The economic development of Florida, 1870-1930

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The economic development of Florida, 1870-1930
Physical Description:
x, 430 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Nelson, Wallace Martin, 1912-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Economic conditions -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Economics thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Economics -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis - University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 420-430.
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000559423
oclc - 13489692
notis - ACY4879
sobekcm - AA00004952_00001
System ID:
AA00004952:00001

Full Text











THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF FLORIDA

1870-1930












By
WALLACE MARTIN NELSON


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
June, 1962













PREFACE


This dissertation is divided into two parts. Part I presents

an historical and quantitative narrative of Florida's economic devel-

opment from 1870 to 1930 in terms of institutional background, economic

factors, and economic sectors. Extensive use is made of a statistical

device known as the shift technique to portray Florida's development

in relation to that of the nation and to that of certain other states.

Part II presents the methodology employed in developing the quantita-

tive materials in the reference tables; particularly in relation to

the substate areas of Florida. Much of this material is incorporated

in summary fashion in Part I. The substance of the study is thus in

Part I; with Part II and the reference tables providing part of the

quantitative framework and backup.

Part of the research for this study was accomplished as a

graduate assistant under a research grant from Resources for the

Future, Inc. and part as a fellow of the Inter-University Committee

for Economic Research on the South. Grateful acknowledgement is made

for this aid.

I am deeply indebted to my Supervisory Commnittee) especially

Professor Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., its Chairman, for his advice and patience

in supervising this dissertation and for the computational aid which

was rendered by his office. It should also be recorded that

Dr. John N. Webb assumed an extra supervisory burden during a leave











of absence of the Chairman and that the nature of this study was

greatly--if indirectly--affected by Dr. Rembert W. Patrick.

I am indebted also for the outstanding facilities for research

on Florida made available by the very competent library staff of the

P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History, located at the University of

Florida.







































iii













TABLE OF CONTENTS


PREFACE ...........

LIST OF TABLES .

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .

LIST OF REFERENCE TABLES .

PART
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION .

II. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .

III. QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW

IV. THE 1870's .

V. THE 1880's .

VI. THE 1890's .

VII. THE 1900's .

VIII. THE 1910's .

IX. THE 1920's .

X. POSTSCRIPT .

PART


Page
. ii


. . viii


. . ix
oeoeeeeeeeo


DEVELOPMENT


2

14

57

95

132

162

187

220

258

301


METHODOLOGY


I. MEASURING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .

XII. MEASURING FLORIDA'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


APPENDIX . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . .


307

352


573

419


I


. . .


e e e e e e o

. e e o e e e

o e e e o o e e .

eeoeeeeeeeoee

e e e e e e .








. .


~




















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Total Population and Constituent Elements ... 41

2. Net Migration Rates of Native Whites . 43

3. Net Migration Rates of Negroes or Nonwhites . 44

4. Comparison of Net Internal and Net External Migration 45

5. Comparison of Percentage Rates of Population Increase 47

6. Computation of Comparative Labor Force Participation Rates 49

7. Summary of Comparative Labor Force Participation Rates 50

8. Florida Labor Force Participation Rates Differentiated
by Age and Sex ..................... 50

9. Comparison of Urban Percentage Rates of Increase .. 52

10. Comparison of Urban Percentage of Total Population .... 52

11. U.S. Growth Rates by Sector by Decade . 54

12. Total Net Shift in Labor Force . .... .56

15. Total Net Shift in Labor Force as Percentage of
Total U.S. Shift . ... .. 56

14. Total Competition Shift . ... 57

15. Total Composition Shift . .... 59

16. Total Competition Shift as Percentage of Total
Net Shift .... .. ... .. ..... ..... 60

17. Total Composition Shift as Percentage of Total
Net Shift .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... 61

