and marshy northern plains, which were extensively used, partly as pastures and partly as arable land. But the necessary capital was lacking and only part of the projects was operational in the 1930ies, while others were completed after the wars of 1940-1949. State intervention in agricultural markets, institutional support and public financial engagement in the rural economy were absolutely novel phenomena in the Inter-war period, but they proved efficient only in the final years before the Second World War. This War and the Civil War, which followed (1947-1949), were particularly destructive for the agricultural economy. Only by having in mind this particularly tumultuous historical trajectory we can interpret correctly the long-term development and the medium-term fluctuations of the Greek rural economy.

Greece is usually absent from major sources of historical statistics, to say nothing of its absence from the literature of economic history. Let me say that this does not happen because the official statistical institutions were non-existent or because censuses were not conducted. On the contrary, the Greek State has accumulated a long series of demographic, social and economic statistics. It is true that the precision and comprehensiveness of the collected statistical data is still a question open to debate. Furthermore, some basic economic indicators were only collected since the Inter-war period (among which, unfortunately, are prices and wages). Nevertheless, we possess a large pool of

See SIAMPOS (1973, ***)

secruos lacitsitatS ehT

doirep raW-retnI lacitirc ehT

(under-exploited) information which, making reasonable assumptions, can be used to build a satisfactory database of historical statistics on the agricultural production. A Bureau of Finance and Statistics (BFS) attached to the Ministry of Interior was founded in 1835 and collected various statistical data ever since. Other administrative departments (customs and taxation) of the Ministry of Finance kept their own data and archival collections. Some of these data have been published and others have been released to various authorities and friendly observers. The major source of information, the BFS, was reorganized in 1859 and began to collect and publish population, production and trade statistics. After temporarily reaching a low ebb (1882-1910), the collection of data on production and trade was ameliorated and, in 1913, the BFS was substituted by an independent National Statistical Service (NSS). The richest and more coherent statistical sources concern the Greek population. Population enumeration was attempted for the first time in 18284 and the first effective population census was successfully contacted in 1861. Since then, censuses were attempted almost once every decade5 and the data have been precise enough for demographers to attempt a retrospective estimation of the vital population statistics6. The other group of statistical information was the agricultural censuses attempted since 18617. The first 1861 agricultural census grossly underestimated the sown arable land, but it has apparently evaluated more or less correctly the agricultural and livestock output in the small kingdom of Greece8. Two more agricultural censuses were conducted in 1875 and 1887, but their results were never officially published. Only aggregate figures are given for the 1875 census9 and the more detailed results of the 1887 census have been rashly published in an Almanac for the year 189010. The officially

For details see CHOULIARAKIS (1971). Population enumeration was conducted in the

following years : 1839, 1842, 1848, 1851, 1856.

5

Population censuses have been conducted in the following years : 1861, 1865 (Ionian Islands

only), 1870, 1879, 1881 (Thessaly and the province of Arta only), 1889, 1896, 1900 (Crete only), 1907, 1911 (Crete only), 1913 (the newly annexed provinces), 1920, 1928, 1940 (data destroyed during the war), 1947 (the Dodecanese only), 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991.
6

See VALAORAS (1960) and SIAMPOS (1971). The BFS has also published the vital population

statistics (1861-1889) but they are inaccurate. Their collection was discontinued until the Inter-war period. Since then vital population statistics are precise and can be safely used.
7

A first comprehensive state collection of agricultural statistics was attempted in 1828 but has

not produced any usable aggregate results. A large (and unknown) part of the countryside escaped the enumeration see PETMEZAS (2003).
8 9

See PETMEZAS (2003). See MANSOLAS (1876). Data are given separately for the original provinces and the newly

annexed Ionian Islands. Consequently, the aggregate data of the 1875 census can be compared to the data of the 1861 census.
10

See Panellenios Syntrofos (1891, 755-789). Selected data from this census were published

by BICKFORD-SMITH (1893).

published agricultural census in 1911 is of excellent quality and painstaking detail on sown areas and livestock capital. The published results of the 1911 census offer the most detailed regional disaggregation of the productive capacity and their details have been surpassed only by that of the 1961 agricultural census. Since 1911 production data were abundantly collected : we possess a series of agricultural censuses for the years 192911, 193912 and 195013, an agricultural census for the new provinces of Northern Greece in 1914 and the annual statistics of agricultural production and livestock capital for the years 1914-193814. This vast collection of data offers detail on cultivated surface, livestock capital, agricultural and, sometimes, livestock production15. Totally different sources of information are the annual official Tables of Foreign Trade published since 185316. They provide coherent data on imports and exports and are one of the rare kind of sources that offer information on prices. Valuable information can also be obtained by the annual official publication of the Public revenues and expenses17. Production estimates for various products have been derived from taxation on agricultural and livestock production since 183018. Semi-official publications and books by state officials, like Mansolas and Skiadas, heads of the BFS, and contemporary economic reviews and bulletins19 give complementary information. Wellinformed contemporary Greek politicians and businessmen and European travelers (merchants,

11

Contemporary critics have observed that the aggregate data of 1929 underestimate total

output because of under-registration of agricultural production in various areas of Northern Greece. No such evidence is discernable in the published data. Output is certainly one of the lowest registered during the Inter-war period, but contemporary observers who thought that the 1929 production was particularly poor confirm this fact.
12

The data were destroyed during the Second World War. EVELPIDIS (1944) published, during

the War, some preliminary aggregate results.

13 14

Since then agricultural censuses were conducted in 1961, 1971, 1981, and 1991. Livestock production is estimated since 1931. An Annuary of the agricultural production

was published by the NSS every year.

15

It can also be used to evaluate factor cost prices relative to market prices for the selected

years, cf. supra, p.18.

16

The first data were published in the Official Gazette for the years 1852-1858. Data were

published in separate publications since 1859. These official publications were discontinued in the years 1876-1886.
17

For details see DERTILIS (1993). My colleagues Prof. E. PRONTZAS and N. MELIOS of the

Research group on Public Revenues have generously provided updated information from their databank concerning cereal and olive-oil tithes and the cultivated surface of tobacco and vineyard.
18

Mostly used for the estimation of wheat production (a tithe until 1880), olive-oil production

(a tithe until 1918) and the surface cultivated with tobacco (1881-1908).
19

See Efemeris tes Ellenikis Georgias, Elleniki Georgia, Oikonomiki Epitheorisi,

Panhellenios Syntrofos, Deltion tou Ypourgeiou ton Esoteikon (1908).

diplomats and financiers) who had privileged access to unpublished official data, also provide valuable additional information. They are of particular interest because they cover the first thirty years of out study period and fill the gaps when state authorities have been neglecting their task.

studying the Greek GDP (1858-1938), constructed the first such estimate. His method was similar to the one adopted in this paper, but, when estimating the pre-1914 output, suffers from the following shortcomings : Kostelenos did not use the data of the original 1911 agricultural census or the complete series of official Tables of Foreign Trade. The agricultural statistic of 1887, was rediscovered only in 1997, and it was unavailable to him when he prepared his databank. He chose to estimate the wheat output by assuming that per capita consumption was constant for long intervals of time20. Production of wheat (Px) was assumed to be a function of constant consumption (Cx+1) minus next years net imports (Mx+1Xx+1). In my estimate wheat production is a function of next years cereal imports. Since he had inadequate data on wine production, he estimated the production of wine and grapes as pro-rata to the (known) production of currants. Unfortunately currants, an export staple, experienced a very rapid expansion all along the 19th century. On the contrary, wine was mainly consumed in the internal market and did not experience the same long-term movement as currants. I have linked wine production with the known average land productivity (kg of wine per ha) and a relatively acceptable estimation of planted surface. The Olive oil production was estimated through a very rough method that consisted of filling the blanks with gross interpolations of production in good and bad years. In order to establish the quality of each annual olive harvest, Kostelenos used an incomplete set of data from tax receipts and exports was used. I have established an almost complete series of export and tax receipt data, which I have used in order to construct a comprehensive series of predictions for olive oil production. In almost all other major products (especially in tobacco, potatoes, cotton, other cereals) the data were incomplete. I have a much better estimate of the tobacco production. The data on prices used by KOSTELENOS were incomplete and unreliable for the late decades of the 19th century. As a consequence, his chained GDP deflator for the last quarter of the 19th century was unsatisfactory. I have a much richer collection of prices in my disposition (wheat, barley, maize, olive oil, wine, meat, milk, currants). Dr. Kostelenos and I used it in order to construct a new GDP deflator, which is much more satisfactory than the old one.

tuptuo larutlucirga fo etamitse )5991( SONELETSOK ehT

No comprehensive effort has been made to construct a long series of agricultural output until 1995, except for some fragmentary estimates of total agricultural output. Dr G. KOSTELENOS (1995),
20

He also used data on wheat production (THRY 1905) which were undoubtedly wrong.

It will be shown that my own estimate ends up with an output that is somewhat lower than the one of KOSTELENOS (1995). It is more important to underline that the new GDP deflator produces an output which is clearly growing in constant prices, while the older GDP deflator overestimated the output in constant prices at the middle of the 19th century.

