I love to discover why something is the way it is, and my favourite historical reads are often those that deliver this kind of “big picture” revelation. It was in this vein that, a while back, I discussed research on the relationship between “rainfall, human capital, and democracy”. Now this week comes a fascinating article in The Economist, highlighting recent research* which set out to:
… test the hypothesis that traditional agricultural practices influenced the historic gender division of labor and the evolution and persistence of gender norms. We find that, consistent with existing hypotheses, the descendants of pre-industrial societies that practiced plough agriculture, today have lower rates of female participation in the workplace, in politics, and in entrepreneurial activities, as well as attitudes reflecting gender inequality.
How does this connection work? The authors sum up the original hypothesis as follows:
Shifting cultivation, which uses hand-held tools like the hoe and the digging stick, is labor intensive and women actively participate in farm work. Plough cultivation, by contrast, is much more capital intensive, using the plough to prepare the soil. Unlike the hoe or digging stick, the plough requires significant upper body strength, grip strength, and burst of power, which are needed to either pull the plough or control the animal that pulls it. Because of these requirements, when plough agriculture is practiced, men have an advantage in farming relative to women (Murdock and Provost, 1973a). Also reinforcing this gender-bias in ability is the fact that when the plough is used, there is less need for weeding, a task typically undertaken by women and children (Foster and Rosenzweig, 1996). In addition, child care, a task almost universally performed by women, is most compatible with activities that can be stopped and resumed easily and do not put children in danger. These are characteristics that hold for hoe agriculture, but not for plough agriculture, especially if animals are used to pull the plough.
To test this, the authors compared data on pre-industrial plough usage against modern-day data on gender attitudes and female labour force participation. As a cross-check, they also looked at the climactic suitability of “plough-positive” crops (wheat, rye, barley) vs “plough-negative” crops (sorghum, millet). Both produced results consistent with the theory: “individuals, ethnicities and countries whose ancestors used the plough today have beliefs that exhibit greater gender inequality today and women participate less in non-domestic activities, like market employment, entrepreneurship, and politics.” Second-generation female immigrants to the US were affected by plough usage in their ancestral countries, providing evidence for cultural transmission of beliefs (rather than simply being driven by the institutions of the host country).
Obviously no one factor can comprehensively explain gender roles, but I wager historical plough usage is one that few non-specialist observers would associate with the topic. The Economist article linked above is a fascinating read, even if you don’t go onto the original paper.
* “On the Origins of Gender Roles: Women and the Plough”, by Alberto Alesina of Harvard University, Paola Giuliano of the University of California Los Angeles, and Nathan Nunn of Harvard University.