18. Comparative State Percentage of Total
U.S. Competition Shift . .... 62

19. Comparative State Percentage of Total
U.S. Composition Shift . . 65



v

I











LIST OF TABLES--Continued


Table Page

20. Sector Net Shifts--State Shift as Percentage
of U.S. Shift by Decade . . 64

21. Comparative Sector Contributions to State Net
Shifts by Decades . . 70

22. Summary Average of Comparative Sector Contributions
to State Net Shifts . .. 77

23. Sector Contributions to Florida Total Labor Force
by Decades . .... .... .79

24. Florida Share of U.S. Net Shift by Sectors by Decades 82

25. Sector Contributions to Florida Net Shift by Decades 85

26. Summary of Florida Competition and Composition Net Shifts
as Percentage of Total U.S. Net Shift by Decades .. 86

27. Composition Index Summary by Decades . .... .88

28. Florida Percentage of National Wealth by Selected
Categories . . ... ..... 90

29. Wealth of Florida and the U.S. by Selected Categories
in Current Dollars ................... 91

50. Components of Personal Income in Florida for
Selected Years . . ... 92

31. Components of Personal Income in Florida and U.S. on
Per Capita or Per Worker Basis ... 93

32. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1870's 122

33. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1870's 124

34. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1870's 124

35. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1880's 155

56. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1880's 156

37. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1880's 157


vi










LIST OF TABLES--Continued


Table Page

58. Florida Banks, 1890 1898 . .... 175

59. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1890's 176

40. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1890's 177

41. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1890's 178

42. Statistics on Florida Corporations for Fiscal Year
Ending June 50, 1910 . ....... 206

45. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1900's 207

44. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1900's 208

45. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1900's 209

46. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1910's 241

47. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1910's 242

48. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1910's 245

49. Principal IndustriesRanked by Value of Products, 1919 249

50. Per Capita Debt of Selected Florida Counties Between
1922 and 1952 . . .. 275

51. Absolute Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1920's 280-

52. Relative Changes in Sector Labor Force in the 1920's 281

55. Sector Contributions to Composition Effect in the 1920's 282

54. Biennial Change in Average Wage Earners in
Manufacturing, 1919-29 . ... 291

55. Distribution of "Laborers, Not Specified" (LNS)
in Florida, 1870-1900 ..... .... 558

56. Distribution of Clerical Occupations
in Florida, 1910-190 . . .. 59

57. State Labor Force Control Series . ... 540



vii

.d


^Wivs^aA














LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Key Role of Labor Force in Measurement of
Economic Growth ................... .. 38


2. Components of Productivity. ... . 550


3. Map of Florida ...................... 345


viii













LIST OF REFERENCE TABLES


Table Page

G-l County Group Designators . 74

P-1 Florida Population, by Counties, by Decades, 1870-1950 .. 375

P-2 Florida Population, by Comparable Substate Groupings,
by Decennial Periods, 1870-1950 .. 577

M-l Florida Rates of Natural Increase, by Category,
1870-190 . ........ . 81

M-2 Florida Net Migration, by Counties by Decades,
1870-1950 . . 385

M-3 Florida Net Migration, by Comparable Substate Groupings,
by Decades, 1870-190 . ... 385

M-4 Summation of County Net Migration, by Category,
1870-1950 . . ... 87

M-5 Net Migration as Percentage of End Population Both
External and Internal, by Decades, 1870-1950 .. 389

M-6 Net Migration as Percentage of End Population, by Com-
parable Substate Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1930 390

LS-1 Labor Force and Population, by Categories, by Decades,
1870-1950 . .... 92

LS-2 Labor Force Participation Rates, by Categories,
by Decades, 1870-1950 . ... 3. 59

LS-3 Florida Labor Force Control Series, by Industrial
Sectors, by Decades, 1870-1950 ........ 394

LS-4 Sector Percentage Change, by Decades, 1870-1950 .. 395

LS-5 Sector Percentage of Florida Labor Force, by Decades,
1870-1930 . .. .. 395

LS-6 Distribution Comparisons for Sector Labor Force
in 1930 .. . .396



ix



"i


44,11,. -/ .%











LIST OF REFERENCE TABLES--Continued


Table Page

LC-1 Florida Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable Substate
Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1930 . .. 398

LC-2 Florida Labor Force Participation Rate Estimates, by
Comparable Substate Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1930 403

LC-3 Agricultural Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable
Substate Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1930 ... 407

LC-4 Mining Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable Substate
Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1930 . ... 411

LC-5 Manufacturing Labor Force Estimates, by Comparable Substate
Groupings, by Decades, 1870-1950 . ... 413

LC-6 Sector Distribution of Florida's Labor Force, 1930 .... 417































x


Wib.fi





























PART I


DEVELOPMENT













CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


Florida has a unique and fascinating history and the economic

aspects of its history contribute to this uniqueness and fascination.