This study is part of a larger research program, which aimed to estimate the Greek GDP (1830-1939), revising and completing the earlier KOSTELENOS (1995) estimate. I have opted for the output method. It was the only one that could be used with our kind of data. For the agricultural sector this meant calculating directly the volume of production for the major agricultural and livestock products, net of intra-sectoral transfers and intermediate use, and then applying selected prices to estimate its value at current prices (drachma)21. For those agricultural products for which data were missing, rational assumptions for mark-ups were made22. Livestock capital has been estimated but we have very scanty evidence for livestock production before the 1930ies. Simple models were built to calculate livestock production (meat, milk and wool) from the number of sheep, goats and cattle. In principle we were interested only in the non-subsistence part of the economy. The agricultural output I have calculated as a part of the Greek GDP, is thus in effect always lower than the real physical output of the agricultural economy. It is nevertheless certain than part of the subsistence production has been introduced in our estimates, especially in the earlier years, because of the indirect methods used for the calculation of the various components of the agricultural output. Another source of error relates to the growing percentage of formerly subsistence production that is later marketed and aggregated into the estimated total agricultural output in the later years. It does not represent a real growth of physical output, but nevertheless it is now calculated as part of the GDP growth, inflating the rates of growth. Finally, it is possible that a small part of the non-subsistence production was left out, especially in the later years. This concerns agricultural goods which are too marginal in value to be included into the benchmark statistical data and have thus eluded our attention. We dispose a rather complete series of annual data on selected agricultural products and livestock capital from 1914 to 1938. Corrections were made to fill the small gaps of data in various years. During the First World War (1917-1918) some northern provinces were occupied and their production and population were evidently not aggregated into the data. Meaningful corrections were made, by using data from former and subsequent years. Data for the pre-1914 period and data for the final year 1939 were not covered in the same way. The benchmark years (1860, 1875, 1887, 1911) were used to cover the gap.

21

The golden drachma was pegged to the French Franc at an 1,12 : 1 ratio before November

1881 and at an 1:1 ratio since then. Paper drachma was unconvertible and fluctuated below parity.
22

The relation of the value of these products to the value of other known aggregate series in

selected benchmark years (1860, 1875, 1887, 1911, 1914-1938) was adopted for this kind of estimates. When possible a minimum and a maximum value was calculated.

dohtem tuptuo na : ygolodohteM

In order to estimate the 1939 production, I used the preserved data from the 1939 census in combination with data on prices and volumes for 1938,. For the pre-1914 period the agricultural censuses and statistics of 1861, 1875, 1887 and 1911 provided valuable benchmark years, to fill the gap. Tax and customs authorities provided data for tithes, imports and exports of various key-products which can be used to construct long series of volume estimates since 1848. The pre-1848 data are unreliable, because of changes in the tax tariffs. Only very gross estimates were attempted for this period.

4191 erofeb noitcudorp larutlucirga fo emulov eht gnitamitsE

The Greek agriculture has been traditionally dependent on only a few major products : wheat, barley, maize, tobacco, olive-oil, wine, currants and dry figs. Livestock production (meat, wool, hides and milk with its derivatives) was mainly based on the use of two animals : sheep and goats. Other animals were of lesser importance. Some products (cotton and silkworm cocoons) had a temporary importance, as in commercialized agricultural production, while others are related to the modernization of Greek agriculture (like the increased use of cattle and pigs). In this research, I have calculated the volume of production for each major product and made reasonable assumptions for mark-ups in order to calculate the value of minor productions (pulses, vegetables, fresh and dry fruits). Wheat was traditionally the most important cereal in Greece, although the country was deficient in its production and mainly imported wheat for the consumption in the cities and those rural areas that were specialized in export agriculture. Only few other cereals were produced and directly consumed like barley, sowed with wheat (maslin) in the dry Southeastern provinces, and maize, sowed in the more humid Western provinces. Rye, sorghum and millet were of limited and localized use. Oats, which was used only as a fodder crop, also grew in the Western part of the country23.
23

See PETMEZAS (2003).

slaerec rehto dna taehW

average wheat consumption in kg. per capita 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
1851-60 1861-70 1871-80 1881-90

production

net imports

20

35

53

60 58

68

54

85

84

76

75

67

78

79

1891-900

1901-10

1911-14

Figure 1. Average annual consumption of wheat in kg per capita The annual wheat production is known for 18 separate years, a relatively satisfactory statistical series used as a dependent variable. It is combined with the volume of imported cereals, for the years 1851-1914, used as an independent variable24. An econometric regression was sought to express the relationship between the two variables. Many different options (using other variables as well) were examined and the best result was attained with an exponential regression linking the production of wheat (Px) with the imports of cereals of the following year (MCx+1). The fit was satisfactory (R2 = 0,53, MSE = 0,081 and p < 0,001). The pre-1850 production was estimated by using the tithe revenues for the years 1833-1865 and the already predicted production of wheat for the years 1850-1865 (R2 = 0,93, MSE = 0,121 and p < 0,001)25. The predicted and the known values of the aggregate wheat production are observed in Figure 2.

24

Exports were negligible and were discontinued after the incorporation of the Ionian Islands.

Cereal imports were mainly in wheat (90%).

25

All econometric models presented in this paper were designed and run by

Dr. M. SPHAKIANAKIS.

400.000.000 kg. 350.000.000

W heat production (known values with red mark). Trend as a 4-degree polynomial

300.000.000

250.000.000

200.000.000 R = 0,8627 150.000.000

2

100.000.000

50.000.000

0
18 33 18 36 18 39 18 42 18 45 18 48 18 51 18 54 18 57 18 60 18 63 18 66 18 69 18 72 18 75 18 78 18 81 18 84 18 87 18 90 18 93 18 96 18 99 19 02 19 05 19 08 19 11 19 14 19 17 19 20 19 23 19 26 19 29

Figure 2 Known and predicted values of wheat production In Figure 1 the long-term development of per capita wheat consumption confirms that the assumptions of the regression are well founded. The per capita wheat consumption in Greece rises from an average of 105 kg, in 1851-1860, to 119 and 129 kg in the next two decades. This substantial rise is undoubtedly due to the displacement of other cereals from wheat. In the 1880s the average consumption reaches 135 kg per capita and falls to 125 kg in the 1890s, when Greek imports shrink globally because of the acute crisis of Greek public finances. It rises again to 144 kg in the first decade of the 20th century and falls to 133 kg in the war years of 1911-1914. CHECK 1911-1940. The wheat production per capita decreases slowly until the beginning of the 20th century. Since 1900 the Thessalian cereal producers, using the newly built railroad network, begun, finally, to provide the internal market with wheat. Consequently, the wheat estimates are not in contradiction with what we already know about the evolution of wheat production and consumption in Greece. Table 2. Coefficients used for the estimation of the production and final use of other cereals
product wheat barley oats rye maslin maize sorghum fodder crops cereals used as a final good Italy Greece 95,0% 100,0% 15,0% 25,0% 20,0% 0,0% 50,0% 100,0% 95,0% 100,0% 50,0% 80,0% 50,0% 80,0% 0,0% as % in produced cereal output 1833-92 1893-1920 1920-1940 42,0% 43,0% 48,0% 16,0% 17,0% 16,0% 1,5% 7,0% 9,0% 0,5% 3,0% 4,0% 10,0% 5,0% 3,0% 28,5% 25,0% 20,0% 1,5% 100% 100% 100%

Once the volume of wheat was calculated, I estimated the volume of the other cereals produced, using the nine benchmark years for which we dispose information (for the pre-1914 period) about the composition of the produced volume of cereals (see Table 2). The next step was to calculate the volume of cereals used for human consumption. This was a difficult decision to make because we dispose detailed information only for the late Inter-War period (EVELPIDIS 1944, 90). These coefficients are fairly different from the Italian coefficients calculated by ZAMAGNI (1975, 71). Other

different assumptions have also been tested. Finally, I have opted for the adoption of the standard EVELPIDIS coefficients because all other reasonable choices made very little aggregate difference26.

Since I was supposed to calculate a global agricultural output index, I was relieved from the task of calculating the volume and value of cereals, pulses and other crops used as fodder27. This value is integrated in the aggregate value of livestock production28. The only other important crops, sown annually, were vegetables, pulses, potato and other roots, tobacco, cotton and other industrial crops. Tobacco was a cash crop whose total volume and value grew incessantly since the 1850ies. It only became an important export product after the incorporation of Thessaly in 1881. Since the incorporation of Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace, Greece was transformed into the most important tobacco producer in the Balkans and tobacco displaced currants as the most important export staple. Data on the annual volume of tobacco production and exports have been available since 1881. In order to cover the thirty previous years, I have used the sparse information on production, sown area and the export data for the 1851-1879 period. The pre-1850 period is covered by two estimates of production for the years 1840 (volume) and 1846 (value). Data gap was filled with linear interpolations and minimal and maximal estimates were calculated. Table 3 Mark-up coefficients on the aggregate value of cereals
pulses (1833-1892) (1893-1913) vegetables minimal other industrial crops 1% minimal 1,50% 2,50% 1833-1875 1,10% maximal 2% 1887 2,50% maximal 3,00% 5,00% 1911 7,50%

26

I have made various tests with my data using the ZAMAGNI coefficients and other

intermediate choices (i.e. 0% final use for barley). Final differences, estimated with constant prices, were minimal.
27

As a consequence, the value of the output of livestock husbandry incorporates a part of the

final value produced in the agrarian sector (fodder etc.).

28

The imports and exports of fodder crops were negligible. I gave up the idea of calculating

the value of fodder sold in the internal market and used by those providing transportation services in the non-agricultural sectors.

sporc nwos yllaunna rehto dna nottoc ,occaboT

14.000.000 kg. 12.000.000

Tobacco production (known values with red marks). The trend is a 5-degree polynomial

10.000.000

8.000.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

R = 0,8712
2.000.000

0 1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

Figure 3 Known and predicted values of tobacco production Data for cotton and potato were very sparse and I mostly used linear interpolations between the known data. In order to estimate the value of pulses and vegetables, a mark-up on the calculated total not the final one value of aggregate cereal production was adopted. For the other industrial crops the mark-up was calculated on the aggregated value of cotton and tobacco. Coefficients, built on relations observed in the benchmark years (1860, 1875, 1887, 1911, 1914-1938), changed every subperiod and a minimal/maximal value was calculated (see Table 3).