With its background of Southern traditions, Western frontiers, and

Eastern connections, it is a region which blends some of our major

national ingredients. To tell the story of Florida's economic devel-

opment over six decades in full is not possible herein. But this study

will attempt its portrayal on the basis of two hypotheses. The first

is that the study of the economic development of a region must be

based upon a quantitative structure which meshes the region with both

the larger area and its component areas; specifically, meshes Florida

with the nation and with Florida substate areas.1 This task is largely

undertaken in Part II of the study and the detailed results are numer-

ically presented in the reference tables. The second hypothesis is

that this skeleton of quantitative structure must be fleshed by a



1Abbey writes: "State history may be approached from two points
of view. It may be conceived as a group of developing localities assem-
bled under one political organization, or it may be regarded as a region
which has shared in the unfoldment of larger areas, a section, a nation,
or a colonial empire." Kathryn Trimmer Abbey, Florida, Land of Change
(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1941), p. vii.
This study emphasizes the latter view but does contribute estimates
which relate to the former view.



2



..











qualitative picture of the times, including the institutional back-

ground. This task is undertaken in Part I of the study. Part I draws

heavily on Part II for its quantitative framework. Qualitatively it

draws heavily on the economic, political, and social content of the

biennial messages of Florida governors for thematic continuity in

reflecting the changing times and attitudes, and on the work of the

many who have written about this period of Florida history.

The purpose of this study is to portray the economic develop-

ment of Florida from 1870 to 1950, relating Florida both to the nation

and to its spatial components (counties or county groups). An inte-

grated quantitative structure will be used, both to control the por-

trayal and to make it more explicit. The structure will deal with such

primary areas as population redistribution, labor force changes, and

income distribution. This structure will depend extensively on the

monumental reference work Population Redistribution and Economic Growth

to place Florida in the national economic scene in each of these pri-

mary areas.2 Thus oriented, Florida will be structurally dissected to

provide a comprehensive and consistent series of substate economic data.



2Everett S. Lee, and others, Population Redistribution and
Economic Growth, United States, 1870 1950, Vol. I: Methodological
Considerations and Reference Tables (Philadelphia: The American
Philosophical Society, 1957). The usefulness of this publication
for the purpose is pointed up by the following quotation taken from
a review by M. S. Gordon in the June, 1961, issue of The American
Economic Review," pp. 482-4: "The results are immensely valuable as a
convenient source of statistical data, much of which is in a form
not available elsewhere. The future investigator who is concerned,
for example, with an analysis of a particular state or region will
find his task immeasurably lightened as a result of the availabil-
ity of reclassified census series and migration estimates for his state
or region."









Much of the man-hour effort involved in this study has neces-
sarily been devoted to the mechanics of developing the quantitative

structure. It is hoped that this structure will have enough general-

ized integrity to provide a base for research exploration going beyond

the scope of the dissertation itself. If so, it will provide a frame-

work for further study of Florida's economic development.

If written a few years ago, a dissertation on this subject
would necessarily have assumed a different character. This paper

depends very much in its methodology, perspective, and assumptions on
such recent books as Methods of Regional Analysis;5 Regions, Resources,

and Economic Growth;4 Population Redistribution and Economic Growth;5

and current additions to the National Bureau of Economic Research

series. Methods is a current survey of the primary techniques avail-

able for the analysis of a regional economy. Regions is a current

application of regional analysis methodology which has directly in-

fluenced this study. Regions also contributes to placing Florida in

its regional and temporal setting within the United States. Population

provides in its reference tables a quantitative reconstruction of key

economic variables of the period of interest. This reconstruction,


'alter Isard, Methods of Regional Analysist an Introduction
to Regional Science (New Yorki John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960).
Hereafter referred to as Methods.
4Harvey S. Perloff, Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., Eric E. Lampard, and
Richard F. Muth, Regions, Resources, and Economic Growth (Baltimoret
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1960). Hereafter referred to as Regions.

Lee. Hereafter referred to as Population.






J


*ltri &.











disaggregated by states, thus provides a framework which relates

Florida to every other state and to the nation. Acceptance of this

framework, in its essential details, permits this study to concentrate

on a further disaggregation of these variables at a substate level to

provide the internal framework. The economic development of Florida

can then be viewed as the resultant of both external and internal forces;

with both sets of forces quantified on a generally comparable basis.

The external data serve to control the summation of the substate data.

Population contains four main sets of estimates: first, estimates of

inter-state migration; second, estimates of labor force changes by

primary economic sectors third, various series pertaining to the

redistribution of manufacturing activity; and fourth, estimates of the

redistribution of income.

Isard writes of the several possible theoretical approaches to

"the basic spatial interrelations which underlie the location of econ-

omic activities and regional development." Relative to the histor-

ical approach he writes:

Unquestionably, historical generalizations, more comprehensive
and at the same time more incisive than those we now possess, can
be achieved in the study of the past and current spatial and
regional structure of the world economy and its various sectors.6

Of this essentially evolutionary approach he further writes:

It not only furnishes a convenient and meaningful breakdown
for studying historical sequences of locational structures and



Walter Isard, Location and Space-Economy (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956). Hereafter referred to as Location.
p. 15.











for classifying historical facts but will also be very suggestive
for pursuing dynamic analysis, once an improved general static
theory has been achieved.'

After a considerable review of the literature with respect to

Florida's economy it seems an unrewarding task to assemble more mater-

ial without a good quantitative foundation. Masses of unrelated and

non-comparable statistics on the various aspects of the economy are

available but they are of little utility in developing a balanced view

of Florida's economy. So far as is possible data will not be intro-

duced in this study unless they contribute directly to developing its

quantitative framework or in fleshing out the structural bones. The

principal source for data will be the several Censuses. Though gen-

erally providing the most reliable and significant data available this

source does pose many problems of comparability and coverage. These

problems are mitigated considerably by the lesser degrees of non-

comparability between successive decades than between the exterior

decades of 1870 and 1950. Leontieff brings this out very clearly in

this composite passage:

Comparing the structure of an economic system in two stages
of its historical development sufficiently removed from each other,
one might easily find them to be as unalike as a butterfly and a
caterpillar the commodities and services found in the two
stages might turn out to be entirely dissimilar. A quantitative
comparison, a measurement of the difference between the two stages,
would in such a case be out of the question. .. However different
the goods and services observed at the opposite ends of a long
chain of economic transformation, its successive links are neces-
sarily intermeshed. The operation of "splicing time series"
turns out in this formulation to be logically identical with that


7Ibid., p. 50.










of "aggregating commodities," that is, combining distinct indus-
tries. The same theoretical and practical arguments which can
be must be advanced in criticism of various attempts to
depict the quantitative aspects of economic development in terms
of artificially constructed long-run time series. A differentiated
step-by-step description which would reflect the essential contin-
uity of the economic process without assuming a non-existing qual-
itative uniformity will eventually offer a methodologically more
satisfactory alternatives [Underlining supplied.j


Any treatment of history involves a choice between, usually

a compromise between, the chronological and the topical. In the

present compromise, the time period from 1870 to 1950 is disaggregated

into decennial units which are treated in separate chapters, in turn

topically subdivided. In addition to the methodological reasons, sug-

gested in the foregoing quotation, this arrangement permits a more

efficient exploitation of the vast amount of data available from the

several censuses, both state and national.

As an added compromise, since decennial segments are perforce

arbitrary and impede the flow of historic time, the six decennial

chapters in Part I are preceded by two preliminary chapters which

attempt to establish an overview of the period. The first of these

preliminary chapters sketches the historical background of economic

development in terms of events and themes. The second preliminary

chapter seeks to provide a general perspective of the period in terms

of a few key economic variables a quantitative or dimensional picture

of economic development. The decennial chapters then unite and add


8Wassily Leontieff, and others, Studies in the Structure of
the American Economy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955),
pp. 20-22.





J


.1 ,.-.: w










detail to the qualitative and quantitative structure of Florida's

economic development.

Essentially then, the decennial chapters will bring together

a quantitative economic framework and descriptive Florida history; with

emphasis on the conditioning institutional background, specific econ-

omic factors, and economic sectors. Galbraith has written that "the

marriage of economics and history produces a hybrid which regularly
combines the the inadequacies of both." He then proceeds to consum-

mate such a marriage by reconsidering the "contemporary myth" of the

economic and financial history of the Civil War--and the post-war
effects on the economy of the South. Galbraith's marriage of econ-

omics and history might be termed a trial marriage. He tried Keynesian

economics out on Southern history and the hybrid should be no surprise.
In broader terms, however, there is no economics without

history; economics without history is wholly inadequate. But this

paper does not attempt to marry economics and history. Its aim is

much more modest; it is an attempt to bring out some relationships of

patterned economic data against a background of descriptive and

interpretive Florida history. To this end a rough and ready pattern
will be employed in structuring the treatment of each decennial period.