The most important Greek export was currants. Until the late 1890 the produced crop was almost entirely exported. Since 1893, a growing part of the production was kept as extra tax and was locally processed by the alcohol and beverages industry. Its value has been aggregated into the industrial sector29. We dispose the full series of volume and value of Greek currant production since 1830. Things were different with wine and olive oil, two important commercial productions primarily destined to the internal market and only partly exported. In order to estimate the pre-1914 production of wine and olive oil, I have used two different methods. For wine production, which has not shown any marked technological or cultural amelioration until the Inter-War period, I have calculated the average land productivity (1.978 kg of wine per ha) and the long-term expansion of planted surface until 1914. I have thus been able to estimate the average annual wine output. In order to

29

Since 1903, a small part of the surplus production was bought, in minimal guaranteed

prices, by a public credit institution and later by a privileged private company. It was disposed like the rest of the product captured as tax in kind.

separg elbide dna eniw ,stnarruC

calculate the re-1914 value of edible grapes, which is known for the post-1914 period, I have used a 7% mark-up coefficient (estimated as an average from the known values of the 1914-1921 period).

Olive oil was an important element in my calculations, both because of its growing part in the aggregate value of the agricultural production and because of its abrupt fluctuation. Only two out of five olive-oil harvests were successful and this should be reflected in the aggregate output. Information on the planted surface and the number of olive trees were contradictory and I had to make reasonable corrections30. The known data on production in the period 1830-1913 covered only 16 years, but I disposed of two additional series, which reflected the annual fluctuation of the production : the tithe in cash (1848-1859, 1880-1913) and the volume of exports (1851-1875 and 1887-1913). Various models were tested and the best fit, for the years 1848-1913, was that of a multiple regression which predicted the production (Px) using the tithe (Tx+1) and exports (Xx+1) of the following year (R2=0.79, DurbinWatson=2.005 and p1<0.001, p2<0.001). For the 1833-1847 period, Dr. Sphakianakis used a linear regression, having as a dependent variable the predicted volume of the olive oil production (Px) for the years 1848-1864 and as an independent variable the land tax (Tx+1) of the years 1833-1865 (R2=0.35, p<0.05).
200.000.000 kg 180.000.000 160.000.000 140.000.000 120.000.000 100.000.000 80.000.000 60.000.000 40.000.000 20.000.000

0 1833 1838 1843 1848 1853 1858 1863 1868 1873 1878 1883 1888 1893 1898 1903 1908 1913 1918 1923 1928 1933 1938

The value of edible olives was unknown before 1911. In order to estimate it I have used a mark-up coefficient on the olive-oil value of 8,2%, calculated after the relative value of the two products in 1911 and 1914-1938 series.

Dry figs are the only other production for which data are available for six separate years before 1914. The export series (1859-1875, 1887-1913) helped me predict production when other data
30

See PETMEZAS (2003).

sevilo elbide dna lio evilO

Olive-oil production (known values with red-mark). Trend is an exponential model R 2 = 0,7603

Figure 4 Known and predicted values of olive-oil production

stiurf rehto dna sgiF yrD

were missing. For the unknown years (1841-1859 and 1876-1886) the simple method of linear interpolation was used. The 1833-39 production was assumed as equal to the 1840 production. For the other dry and fresh fruit, a mark-up coefficient, relative to the 5-year mobile average of the aggregate value of wine, olive oil and dry figs, was used. It was calculated as a linear interpolation between two points : the percentage of the value of dry and fresh fruits on the total value of olive oil, wine and dry figs in 1914 (11,62%, i.e. the average percentage of the period 1914-1938) and the respective percentage in 1860 (6,17%).

and p<0.001).

latipac kcotsevil eht gnitamitsE

Data on livestock production were missing before 1931. Only in 1860 an estimation of livestock production in milk, meat, wool, cocoons, wax and honey was officially calculated. What scholars disposed of usually were estimates of the total number of livestock capital. What I myself attempted was to produce a relatively reliable series of livestock capital for the most important livestock : sheep, goats and cattle. Animal husbandry was using natural resources extensively and transhumant shepherds were directly competing with agriculturists for the use of disposable arable land in the plains, where the former traditionally rented their winter pastures. Until the Inter-War period, sheep and goats provided the bulk of livestock products like milk, meat and wool. Cattle was mainly raised and used for its traction power. Since then a growing number of farms bought milking cows in order to produce marketable milk and meat. This trend was combined with the radical shrinkage of winter pastures due to the Land Reform of the 1920ies. As a result the productivity of animals was raised, but their total number was reduced. The total number of ship and goats is relatively well known, since animal taxation was assessed on a per capita base. In the 1852-1913 period we know the number of sheep and goats for 27 separate years. We also dispose the aggregate animal taxation for the years 1833-1939. The best fit was given by a model using the animal tax with one year lag (Tx+1) as the independent variable (R2=0.71

staoG dna peehS

Table 4 The number of animals per km2 and per capita

per capita goat 2,80 2,14 2,04 1,62 1,21 1,01 0,89 0,88 0,76 0,73 0,74 1,70 0,93 0,73 per km2 goat 52 41 47 45 46 44 45 52 44 53 62 44,78 47,36 52,14 45 44 46 44 39 34 35 37 29 35 39 43,59 35,10 33,58

sheep 1833-1842 1843-1852 1853-1862 1863-1872 1873-1882 1883-1892 1893-1902 1903-1912 1913-1922 1923-1932 1933-1938 1850-1880 1881-1913 1914-1939 3,20 2,00 2,07 1,63 1,42 1,29 1,15 1,24 1,16 1,11 1,18 1,73 1,25 1,13

cattle 0,38 0,27 0,26 0,20 0,17 0,15 0,13 0,12 0,11 0,14 0,14 0,21 0,14 0,13

sheep

cattle 6,12 5,48 5,75 5,47 5,36 5,26 5,00 5,20 4,15 6,60 7,36 5,54 5,08 6,02

The number of animals substantially grew with every territorial expansion of Greece and subsequently stagnated (i.e. the number of animals per km2 stagnated), which means that in per capita terms the number of sheep and goats constantly fell (see Table 4). The late Inter-War period is the sole exception to this rule, when the number of sheep and cattle rose both in absolute and relative terms (see Figure 5).
9.000.000

Number of sheep and goat (known values marked)

8.000.000

7.000.000

6.000.000

5.000.000

4.000.000

sheep goats

3.000.000

2.000.000

1.000.000

0
18 33 18 36 18 39 18 42 18 45 18 48 18 51 18 54 18 57 18 60 18 63 18 66 18 69 18 72 18 75 18 78 18 81 18 84 18 87 18 90 18 93 18 96 18 99 19 02 19 05 19 08 19 11 19 14 19 17 19 20 19 23 19 26 19 29 19 32 19 35 19 38

Figure 5 Known and predicted values for the number of sheep and goats Once the number of animals was calculated, I applied a specific set of functions and coefficients in order to estimate (for every time period) the volume of milk, meat and wool produced from every subgroup of animals (see Table 5)31.

31

These functions and coefficients are those proposed by contemporary specialists

(UOA/NBG)

Table 5 Coefficients and functions to calculate the volume of livestock products from sheep and goat
19141940 6,5 3,0% 4,0% 80,0% 0,96 44,87 14,40 3,60 8,68 2,40 sheep 188118331913 1880 7,5 8,5 4,0% 5,0% 5,0% 6,0% 80,0% 80,0% 0,96 32,05 13,35 3,00 7,92 0,96 25,64 12,31 3,00 7,15 18331850 19141940 8 3,0% 4,0% 80,0% 0,36 51,28 11,79 3,90 5,90 goats 188118331913 1880 9 10 4,0% 5,0% 5,0% 6,0% 80,0% 80,0% 0,32 51,28 9,74 3,45 4,87 0,48 25,64 7,69 3,00 3,83 18331850

life cycle in years (y) male as % of herd (m) annual rate of growth (r) fecundated females as % (d) wool (kg) milk (kg) meat of sheep/goat (kg) hides of sheep/goat (kg) meat of lambs (kg) hides of lambs (kg) number of sheep/goat number of slaughtered sheep number of slaughtered lambs

12,82 0,65

12,82 0,65

2,00 1,00 functions

0,78 2,60 1,15 1,00 0,78 using coefficients to calculate the volumes of : wool /y meat and hides of sheep or goats

N*((d-(m*d)-(2*d/y)-((1+(r*y))/y))

It was more difficult to estimate the number of cattle since I disposed only of a few series of data, long enough to accept an econometric treatment. The best fit was attained with a linear regression for the years 1833-1939 (R2=0.75 and p<0.001) using the animal tax (Tx+1) as the independent variable and the number of non-draft cattle as the dependent variable. A comparable linear regression (R2=0.31 and p<0.1) was calculated to predict the total number of cattle (as a dependent variable) using the animal tax (Tx+1) as an independent variable. Using both series I have calculated the number of draft cattle (oxen and draft cows). Once these major groups were estimated, I have used the relations observed in the benchmark years (1860, 1875, 1887, 1911, 1929, and 1931-1938) in order to calculate the number of oxen, draft cows, milking cows, bulls and other non-castrated males, born calves and slaughtered calves in the 1833-1930 period.

meat, hides of lambs and milk

sevlac laev dna swoc gniklim ,elttaC

1.000.000

Number of cattle (known values marked)

900.000

800.000 cattle 700.000 oxen & draught cows calves not-slaughtered calves born m ilking cows not oxen & draught cows

600.000

500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0
33 837 841 845 849 853 857 861 865 869 873 877 881 885 889 893 897 901 905 909 913 917 921 925 929 933 937 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 6 Known and predicted number of cattle (by category) Once the number of cattle, milking cows and slaughtered calves and cattle (this last is considered as equal to the number of not slaughtered calves) was calculated, I applied the coefficients of Table 6 in order to estimate the livestock production (milk, meat and hides) from cattle. Table 6 Coefficients for the calculation of the volume of livestock products from cattle
coefficient milk per milking cow (kg) meat per slaughtered cattle (kg) hide per slaughtered cattle (kg) meat per slaughtered calf (kg) hide per slaughtered calf (kg) 1914-1930 193 71 15 35,75 8 1881-1913 127 66 12,5 34 6,5 1833-1880 62 62 10 32 5

Information on the number of buffaloes, pigs, horses, mules, donkeys, beehives and poultry was too fragmentary to built regressions estimating their number. In the same time they were relatively marginal in livestock production counting for less than 10 % of its total value in 1860 and in 1938. It was simpler and more secure to use mark-up coefficients in order to estimate the value of their produce32. For buffaloes I used a mark-up coefficient, which was multiplied with the aggregate value produced from cattle : 0,5% in 1883-1880, 2% in 1881-1913 and 5% afterwards. The number of pigs was estimated by multiplying the number of sheep and goat by 2,5% (as a minimal) and 4,5% (as a maximal). Each pig produced in cash the equivalent of 80 kg of wheat (as in 1860).