Each decade will be treated under three major headings. The

first heading will be titled "Institutional Background." It will draw


John Kenneth Galbraith, The Liberal Hour (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1960), p. 5.






J









largely on secondary sources which relate to the political, social and

economic history of Florida, either directly or through pertinent
history of the South. The second major heading will be titled

"Economic Factors." Under this heading will normally be subheads of

population, including migration and labor; of land, including public

lands and reclamation; and of capital, including banking and property
valuation. The area covered by the subhead of population will receive

relatively detailed treatment, including some analytical manipulation,
and some data will be presented in the other areas. The third major

heading will be titled "Economic Sectors" and this will normally in-

clude a breakdown of the labor force into some seven or more indus-

trial sectors, based on the estimates of Part II. An attempt will be

made to portray Florida's economic development within this quantitative

framework by integrating the institutional background and economic

factors with additional material on the substantive makeup of the sev-

eral industrial sectors.10

In outlining the institutional background of Florida's devel-
opment, and in discussing some of the economic factors in this devel-

opment, considerable emphasis will be given to the content of the

messages of the Florida governors to their respective legislatures.


10This all seems rather formidable. But, to paraphrase the
author of a recent book review, we need to convey a sense of the
uniqueness of Florida, the smell of it. Walter C. Neale, The Journal
of Economic History, XXL (March, 1961), 107. And the smell of it is
a compound of the manifold and transient aromas of a specific time
period. So, for each decade, we compound some of the varied and
diverse ingredients which seem to have shaped the economic develop-
ment of Florida.





.J











They provide a useful summary of the development of many Florida

institutions. Their format is rather stable and helps mirror the

changing outlook of the several governors to the changing problems of

the state (in some instances, the unchanged outlook to the unchanged

problems). It is recognized that there is bias in these executive

messages, both executive and personal bias; and other sources, such as

the general histories of Florida will be depended upon to reduce this

bias. Discounting executive bias and the tendency to self-justifica-

tion, a study of this series of messages impresses one with the per-

manency of certain aspects of Florida's growth and the recurrent themes

which pervade it.11

It appears pertinent to consider briefly why and how the

governors' messages reflect the economic and political history of

Florida. Perhaps an underlying hypothesis can be adapted from Rich-

ard Hofstadter. In American Political Tradition, he employs a series

of twelve biographical essays to analyze the political development of



11In order to retain the flavor of the times, many quotations
(frequently brief phrases) are taken from the messages of the several
governors. Each such quotation is identified in the text by the name
of the governor and the year of the message. Since each of these
messages is short, is topically arranged, and is published in several
sources--it seems pointless to employ footnotes to cite page numbers
and sources. The House and Senate Journals for the corresponding years
were the sources usually employed and quotations can readily be ver-
ified therein.
The division of the Governors' messages into groups by decennial
periods presents a minor problem. Since a gubernatorial message de-
livered, for example, in 1891 reflects conditions in the state during
the two preceding years, 1889 and 1890, it is somewhat arbitrarily
determined that generally the message of 1891, and comparably placed
years in other decades, will be included in the chapter on the prior
decade, in this case the 1880's.


__ ~__









the nation in terms of the men who made notable contributions to it.12

He dealt with these men in their capacity as leaders of popular thought.

In effect, he concluded that these leaders generally conformed to

guidance of popular thought and he stressed the need for emphasizing

the common climate of American opinion. In this study the sixteen

Florida governors of the period covered will be accepted as the most

generally authentic contemporary voice of popular thought. As a by-

product, with more advantage than disadvantage, each of these period

spokesmen is voicing the common opinion in the same frame of refer-

ence; to the extent that a pervasive mood develops--through the con-

tinuity of the executive-to-legislative tone and perspective.

The governors of Florida have, without exception, placed con-

siderable stress on the economic development of Florida; in words if

not always in action. Generally, during the period covered, each

governor served one term of four years and delivered two messages to

the legislature; the first usually in the April following his November

election and the second two years later, about mid-term. After 1885 they

were not eligible for immediate re-election and their messages gener-

ally appear to reflect their desires to establish a statesman-like

stance on the stage of Florida history. Commonly, they advocated

economic, political, and social reforms somewhat in advance of their

acceptability to the state legislature. Normally, in view of their

brief tenure, they were limited in effective advocacy to issues com-

patible with the current climate of public opinion. In general, the


12(New York: Vintage Books, 1948).




j










governors appear to have been more responsive to the democratic will

of the people than were the legislatures; but this must be qualified

to the extent that the governors are largely judged by their words

and the legislatures by their actions.