32

See PETMEZAS (2003).

noitcudorp dna latipac kcotsevil fo tser eht morf setamitse noitcudorP

The value of newly born horses, donkeys and mules is estimated by multiplying by 4% the aggregate value of the sheep and goats production (as in 1860). The same variable was multiplied by 3% (again as in 1860) so that the value of the production of beehives, rabbits and poultry (meat, eggs, honey and wax) to integrate. Silkworm growing was an important branch of rural activities. Silk production in itself is an industrial activity and only the raising of silkworm cocoons for export or for sale to specialized Greek silk producers was integrated into the agricultural output. Export of cocoons was registered since 1858 and coincided with the beginning of a long-term fall of production due to silk grain disease. The newly incorporated provinces of Thessaly gave a new but modest rise in Greek exports in cocoons. In order to estimate the value of silkworm cocoons, I used a mark-up coefficient on the aggregate value of agrarian (i.e. excluding livestock) production : 3% in 1855-1865, 0,5% in 1866-1880 and 1% in 1881-1913.

the vulnerability of his (older) GDP deflator. His prices were 1) mostly prices of agricultural and mineral products and 2) mainly concentrated on the middle years of the 19th (i.e. 1860 and 1875) and the early years of the 20th centuries (1914). In building his GDP deflator he used prices of uncertain quality from 1899. It is precisely in this latter third of the 19th century that the KOSTELENOS old GDP Deflator is unsatisfactory. The new deflator constructed by Kostelenos and myself was based on a more suitable basket of goods (though they are still predominantly agricultural and mineral products) and has substituted the doubtful 1899 prices with a much more suitable group of prices from 1887. Furthermore, current prices have been greatly ameliorated thanks to the new data provided from the Price Index Research Group. They are still mainly prices of agricultural and mineral products and they all share a major deficiency : they are market prices and not factor-cost prices. We have tried to adjust them by using a mark-down coefficient (ratio of factor to market price) for each set of prices, calculated from already known prices of benchmark years (1860, 1875, 1887, 1911). Another group of prices, used when others were unavailable, were market prices in ports of trade (it is more correct to talk of official estimates of average prices) from the annual Tables of Foreign Trade. Their main defect is that these prices are sometimes fixed for a number of years. But they are the only ones we have. In this way price series were constructed for wheat, barley, maize and the other cereals, potato, tobacco, cotton, wine, olive-oil, currants, dry figs, meat, milk, wool and hides. The new prices and the new GDP deflator are much more reliable than those used by KOSTELENOS (1995). Yet they still constitute the least satisfactory part of my estimate. Using these prices I have calculated the current value of each key product. Then I calculated the current value of the intermediate aggregates, which were used for the mark-ups (global cereal production, value of cotton and tobacco, value of olive oil, wine and dry figs, value of agrarian production, value of livestock products from sheep and goats and value of livestock products from cattle). Finally, I estimated the aggregate current value of the final

srotalfed dna secirp fo noitseuq ehT

The question of prices and deflators is probably the one that the next generation of economic historians of Greece will have to intensively address. KOSTELENOS (1995, 310-316) himself underlined

agricultural production. The respective value in constant prices also was estimated by using the new GDP deflator.

1858

1860

1862

1864

1866

1868

1870

1872

1874

1876

1878

1880

1882

1884

1886

1888

1890

1892

1894

1896

1898

1900

1902

1904

1906

1908

1910

1912

1914

1916

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

Kostelenos (1995)

Petmezas (1999)

figure 7 The index of agricultural output in current drachmas It should be underlined that this rise in per capita terms is due to a relatively faster growth of per capita efficiency of agricultural labor and more intensive exploitation of the soil (see Table 7: columns 7 and 8, and Figure 8). The proxy for agricultural labor is the population living in agglomerations with less than 2.000 inhabitants, hereafter called rural inhabitants. The rise of agricultural labor efficiency is slow but constant in the 19th century. A clear jump in the 15 first years of the 20th century is certainly due to transatlantic emigration and the consequent shrinkage of latent rural underemployment. After a decade of stagnation, labor efficiency grew once again in the 1930ies.

1938

xednI tuptuO wen ehT

The new output calculated in current prices is shown in figure 7 and in Table 7 (column 4). Its exponential growth is due to the rapid devaluation of the currency in the Interwar period. The use of constant prices (deflated with the new GDP deflator) gives a more satisfactory point of view (see Table 7 : column 5). Yet the relentless territorial expansion of the country biases the results. The per capita output in constant prices gives a better picture. A slow but clear long-term rise is observable. It is best shown with a 9-year moving average which is steadily growing until the war years in late 1910s. After a painful shrink of output in the 1920ies, the pre war levels were attained and surpassed in the 1930ies (see Figure 8).
Agricultural Output (1914=100)
200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Table 7 Estimated agricultural output and its composition

agricultural outpput as agricultural output average agricultural output each branch as % of agricultural % of the GDP in million in constant drachmas output drachmas Kostelenos Petmezas current constant per per km2 per rural arable plantations livestock (1995) (1999) capita inhab. cultures 1833-1842 83,23% 66,5 88,1 114 1.853 147 30,5% 33,9% 35,6%
1843-1852 1853-1862 1863-1872 1873-1882 1883-1892 1893-1902 1903-1912 1913-1922 1923-1932 1933-1939

69,90% 74,48% 71,55% 70,02% 66,52% 57,17% 48,02% 44,02% 49,62%

76,52% 75,10% 73,40% 71,56% 69,96% 68,18% 58,83% 61,72%

67,8 113,4 161,8 212,7 290,1 338,8 362,4 2.298,4

84,4 113,0 147,6 199,5 259,9 284,6 406,0 774,7 916,8

86 105 108 118 120 117 154 155 149 184

1.776 2.378 2.969 3.786 4.085 4.574 6.423 5.925 7.092 9.796

114 141 144 161 170 171 229 240 254 329

28,9% 28,7% 31,3% 29,8% 24,5% 26,0% 31,7% 28,3% 29,6% 38,2%

31,6% 35,1% 39,9% 43,3% 41,8% 44,1% 38,2% 27,6% 23,7% 24,4%

39,5% 36,3% 28,9% 26,9% 33,7% 29,9% 30,1% 44,1% 46,7% 37,4%

56,41% 15.177,6

57,37% 26.370,5 1.266,4

The slow rise of agricultural labor productivity is reflected in the slow decrease of the percentage of the GDP produced in the primary sector (see Table 7 : column 3). It points to the real but modest expansion of the agricultural production, which was made possible thanks to two different components : the alleviation of latent agricultural underemployment in the early 20th century and the extensive but under-exploited natural resources in Northern Greece during the Inter-War Period. Only in the end of the Inter-war period these resources begun to be efficiently exploited.
180

Indexes of agricultural output in constant prices (1914=100)

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
18 48 18 51 18 54 18 57 18 60 18 63 18 66 18 69 18 72 18 75 18 78 18 81 18 84 18 87 18 90 18 93 18 96 18 99 19 02 19 05 19 08 19 11 19 14 19 17 19 20 19 23 19 26 19 29 19 32 19 35 19 38

per capita

per km2

per rural inh.

9-year mov.average (per cap.)

Figure 8 Growth indexes of the agricultural output

The pre-1848 data are particularly unreliable. They are estimated through extrapolations, which used the agricultural and livestock taxation as independent variables. They point to a rapid growth in the 1830ies and a painful economic depression in the middle1840ies. In 1847 the per capita

noitcudorp 0581 erp eht no eton A

output in constant prices was lower than the level of the final war years ! The recovery of the late 40ies helps the economy find its early 1840 level only in late 1850ies. This is totally unacceptable, because is in direct conflict with all the qualitative information we dispose. It is more probable that the 1843 military revolt and the subsequent institution of a Constitutional Monarchy, combined with the fiscal reforms of the period had led to a rapid fall of public revenues and biased our index. The data on exports and production of the 1830ies and early 1840ies, given by STRONG (1842) and LECOMTE (1847) show a rapid post war recovery and point to a relative stagnation in the late 1830ies and early 1840ies. Growth of all cash crops is testified in the late 1840 and early 1850ies. Cereal and livestock production seems to be simply stagnating in per capita terms33. Table 8 Correcting the per capita output index for the years 1830-1847 (1910=100)
year 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 53 67 77 index corrected 35 36 38 39 41 42 year 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 index 56 57 60 65 72 62 corrected 44 46 46 45 44 44 year 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 index 53 48 49 46 50 42 correc ted 43 43 42 42 43 45

I think that the pre-1848 index should be corrected by using this qualitative information. The post-1848 output index is of course accepted as it is. A mild per capita production fall (5-10%) can be accepted for the middle years of the 1840ies. The 1848 per capita output will be equated with the 1837 output and the rate of growth observed in 1833-1837 will be applied to the new 1830-1833 output. This will cure the observed shortcomings and preserve the rapid recovery from war in 1830-1837, which was observed by all contemporaries. Finally an economic recession (but not a catastrophic depression) will be accepted for the 1840-1845 period (see Table 8).