In using this series of some thirty-five gubernatorial messages

(including extra sessions) to reflect the institutional background to

Florida's economic development, it is thus my hypothesis (descriptive

not explanatory) that they are a rather accurate reflection of the

contemporary attitudes of Floridians to economic development. Not

only did the campaign promises of the successful candidate have to be

generally acceptable to the electorate; afterwards the governor could

translate these political promises into statesman-like transmissions

to the legislature which largely removed the dross of the campaign to

give specific proposals for legislative action. In support of this

hypothesis, Doyle, in his thorough work on Florida government, wrote

that governors' messages "reflect, as does no other source, the

economic and political history of Florida."13

It may be argued that excessive attention has been paid to the

role of the state government in respect to the economic development of

Florida; and that not enough attention has been devoted to the under-

lying economic factors operating in the private economy. This criticism

is accepted, in part.14 More attention could well be devoted to the


13Wilson K. Doyle, and others, The Government and Administra-
tion of Florida (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1954), p. 66.

14Although economic activity in the private sector vastly
exceeds that in the public sector, one might counter that it is only










latter area. It is considered, however, that the priorities dictated

first, a reasonably detailed presentation of the institutional back-

ground and second, the development of some consistent quantitative

measures of Florida's economic development. From this base further

progress is possible; without it further progress is difficult. And

essentially, the scope of this study is concentrated on the develop-

ment of this base. Further to buttress this emphasis on institutional

background one might cite Joseph A. Schumpeter who bases his prefer-

ence for the study of economic history on three grounds:

First, the subject matter of economics is essentially a unique
process in historic time. Nobody can hope to understand the econ-
omic phenomena of any, including the present, epoch who has not
an adequate command of historical facts and an adequate amount of
historical sense or of what may be described as historical exper-
ience. Second, the historical report can not be purely economic
but must inevitably reflect also "institutional" facts that are not
purely economic: therefore it affords the best method for under-
standing how economic and non-economic fact are related to one
another and how the various social sciences should be related to
one another. Third, it is, I believe, the fact that most of the
fundamental errors currently committed in economic analysis are
due to lack of historical experience more often than to any other
shortcoming of the economist's equipment.15












through the public sector and its related institutions that society
as a whole can affect the course of economic development.

15As quoted in a brochure of the Columbia University Graduate
School. The source in Schumpeter's writings is not identified.


I-' I M e














CHAPTER II


HISTORICAL OVERVIEW


General


The purpose of this chapter is to present, in summary fashion,

the historical background--and some of the foreground--of Florida's

economic development from 1870 to 1930. It will provide an essential

backdrop for the following chapter which presents an overview of

Florida's economic development in terms of quantitative change in key

economic variables. The chapter draws on the institutional content of

the series of chapters which deal with each decennial period as a

structural unit of the over-all period. The second section of this

chapter will briefly consider the major events of the period and their

influence on Florida's economic development. The third section will

attempt a summarization of the major themes of the period as they

impinged on economic development.

First, however, a note on the pre-history of the period may be

useful. Since there is no end in tracing historical antecedents,

discussion of pre-1870 developments is arbitrarily kept to a minimum.

Ante-bellum Florida is generally described as a plantation economy based

upon the institution of slavery. After the War military rule prevailed

until 1868 and the subsequent Reconstruction under civil control con-

tinued to 1877, based on the 1868 Constitution. Reconstruction was









a trying period for Florida, as for the other Southern states. Florida

was what would now be termed an underdeveloped area, was faced with

extensive post-war adjustments, and was in the midst of a major social
upheaval.

Some comment as to the effect of the Civil War on the economic
development of the South generally is probably indicated. Perhaps the

extreme "liberal" view is that:

After a hundred years, the South has not entirely got over
the habit of attributing its economic misfortunes to the Civil
War and the aftermath--an attribution for which there is no
supporting evidence
This allegation seems somewhat less pertinent to Florida than to the

South generally but nevertheless Florida was a more active participant

in the war than is sometimes realized: engagements were fought on its

territory; its major ports were occupied; and it was a most important

source of supplies, notably salt and cattle.2

Galbraith argues that Civil War financing through borrowing
did not have serious post-war consequences since:

The confederate bonds that became worthless were the claims
of those who had supplied savings to repayment with interest out
of later public revenues. They weren't repaid, which meant that
the revenue remained with other persons for other use.3

1John Kenneth Galbraith, The Liberal Hour (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1960), p. 3.
2Though few would subscribe to Dacy's statement relative to
keeping the supply lines open: "It is common knowledge that the Civil
War might have ended several years earlier than it did except for the
stirring and brilliant victory at the Battle of Olustee" in
Florida. George H. Dacy Four Centuries of Florida Ranching (St. Louis:
Britt Printing Co., 1940;, p. 56.