The assumptions made in order to build this estimate were intended to assure its medium-term precision in predicting the (unknown) agricultural output. Yet how precise is this estimate as a short-term prediction ? Short-term fluctuations are certainly biased because of our assumptions. This can be shown if we examine the production of Greece in calories (see figure 9). Production per capita in calories fluctuates between 1.500 and 2.000 calories (all time average 2.023 calories). The pre-1848 fall should not be taken into consideration because, as I have previously said, the direct estimate is erroneous for this period. The abrupt fall in the 1920ies is real and underlines the extreme difficulties the country faced during this period. I believe that the short-term oscillations are due to three factors. First to the fact that I have calculated the calorie input of the population using the agricultural production and not its consumption (Production + imports exports)34. Here I assume that agricultural exports finance the necessary imports in foodstuffs. This was more or less true in

33 34

See PETMEZAS (2003). I hope that this defect will soon be corrected.

atipac rep seirolaC ? esicerp woH

the case of Greece, since the trade in agricultural products was more or less balanced. Trade deficit was mainly due to imports of manufactures. Imports of wheat and other foodstuffs were covered by exports of currants and other Greek cash crops35. Second, to the fact that prices of exports (like currants and tobacco) fluctuated abruptly, while their content in calories did not. Consequently, the current export value of currants in terms of imported wheat calculated in calories was, in the short-term, much greater (or smaller) than its value expressed in monetary terms. Finally, foodstuffs produced or imported in one year were stocked and consumed a few months later in the next year.

4.000 Estimate of per capita calorific production and consumption (with 9-year moving average (imported meat and milk were not comprised) 3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000
33 21 05 09 93 77 85 69 73 61 49 53 41 33 37 45 57 65 81 89 97 01 13 17 25 29 19 19 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 37

Figure 9 The agricultural output and consumption per capita in calories. As a consequence, the estimated production per capita in calories can not fully reflect the countrys consumption in the short term. So we should not expect it to show stability (as the per capita consumption should have done). A 9-year moving average, which reduces the short-term fluctuation, gives a better picture of the balance of the per capita input in calories. An average estimate of production per capita in calories in medium term as in Table 10 shows that production per capita was more or less constant until the First World War, fell in the 1915-1931 period and rose to its prewar level in the 1930ies.

35

See PETMEZAS - KOSTIS (1998).

Table 9 Alimentary balance in calories

produced calories 2.256 2.161 2.017 1.980 1.934 2.132 1.653 1.469 2.187 consumed calories 2.373 2.431 2.503 2.373 2.627 2.002 2.346 2.857 % of produced 94,1% 88,1% 81,2% 81,5% 81,2% 76,4% 62,5% 78,2%

1853-1862 1863-1872 1873-1882 1883-1892 1893-1902 1903-1912 1913-1922 1923-1932 1933-1938

1851-1862 1863-1875 1887-1892 1893-1902 1903-1912 1913-1922 1923-1932 1933-1939

In order to compare the new output with the old one, I will limit myself to the 1858-1938 period, when out data is of better quality. As shown in figure 7 and Table 7, the new revised output is constantly lower in current prices than the old one36 until the First World War and it shows a higher growth rate. From 1915 until the 1931 crisis it becomes larger and then it shrinks once again to a lower level than that of KOSTELENOS (1995) estimate. Things do not change if we deflate by using the 1914 golden drachma.
160

Comparing per capita agricultural output (the trends are 9-year moving averages)
140

120

100

80

60

40

20 Kostelenos (1995) Petmezas (1999)

0 1858 1860 1862 1864 1866 1868 1870 1872 1874 1876 1878 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 base : 1914=100 1938

But using the new GDP deflator, which is much more precise than the old Kostelenos deflator, we get a very different picture : The deflated PETMEZAS (1999) agricultural output is much lower than the old one, especially in the years 1858-1882. It then rises and reaches the KOSTELENOS estimate in 1908. Corrections in the GDP deflator are responsible for this substantial difference. To recapitulate : in current or in 1914 golden drachmas the difference between the two estimates are relatively small. My own estimate is lower and stays behind of Kostelenoss one until the

36

With the exception of the following eight years : 1858-59, 1862-63, 1871, 1900-02.

)5991( SONELETSOK htiw gnirapmoC

Figure 10 Estimates of agricultural output

final years of the 1890ies. Then it rises rapidly and reaches Kostelenoss in 1914. It is substantially higher until 1931. Since 1932 it is a bit lower. Things change when the new GDP deflator is used, because it does not tend to enlarge the output of the earlier decades as the old Kostelenos deflator did. My agricultural output estimate is constantly lower than the Kostelenos estimate up to 1905. Since then it is almost always slightly larger until the 1930s when it falls back. All this is due to the amelioration of the new deflator especially in the years 1875-1905. In fact the major difference with Kostelenos is in the quality of the deflator used. The new deflator produced a more convincing per capita series. Instead of stagnating production since the 1860ies, we get the image of a slowly growing agricultural economy. The periodization of this growth is the next crucial element of my findings.

Using the per capita index it becomes evident that the capacity of the population to feed itself with a stagnating technology reached an ecological limit in the last decade of the 19th century. The observed per capita amelioration in the early 20th century is due to the transatlantic emigration. Since 1911, an abundant year, the per capita index fluctuated abruptly but stagnated in the medium-term (see Table 10). The first Inter-War decade ended with a major crisis, which was overcome only in the 1930ies when the output grew again as a result of considerable State intervention. The movement of the per km2 index correctly shows two things. First, that the post 1914 integration of Northern Greece has substantially lowered the percentage of land in use and led to an aggregate fall in land productivity. Second, that the Greek agriculturists have constantly expanded the land under use and its productivity. No break through in labor productivity is recorded. Since output fluctuates vividly, I have chosen to use instead the 9-year moving averages, which are less dependent on conjectural fluctuation, in order to calculate the compound rates of growth. If we examine the compound annual rates of growth in selected time-spans, we can make the following observations (see Table 10). In the early period output per capita rose steeply, because of slow population growth (1% in 1848-1864). In the next period, due to high population rate (1.5% annually), the per capita output barely outpaced the population growth (0,3%). Notice that the growth rate of the output per km2 did not change (2,4%). In the next period output rose as fast, but since the transatlantic migration had alleviated population pressure from the early 1900, per capita rose fast and reached its pre-1930ies record level in 1911. The difference in the two sub-periods : 1881-1895 and 1896-1912 is clearly shown in the per km2 and per capita indexes. Aggregate output and population rose faster in the first sub-period. The per capita and per km2 indexes rose more rapidly in the second sub-period. The war years are characterized for zero or negative rates of growth. This negative tendency is perpetuated in the first Inter-war decade. Rising population and the closure of the American labor market had led to a resurge of latent unemployment in the countryside. The amelioration of the per km2 index is due to the land settlement of refugees and colonists in the sparsely populated Macedonian and Thracean plains. Only the last Inter-war decade, when finally credit institutions, public intervention schemes and land amendment projects influenced positively the agricultural economy, we observe a rapid growth. This of course is expected in periods of economic recovery and should not be

tuptuo larutlucirga fo htworg eht fo noitazidoirep eht gniweiveR

exaggerated. In the late 1930ies the agricultural economy probably reached the upper limit of its potential rise. Table 10 Compound annual growth rate of real agricultural output (calculations have been made on the 9-year moving averages)
population 1848-1864 1865-1880 1881-1912 1881-1895 1896-1912 1913-1922 1923-1931 1932-1939 1848-1939 1951-1981 1.0% 2.4% 1.5% 2.2% 0.9% 6.2% 2.1% 1.4% 2,2% 0,8% Kostelenos per capita 0.1% -0.3% 0.0% -0.5% -1.0% -0.4% 3.8% 0,0% Petmezas output 2.4% 2.8% 2.8% 3.3% 2.5% 6.3% 1.6% 4.0% 3,1% 3,2% per capita 1.4% 0.3% 1.3% 1.1% 1.5% 0.0% -0.6% 2.6% 0,9% 2.4% per km2 2.4% 2.4% 2.1% 1.8% 2.5% -1.1% 1.9% 4.0% 2,0% calories per capita 2.181 2.098 2.001 1.930 2.065 1.653 1.469 2.259 2.023

The 1939ies will not be the end of the long trough. The Second World War, followed by a ruthless and bloody civil war in 1947-1949, once again dilapidated the accumulated slow progress of Inter-war period. The data retrieved in the 1950 agricultural census shows that the agricultural output had been brought back to its early Inter-War levels.

One final question will be addressed in this paper, namely the comparison of the Greek to other Mediterranean and Balkan examples. In ca. 1910 Greece produced an average per capita agricultural output of 138 FF37, comparable to Portuguese (143 FF in 1905)38 and the Bulgarian (155 FF in 1910)39, clearly greater than the Serbian (108 FF in 1910) and substantially lower than the Spanish (172 FF in 1909/1913)40 and the Italian (234 FF in 1913)41 (cf. Figure 12).

37

This is the average per capita production of the years 1906-1914 in current prices, at a time

when the drachma was at a par with the FF.

38

According to LAINS & SILVEIRA

agricultural output in 1900/1909 was 154,770 contos. Total population was 5,66 millions. One conto was equal to a million reis, until 1910, and 1.000 escudos since then. Until the abandonment of the gold standard, in 1891, the par exchange rate was 4.500 and 180 contos to the pound and the FF respectively. I used the 1905 exchange rate to the pound (4.793 contos) to calculate the average value of agricultural output in 1900/1909. Information on the Portuguese exchange rates was generously supplied by Pedro Lains.
39 40 41

My own estimates from PALAIRET (1997, 20 and 322). The exchange rate in 1910 was calculated as equal to 0,93 FF per Spanish Peseta. The Italian output MADISON (1991, 216-217) comprises fishing and forestry, which are not

included in the other cases. In 1913 the agricultural output accounts for 8.717 million lire and is related to an estimated population of 37,3 million.

.seirtnuoc naklaB dna naeporuE rehto htiw gnirapmoC

E

SOUSA (1998, 956), the total value of the Portuguese

In Table 12 and in Figure 11 a comparison of the output per capita indexes of Greece, Italy, Portugal, Serbia and Bulgaria is attempted. Italy presents a development comparable to that of Greece until the 1910s : slow per capita growth in the 1860ies and 1870ies, and clear per capita decrease in the 1880is and 1890ies to be followed by a rapid increase in the 1898-1914 period. In the Inter-war period the pre-war levels were not attained, but Italy was not in agricultural depression, like Greece was. The Portuguese case, on the contrary seemed to follow the inverse trajectory than Greece until 1914. Steady growth in the 1860is-1880 was followed by a crisis in the 1887-1896. The maximum level was attained in the early 1900is and subsequently per capita output shrank42. In the Spanish case, as studied by Simpson, the per capita output (in 1910 prices) was stagnant between 1891-1910 and grew since then and until the Spanish civil War (See Table 11). According to PALAIRET (1997), Serbia and Bulgaria experienced an agricultural regression in the 19th century, which was temporarily redressed at the beginning of the 20th century and deteriorated again just before the Balkan Wars. On the contrary, most Mediterranean cases showed a slow but clear growth, without substantial structural transformations until the Inter-War period. Table 11 The final product of Spanish Agriculture (SIMPSON 1995, 197-200)
year 1891/5 1897/1901 1909/13 1929/33 million current pesetas 2.714 3.215 3.710 8.587 million constant population (millions) per capita constant pesetas (1910) pesetas 3.299 17,9 184 3.308 18,6 178 3.710 20,0 186 4.741 23,5 202 per capita FF in 1910 exch. rate 171 165 172 187

In sum, Greece seemed to share some of the major characteristics of Mediterranean agriculture. In the 19th century the slow per capita growth was mainly sustained through the increased efficiency of the use of land, while the amelioration in the use of agricultural labor was minimal. Greece contrary to the other Balkan states had been able to converge towards the other Mediterranean agricultural economies until the First World War. This movement was arrested during the second and third decade of the 20th century. The Greek agriculture had been able to sustain a relatively satisfactory compound annual growth rate in the 19th century, in spite of rapid population growth. Transatlantic emigration prolonged this period of slow growth, but in the first decade of the Inter-War period ecological constraints and institutional reforms threw the agricultural economy into a long depression with negative growth rates.

42

In the Inter-War period the Portuguese GDP show a substantial per capita rise, once again in

clear contrast to the Greek case.

130

170

210

50

90

100

150

200

250

300

50

1861

1863

1865

1867

1869

1871

Greece

1873

1875

1877

1879

1881

Agricultural Output per capita

1883

Agricultural Output per capita (1910=100)

Greece

1885

1887

Italy

1889

1891

Italy

1893

1895

1897

Portugal

1899

1901

1903

Portugal

Serbia

1905

1907

1909

1911

Bulgaria

Figure 11 Indexes of agricultural output per capita

Figure 12 Agricultural Output per capita

4-dgr polynom Greece

1913

1915

1917

Spain

1919

1921

1923

1925

1927

1929

1931

R = 0,6975

1933

1935

1937

18 48 18 51 18 54 18 57 18 60 18 63 18 66 18 69 18 72 18 75 18 78 18 81 18 84 18 87 18 90 18 93 18 96 18 99 19 02 19 05 19 08 19 11 19 14 19 17 19 20 19 23 19 26 19 29 19 32 19 35 19 38

1939

Table 12 The agricultural output and output per capita index of selected Mediterranean and Balkan States (1910=100)43
Greece Output 18 19 20 23 20 21 23 20 23 28 28 29 27 29 29 29 33 32 32 36 36 33 35 39 36 43 43 42 43 44 49 50 49 54 58 58 68 68 65 78 79 73 71 65 67 78 76 75 86 65 86 79 75 77 98 Italy per capita Output 46 48 53 55 67 58 70 61 90 85 75 94 81 76 74 78 76 85 74 101 77 76 81 78 84 94 74 85 80 71 82 89 81 105 82 79 80 88 84 90 82 87 86 82 83 85 83 78 84 79 86 83 90 74 75 87 86 97 82 106 81 93 81 80 86 89 83 88 82 84 74 87 86 92 91 84 82 79 89 61 82 58 83 67 88 65 77 80 90 65 88 69 95 79 106 71 96 Portugal Output 83 70 68 75 73 72 65 77 56 65 61 58 59 60 62 56 59 66 66 68 68 68 70 65 64 65 69 71 71 69 68 69 73 74 74 73 85 84 88 99 98 98 96 97 97 86 90 97 72 101 108 105 104 115 121 Serbia per capita Bulgaria per capita

per capita

1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902

103 106 101 105 110 112 98 106 108 106 107 103 108 105 109 105 104 105 107 111 92 105 99 98 97 103 98 96 86 100 105 94 101 93 94 98 86 99 96 103 115 104

per capita 130 109 105 115 112 109 98 115 84 97 89 84 86 87 89 80 83 93 91 95 94 94 96 88 86 87 91 93 93 90 88 89 93 93 93 91 105 103 107 119 117 116 112 112 112 99 102 109 81 112 120 116 113 125 129

151 147 147 141 146 138 136 135 139 145 136 145 139 138 140 145 143

117 116

119

113

113 143 141 141 147 137 134 133 141 132 132 169 128 133 122 122 105 115 118 180 110 112 92 90 104 85 92 76 88 82 85 84 75 86 96 107 91 106 106 102 104 114 105 96 105 89 86 87 89

43

See MADDISON (1991, 216-217), LAINS and SILVEIRA

SOUSA (1998, table A2) and

PALAIRET (1997, 366-367)

1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939

93 96 103 100 104 102 109 100 144 133 149 214 202 213 207 218 191 214 180 204 210 220 218 233 231 250 236 247 238 261 294 309 336 315 388 365 323

69 67 81 91 99 96 113 100 151 137 85 141 139 142 210 121 131 132 121 134 124 136 125 130 131 133 110 116 108 127 141 144 150 144 172 160 139

103 100 102 99 116 107 118 100 115 111 124 107 97 104 104 107 100 106 104 110 120 115 122 122 111 120 125 111 116 126 114 108 118 107 120 121 109

110 105 106 103 119 109 119 100 114 109 122 104 94 100 100 104 98 104 100 105 114 108 114 114 102 110 113 100 103 112 100 95 102 92 103 102 91

107 111 105 104 97 115 109 100 109 88 83 88 77

114 117 109 107 100 117 110 100 108 87 82 85 75

97 94 109 122 94 115 116 100 111 96

99 102 97 101 72 97 88 100 102 97 89 71

R.A.H. BICKFORD-SMITH (1893) Greece under King George, London.

G. CHOULIARAKIS (1972) (ed.) G. DERTILIS (1993)

, 1821-1971, Athens, pp.15-111. . , Athens.

P. ERCOLANI (1969) Documentazione statistica di base, in Lo sviluppo economico in Italia, (ed. G. FUA) Milan, vol.3, pp.380-460.

G. KOSTELENOS (1995) Money and Output in Modern Greece, 1858-1938, Athens. C. LECOMTE (1847) tude conomique de la Grce, de sa position actuelle et de son avenir, Paris. P. LAINS et P. SILVEIRA
E

Anlise Social, Lisboa, vol.33, n149, pp.935-968. A. MADDISON (1991) A revised estimation of Italian Economic Growth, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Journal, pp.225-241.

CH. EVELPIDIS (1944)

SOUSA (1998) Estatstica e produo agrcola em Portugal, 1848-1914,

secnerefeR
, 1821-1971, in IBID.

,. , Athens.

M. PALAIRET (1997) The Balkan Economies, 1800-1914, Cambridge.

, Athens.

S. PETMEZAS and C. KOSTIS (1998) Growth and stagnation in the Greek Economy, 1830-1940 (working paper).

J. SIMPSON (1997) Agricultural production and productivity of Spain, in The Economic Modernisation of Spain, Aldshot, p.181-220. F. STRONG (1842) Greece as a Kingdom, London. V.VALAORAS (1960) A Reconstruction of the Demographic History of Modern Greece, Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, vol.38, pp.114-139. V. ZAMAGNI (1975) Le radici agricole del dualismo italiano, Nuova Rivista Storica, vol.59, pp.55-99.

), Athens (forthcoming)

(UOA/NBG 2000)

G. SIAMPOS (1973)

(1821-1965), Athens.

, 1830-1939 (series :

S. PETMEZAS (2003)

19

A. MANSOLAS (1876)

1875, Athens.