5Galbraith, p. 90.





1










As to real capital, Galbraith argues that: "The physical capital of
the South suffered, but the impression of enduring harm must be squared

with the rapid rebuilding." He cites recent West German recovery as

an example of the ambiguous impact of war on an economy--even to the

loser. An obvious rebuttal to the pertinence of this example would

question its relevance in comparing situations so far removed in time

and space--and culture. Moreover the United States appears to have

been more magnanimous in aiding in the economic reconstruction of

a defeated Germany than a defeated South. Of the post-war period

Woodward writes: "No sooner had the Southerners returned to Washing-

ton and presented their internal improvement bills, however, than they

were informed that the Great Barbecue was over and that they were too

late."4

To continue Galbraith's argument, he refers to the "mystical

destruction of the capital of the South" represented by some four

billion dollars worth of wealth in the form of slaves.5 He states:


4C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877 1913
(Louisiana State University Press, 1951), p. 50.
5The 1870 U.S. Census notes: "The great reduction in the
assessed values of personal property in the Southern States since 1860
is, in the main, due to the emancipation of the human chattels which,
at the Eighth Census, formed so large a portion of the wealth of those
States." (Vol. 5, p. 7) The assessed value of Florida real estate
went down from some $21.7 to $20.2 million from 1860 to 1870 but the
assessed value of personal property went down from $47.2 to 142.3
million in that period. Total assessed valuation went down from $68.9
to $32.5 million but "true valuation according to the Census esti-
mates, only decreased from $73.1 to $44.2 million. (Ibid., p. 21)







A


, li, -










None of this makes sense by any modern view. The capital
in the slaves was not destroyed. It was transferred from planta-
tion owner to freedmen, and there was social loss only so far as
the labor produced by the latter was less efficient.6

Summarizing, Galbraith writes:

It would seem possible that the South was in a bad way before
the war--that it had, in fact, an obsolescent agrarian economy
in which poverty was disguised by slavery and the power, prestige
and income of a considerable ruling class on which all attention
centered.
We may go on to speculate as to why industry came later to
this part of the country. Perhaps it was a late start in which
slavery played a part. Perhaps it was an accident of commerce
routes and geography and the course of immigration. There are
many possible reasons, and among them the war would seem to be
among the least.7

Foregoing is the economic argument of Galbraith. He is attacking the

"folklore" explanation of the supposedly deleterious effects of the

Civil War on the economic development of the South. But preceding

this attack he presents an hypothesis as to how this historical mis-

understanding came about. In summary he defines a "great historical

event" as one which "changes people or, more precisely, the way they

think, so that they are never the same again"; and as one giving

"deep sorrow, fear, or pain to a large majority of the people."

He postulates the Civil War as the greatest historical event influ-

encing the United States in the last century, not excluding both world

wars and the depression of the 1950's. He writes that in the Confed-

eracy "the trauma of war and its aftermath was profound" and that such

events change people and thus the course of history.8


6Galbraith, p. 90.

Ibid., p. 92.

BIbid., pp. 79-82.











Galbraith's economic argument minimizes the direct effects of

the Civil War on the subsequent economic development of the South. But

Galbraith himself, in the preceding paragraph, advances a hypothesis

which emphasizes the direct effects of the Civil War in changing the

way people think "so that they are never the same again." If one

subscribes to the theory that the way people think has a vital bearing

on the nature of the development of their economy it appears that

Galbraith, in minimizing the direct economic effects of the Civil War,

may have tended to ignore the indirect economic effects--conceivably

more important. Naturally an economist prefers to isolate the econ-

omic factors and demonstrate their operation. Untangling indirect

effects is difficult and in large part impossible. Yet they cannot

be ignored.

This is not to say that Galbraith's attack on the conviction

"that the war put a permanent blight on the fortunes of the entire

region" was not justified. In fact, one might argue that the economic

consequences of the Civil War were, in the long run, quite the con-

trary; that the Civil War acted to eliminate blighting institutions

and blighting ways of thought; that the economic consequences of the

war were, in the net, beneficial to the economic development of the

South.