3
rd

Conference of the European Historical Economics Society

Table 13 Agrarian Production in thousand tons (known values with bold characters)
wheat and maslin 72,33 87,71 108,69 95,90 91,74 99,49 113,84 119,33 105,97 87,39 81,39 91,51 81,68 115,51 70,28 78,11 85,73 111,75 116,63 104,35 109,69 108,55 91,55 104,14 162,40 93,25 117,51 118,10 105,75 115,70 115,42 138,16 barley 22,25 26,99 33,44 29,51 28,23 30,61 35,03 36,72 32,61 26,89 25,04 28,16 25,13 35,54 21,62 24,03 26,38 34,38 35,89 32,11 33,75 33,40 26,67 32,04 59,56 32,36 36,16 36,71 32,54 35,60 35,51 40,15 maize and sorgo 41,73 50,60 62,71 55,32 52,93 57,40 65,68 68,85 61,13 50,42 46,96 52,79 47,12 66,64 40,55 45,06 49,46 64,47 67,29 60,20 63,28 62,62 77,07 60,08 103,20 75,18 67,79 73,89 61,01 66,75 66,59 79,16 oats 2,09 2,53 3,14 2,77 2,65 2,87 3,28 3,44 3,06 2,52 2,35 2,64 2,36 3,33 2,03 2,25 2,47 3,22 3,36 3,01 3,16 3,13 4,49 3,00 4,83 2,33 3,39 3,09 3,05 3,34 3,33 3,99 rye 0,70 0,84 1,05 0,92 0,88 0,96 1,09 1,15 1,02 0,84 0,78 0,88 0,79 1,11 0,68 0,75 0,82 1,07 1,12 1,00 1,05 1,04 1,19 1,00 2,02 0,81 1,13 1,74 1,02 1,11 1,11 1,33 tobacco n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,58 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,56 0,53 1,03 0,76 1,23 0,98 1,90 1,16 1,22 1,37 2,01 0,87 0,81 2,29 cottons n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,28 1,18 1,08 0,98 0,88 0,77 0,67 0,57 0,47 0,37 0,27 0,56 1,04 0,71 1,19 1,27 1,25 1,61 3,95 10,92 currants 2,80 2,23 3,52 3,12 3,31 3,11 4,12 4,79 4,71 5,67 6,64 7,88 8,75 11,71 14,52 15,29 16,27 19,50 26,24 13,39 6,85 6,70 8,56 27,22 23,11 33,69 34,73 33,41 43,72 50,71 58,08 51,73 wine 62,79 63,42 64,06 64,71 65,36 66,02 66,68 67,35 68,03 68,72 69,41 70,11 70,81 71,53 72,25 72,98 73,71 74,45 75,20 75,96 76,73 77,50 78,28 79,07 79,86 113,88 81,48 113,90 83,34 84,40 85,47 86,55 olive oil 8,32 12,82 14,25 12,16 11,48 12,75 15,09 15,98 13,80 10,30 9,80 11,45 7,82 9,30 3,95 9,26 10,50 10,25 9,61 11,79 12,73 17,85 2,05 18,91 7,49 16,44 20,02 7,49 20,14 12,55 11,57 15,52 dry figs 2,34 2,34 2,34 2,34 2,34 2,34 2,34 2,34 2,32 2,30 2,28 2,25 2,23 2,21 2,18 2,16 2,14 2,11 2,09 1,94 2,00 2,13 3,57 5,19 7,06 9,46 8,47 6,31 10,69 11,43 11,88 11,35

1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864

selbaT lanoitiddA

S. Petmezas

Agricultural Output of Greece (1833-1939)

1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

150,23 133,52 158,74 127,02 139,95 160,44 163,00 108,50 119,16 160,81 154,67 137,50 164,77 155,30 163,13 189,86 176,72 151,99 157,45 200,72 215,54 162,01 251,50 232,77 185,72 203,91 164,16 163,20 169,14 170,57 134,31 159,50 206,91 210,69 198,73 232,70 216,06 199,96 172,48

46,23 41,08 44,94 39,08 43,06 49,37 50,15 33,38 36,67 49,48 47,83 42,31 50,70 47,78 50,19 58,42 54,37 46,77 48,44 61,76 66,32 49,85 60,86 71,62 57,14 62,74 50,51 50,22 59,90 60,41 47,57 56,49 73,28 74,62 70,38 83,12 64,33 70,82 61,09

86,67 77,03 79,46 73,28 80,74 92,56 94,04 62,59 68,75 92,77 80,99 79,33 95,06 89,60 94,11 109,53 101,95 87,69 90,83 115,80 124,35 93,47 99,63 134,29 107,15 117,64 94,71 94,15 88,10 88,84 69,96 83,07 107,77 109,73 103,50 121,78 108,11 104,14 89,83

4,33 3,85 4,58 3,66 4,04 4,63 4,70 3,13 3,44 4,64 2,19 3,97 4,75 4,48 4,71 5,48 5,10 4,38 4,54 5,79 6,22 4,67 9,31 6,71 5,36 5,88 4,74 4,71 24,67 24,87 19,59 23,26 30,17 30,73 28,98 24,15 13,75 29,16 25,15

1,44 1,28 1,53 1,22 1,35 1,54 1,57 1,04 1,15 1,55 0,45 1,32 1,58 1,49 1,57 1,83 1,70 1,46 1,51 1,93 2,07 1,56 2,42 2,24 1,79 1,96 1,58 1,57 1,80 1,82 1,43 1,70 2,21 2,25 2,12 2,71 2,28 2,13 1,84

2,32 1,20 1,65 1,36 2,07 0,89 1,06 2,78 2,96 3,50 4,01 4,68 4,08 3,89 4,12 4,22 3,56 3,29 2,88 3,89 5,46 3,78 4,22 3,67 4,28 4,31 3,67 4,02 3,64 4,23 4,69 5,33 4,28 4,53 4,76 6,88 7,47 5,05 9,24

5,31 3,32 4,57 6,79 3,07 4,29 7,37 6,92 6,48 6,73 6,99 6,73 6,47 6,21 5,95 5,69 5,43 5,17 4,92 4,66 4,40 4,14 3,88 3,86 3,84 3,83 3,81 3,79 3,77 3,76 3,74 3,72 3,70 3,69 3,67 3,65 3,65 3,65 3,65

53,47 55,87 67,27 56,53 53,18 55,06 83,12 73,10 74,52 78,38 75,00 88,71 82,68 104,40 94,77 93,65 127,20 108,89 115,10 129,26 113,51 127,61 133,78 162,29 151,70 149,46 165,12 117,60 168,48 152,16 180,48 158,40 132,00 171,84 145,92 47,04 144,00 161,76 186,72

109,76 112,37 115,04 117,80 120,64 123,56 126,57 129,66 132,85 136,13 125,18 141,51 143,57 145,69 147,87 150,11 166,02 168,60 171,26 173,99 176,81 199,99 220,96 175,99 179,99 192,13 202,63 199,99 202,05 205,47 159,99 214,99 120,00 165,09 125,39 7,70 110,00 199,99 129,99

10,66 14,98 20,63 23,94 17,53 21,57 22,48 24,33 22,85 26,23 25,64 24,36 19,25 22,25 18,18 14,19 14,05 17,72 15,27 19,12 14,85 18,08 40,59 22,57 34,44 28,33 12,82 28,73 63,67 40,97 35,06 65,04 24,00 57,00 13,77 59,25 45,83 47,86 56,11

12,27 12,66 12,76 14,91 14,99 15,16 12,01 12,10 15,61 15,50 12,34 12,41 12,47 12,54 12,60 12,67 12,74 12,80 12,87 12,93 13,00 13,06 13,13 10,83 11,94 13,08 15,30 11,89 12,42 10,30 10,19 6,94 11,69 9,79 12,21 12,26 8,97 7,72 9,62

S. Petmezas

Agricultural Output of Greece (1833-1939)

1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935

197,03 252,57 255,33 230,60 211,31 262,94 274,21 343,48 222,28 212,64 388,01 336,50 304,06 356,80 425,65 300,48 343,99 319,33 272,05 270,62 226,93 329,00 365,50 380,12 379,12 329,55 283,94 334,28 499,58 819,39 731,24 776,12

69,78 89,45 90,43 81,67 74,84 93,12 97,12 80,39 78,73 75,31 133,35 117,17 115,44 126,19 158,03 118,31 135,11 128,51 128,82 117,31 93,77 151,24 165,90 158,31 157,77 103,54 170,50 155,58 193,38 229,47 195,86 196,58

102,62 131,55 132,99 120,10 110,06 136,95 142,82 151,19 115,77 110,75 238,89 195,35 160,19 155,24 164,24 191,82 203,80 191,55 143,18 162,18 156,18 172,78 206,55 129,80 128,84 177,80 172,78 158,71 213,52 273,31 210,92 191,48

28,73 36,83 37,24 33,63 30,82 38,34 39,99 32,34 32,42 31,01 53,88 50,47 44,79 51,77 65,89 55,55 60,78 53,47 68,10 58,22 44,70 79,35 71,97 67,49 76,15 60,65 85,51 76,56 99,31 134,37 98,75 103,28

2,10 2,69 2,72 2,46 2,25 2,80 2,92 5,56 2,37 2,27 60,16 9,04 8,29 17,66 25,70 28,52 26,28 27,14 27,65 15,80 23,15 39,79 40,64 38,23 43,96 34,16 46,65 45,72 53,00 71,11 62,66 55,52

9,37 10,02 8,01 4,71 8,91 10,19 9,91 12,73 16,06 14,55 25,06 14,42 18,37 27,78 30,35 29,69 31,68 23,35 25,79 57,77 50,30 60,83 61,38 63,22 58,74 68,74 65,87 43,22 29,26 54,88 41,82 46,18

3,65 4,43 5,21 5,99 6,77 7,55 8,34 9,12 9,76 10,41 11,05 6,70 5,14 4,47 5,83 7,39 4,35 3,89 6,05 8,04 10,28 10,56 12,33 9,09 10,75 11,03 11,67 9,88 15,89 23,01 26,15 35,34

154,56 164,16 138,24 159,36 191,04 188,64 121,44 139,80 173,76 156,48 181,10 161,40 145,60 141,60 124,20 133,20 137,30 129,80 201,60 150,90 185,40 177,80 174,30 169,90 170,70 139,30 170,60 100,80 189,20 167,20 207,10 213,10

179,99 110,00 209,30 207,36 205,45 203,56 201,69 323,07 249,99 196,21 383,13 353,86 286,14 302,65 317,39 266,65 174,87 187,30 179,40 177,80 230,13 236,28 269,20 227,01 307,52 254,62 220,95 194,54 381,46 386,65 363,79 500,48

34,92 52,93 31,47 58,75 42,91 50,00 14,28 82,51 66,85 78,57 18,86 59,53 104,70 71,09 95,67 55,23 143,07 44,66 82,18 53,27 103,48 63,81 61,43 72,40 100,07 79,47 97,33 103,70 134,32 105,36 136,28 91,93

7,00 8,25 10,56 8,10 10,37 8,81 6,97 21,86 28,20 22,44 14,47 12,28 10,10 17,09 19,75 13,93 19,77 16,31 17,87 15,96 19,64 18,75 14,78 15,67 18,64 12,19 20,98 15,81 29,39 23,56 26,33 28,21

S. Petmezas

Agricultural Output of Greece (1833-1939)

1936 1937 1938 1939

570,44 861,67 1.030,21 971,90

153,66 219,10 221,07 187,00

234,16 322,60 217,38 308,50

94,38 134,32 131,90 129,80

50,86 65,26 57,67 41,00

80,97 69,31 48,07 57,88

42,13 54,56 45,30 45,06

177,00 189,20 187,50 124,20

192,08 337,27 464,53 633,50

72,57 187,47 102,81

21,64 32,65 32,34

Table 14 Livestock capital in thousands of animal heads and production in thousand tons (known values with bold characters)
sheep 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1.380 1.398 2.681 2.579 2.607 2.668 2.566 2.615 2.692 2.663 2.281 2.022 1.963 2.015 2.025 2.015 1.946 1.781 1.762 1.928 2.041 2.182 2.222 2.236 2.093 2.123 2.426 2.569 2.158 2.270 goats 2.035 2.036 2.182 2.167 2.171 2.180 2.165 2.172 2.183 2.179 2.127 2.106 2.089 2.095 2.096 2.095 2.087 2.070 2.068 2.087 2.098 2.114 2.119 2.121 2.104 2.107 2.248 2.407 2.162 2.437 cattle 197 198 269 262 264 268 261 264 270 268 242 235 223 226 227 226 223 214 213 224 228 236 238 239 231 232 242 248 236 235 non-draft cattle 20 21 98 90 92 97 89 92 98 96 69 60 49 52 52 52 48 39 38 71 53 62 65 66 57 58 79 80 62 78 milking cows 8 8 37 34 35 37 34 35 38 37 26 23 19 20 20 20 18 15 14 27 20 24 25 25 21 22 30 30 23 29 non slaughtered slaughtered calves calves 31 26 31 26 42 36 41 35 41 35 42 36 41 35 41 35 42 36 42 36 38 32 37 31 35 30 35 30 35 30 35 30 35 30 33 29 33 28 35 30 35 30 37 31 37 32 37 32 36 31 36 31 38 32 39 33 37 31 37 31 meat 19,84 19,99 30,44 29,58 29,82 30,34 29,47 29,89 30,54 30,30 27,08 25,11 24,48 24,90 24,98 24,89 24,34 23,01 22,86 24,23 25,11 26,26 26,59 26,71 25,53 25,78 28,54 30,21 26,27 28,05 milk 41,25 41,50 60,62 59,03 59,46 60,43 58,82 59,59 60,80 60,35 54,43 50,84 49,65 50,42 50,57 50,42 49,40 46,98 92,52 97,80 100,36 104,38 105,52 105,93 101,82 102,67 113,86 121,06 104,88 114,43 wool 2,30 2,32 3,63 3,52 3,55 3,61 3,51 3,56 3,64 3,61 3,22 2,96 2,89 2,94 2,95 2,94 2,87 2,71 2,69 2,86 2,97 3,11 3,16 3,17 3,02 3,05 3,41 3,63 3,11 3,35 hides 4,14 4,17 5,92 5,78 5,82 5,90 5,76 5,83 5,94 5,90 5,35 5,03 4,92 4,99 5,00 4,99 4,89 4,67 4,65 4,88 5,02 5,22 5,27 5,29 5,09 5,13 5,65 5,99 5,24 5,66

S. Petmezas

Agricultural Output of Greece (1833-1939)

1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901

1.855 1.739 1.779 2.098 2.496 2.375 2.175 2.177 2.209 2.246 3.000 2.292 1.968 1.959 1.993 2.393 2.483 2.405 2.266 3.302 3.282 3.465 3.082 2.638 2.620 3.186 2.734 2.603 2.441 2.499 2.552 2.611 2.717 3.090 2.136 2.513 3.518 3.076 2.758

2.339 2.331 2.289 2.104 2.155 2.139 2.113 2.114 2.118 2.122 1.811 1.837 1.760 2.089 2.092 2.141 2.153 2.143 2.000 2.545 2.400 2.511 2.260 1.957 1.981 2.263 2.190 2.170 2.019 2.066 2.095 2.018 2.047 2.231 1.864 2.197 2.542 2.244 2.193

216 227 228 231 256 248 235 236 237 240 237 241 222 223 225 249 255 250 251 289 300 317 294 277 303 309 273 263 281 276 290 286 277 295 200 209 294 300 275

40 53 57 57 84 75 62 62 64 66 50 50 44 49 51 76 83 77 76 150 138 156 149 131 126 141 102 92 94 105 87 92 92 102 51 61 117 131 104

15 19 21 21 31 27 22 22 23 24 18 18 15 17 17 25 27 25 24 48 45 47 42 38 37 42 30 27 28 31 26 27 27 30 15 19 35 39 30

34 35 35 36 40 39 37 37 37 37 37 38 35 35 35 39 40 39 39 45 47 49 46 43 47 48 42 41 44 43 45 45 43 46 31 33 46 47 43

29 30 30 31 34 33 31 31 32 32 32 32 30 30 30 33 34 33 33 39 40 42 39 37 40 41 36 35 37 37 39 38 37 39 27 28 39 40 37

24,54 23,86 23,99 25,58 28,88 27,86 26,21 26,23 26,49 26,79 30,86 26,08 23,28 24,44 24,72 28,01 28,77 28,11 31,87 43,51 42,80 45,07 40,39 35,07 35,43 41,48 36,92 35,62 33,83 34,45 35,24 35,28 36,15 40,33 29,40 34,22 45,31 40,36 37,15

101,20 98,45 98,54 101,94 113,41 109,87 104,11 104,18 105,09 106,13 116,75 100,16 90,31 97,93 98,88 110,24 112,82 110,54 171,34 233,37 225,29 236,71 211,92 182,76 183,26 215,28 196,02 190,57 178,25 182,72 185,12 183,44 188,22 209,24 159,52 187,96 238,42 210,54 196,96

2,91 2,79 2,81 3,03 3,44 3,31 3,11 3,11 3,14 3,18 3,75 3,09 2,74 2,89 2,92 3,33 3,42 3,34 2,82 3,99 3,92 4,14 3,69 3,16 3,15 3,79 3,33 3,20 2,99 3,06 3,13 3,16 3,27 3,69 2,65 3,12 4,20 3,68 3,35

5,04 4,93 4,93 5,10 5,66 5,49 5,21 5,21 5,25 5,31 5,82 5,06 4,57 4,91 4,96 5,51 5,64 5,53 7,80 10,68 10,48 11,04 9,88 8,56 8,63 10,14 9,04 8,72 8,26 8,42 8,60 8,61 8,83 9,86 7,22 8,43 11,12 9,87 9,10

S. Petmezas

Agricultural Output of Greece (1833-1939)

1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

2.725 2.741 2.803 2.844 2.858 2.845 2.827 2.848 2.893 3.545 4.123 5.323 6.266 5.994 5.811 5.548 5.468 5.640 5.811 5.789 5.961 5.643 6.623 6.636 6.951 6.442 6.920 6.664 6.799 7.072 6.927 7.427 7.976 8.329 8.440 8.451 8.139 7.795 7.094

2.188 2.191 2.200 2.207 2.209 2.213 2.204 2.207 2.214 2.638 2.923 3.457 4.448 4.219 4.070 3.575 3.473 3.445 3.418 3.717 4.212 3.674 4.169 4.103 4.669 4.579 4.919 4.800 4.637 4.626 4.678 4.952 5.225 5.357 5.514 5.288 4.356 3.399 3.709

272 273 278 281 282 281 280 281 285 299 313 334 379 406 435 571 649 639 659 675 754 671 844 854 925 909 910 835 837 868 875 914 956 969 986 998 967

101 102 107 111 112 111 109 111 115 131 139 148 176 202 227 287 320 309 290 305 359 304 385 372 414 409 415 376 360 394 409 435 470 485 502 504 499

29 29 30 31 31 30 29 29 30 34 36 38 45 52 58 82 90 92 90 98 123 102 130 129 149 148 147 115 149 146 160 170 186 190 201 217 199

42 43 43 44 44 44 44 44 44 41 43 46 44 47 50 66 75 74 76 78 87 78 98 99 107 105 105 97 97 101 101 106 111 112 114 116 112

36 36 37 37 38 37 37 38 38 35 37 40 38 40 43 57 64 63 65 67 75 67 84 85 92 90 90 83 83 86 87 91 95 96 94 102 97

36,83 36,99 37,60 38,02 38,15 38,05 37,85 38,06 38,51 45,59 51,85 64,46 91,20 87,53 85,21 81,24 80,76 82,08 83,77 85,62 91,26 83,93 98,27 98,10 105,42 99,88 106,53 102,50 102,77 105,62 104,67 111,54 118,91 123,21 125,30 124,35 115,17

195,55 196,17 198,70 200,39 200,91 200,63 199,53 200,38 202,21 243,77 276,02 339,94 518,70 496,08 481,43 449,25 442,01 448,75 454,98 470,49 507,95 462,28 537,54 534,64 581,15 553,06 591,90 568,04 572,55 583,94 582,69 621,27 663,11 686,64 701,68 694,05 629,62

3,32 3,34 3,40 3,44 3,46 3,44 3,42 3,45 3,49 4,25 4,90 6,23 7,62 7,28 7,05 6,62 6,50 6,66 6,81 6,90 7,24 6,74 7,86 7,85 8,36 7,84 8,42 8,13 8,20 8,46 8,34 8,92 9,54 9,93 10,09 10,02 9,39

9,02 9,06 9,20 9,30 9,34 9,31 9,26 9,31 9,42 11,22 12,77 15,91 28,43 27,22 26,44 24,83 24,56 24,90 25,31 26,07 28,00 25,58 29,80 29,68 32,13 30,56 32,67 31,52 31,44 32,18 31,97 34,05 36,26 37,53 38,23 37,76 34,45