Major Events


The major event of the 1870's was the transition from the

Reconstruction period to the Redemption period; from Republican

control to Democratic control; from an effort to base political control

on control of the masses to political control based on economic power.

The Reconstruction period from the Constitution of 1868 to 1876 was

not as radical in Florida as in many southern states and the reaction

under the Redemptionists was not as severe. The moderate nature of

this transition is brought out in detail in Chapter IV. As continues

to be the case, the successors to political power found they could not

eradicate all the changes brought about by their predecessors. They

were forced to build in large part on the inherited foundation. But

on this foundation they made major changes in the relationship of

state government to the controlling economic classes.

The major event of the 1880's was the vast expansion in rail-

road transportation. At this time in Florida's economic development,

transportation was the key. The land existed and potential migrants

existed; only transportation could bring them together. But trans-

portation was not a free costless good. The people, through the state

government, spent millions of acres of public land--more than half the

land area of Florida--to buy this transportation network. And they

bought more than transportation; they bought access to markets and

access to raw materials and they bought expansion in every industrial

sector. They bought the migration wave which quadrupled the net migra-

tion of the preceding decade in absolute terms; and almost tripled






20


it in terms of percentage of end population.

The major event of the 1890's is more difficult to specify.

Perhaps three should be named. In the political area the populist

movement, in all of its ramifications, did not attain political suprem-

acy but it did attack the linkage between economic power and political

power and pave the way for progressive ascendancy in the following

decade. In the physical world the great freezes of the 1890's drove

the locus of citrus production a hundred miles to the south; a disaster

at the time but one which had major implications for economic develop-

ment. In the international area the Spanish-American War gave great

impetus to Florida's economic development. Immediately, it doubled

the capacity--not the mileage--of Florida's transportation network and

stimulated a valuable cash flow for agricultural products, again with

a shift of locus to the south. As the mounting out and staging area

for Cuba, the War brought troops and fame to Florida; probably the major

causal factor behind the migration wave of the following decade.

The major event of the 1900's in the political area was the
ascendancy of the Progressive wing of the Democratic party; a liberal-

izing and liberating influence. Initiated in many respects by Gov-

ernor Jennings, but centering on Governor Broward and his immediate

successors, the progressive era and spirit may be assigned a major

causal role in Florida's economic expansion. As detailed in Chapter VII,

Broward's ideas in some respects were ahead of Florida's absorptive

capacity at the time but served to break new mental ground at least.

And in the field of reclamation, for example, he broke new physical






J











ground, as later detailed. In the economic area we have already

ascribed to the Spanish-American War a major causal role for the

migration wave of the 1900's. But the progressive spirit and the

physical fact that large reclamation projects were being undertaken

can also claim a contributing role in almost tripling the absolute net

migration of the prior decade; and almost doubling net migration in

terms of percentage of end population.

The major event of the 1910's, in influencing Florida's econ-

omic growth, was World War I; both directly and through its ramifica-

tions. During the early part of the decade Florida was, by some meas-

ures, experiencing a retrogression. Forestry which had made a rela-

tively small contribution to Florida's development of itself, became

a declining industry in the 1910's. But raw materials from the for-

estry sector constituted about half of the raw materials going into

Florida's manufactured products, including some principal export prod-

ucts. The war stimulated manufactures in these products and changed

net losses for the first half of the decade to large gains for the

entire decade. A major new industry, steel ship and boat building,

was a transient war-time phenomenon but produced secondary beneficial

effects. Analagous to the effect of the Spanish-American War in the

production of a migration wave in the 1900's, it is considered that

World War I played a major role in producing a migration wave in the

1920's. The magnitudes of increase were almost identical as between

the 1890's and 1900's as contrasted with the relationship of the 1910's

and the 1920's. Net migration in the 1920's almost tripled that of










the preceding decade, in absolute terms; and almost doubled the pre-

ceding decade in terms of percentage of end population.

Among the main events of the 1920's, we may perhaps identify

the boom and bust of mid-decade and the advent of the great depres-

sion of the 1950's at the end of the decade. Florida experienced a

net migration during this decade which, in absolute terms, approxi-

mated the net migration of all five prior decades; some 557,700 net

in-migrants in the 1920's as compared with some 550,700 in the five

preceding decades. It seems probable that this large influx of the

1920's, which totaled 25 per cent of Florida's 1930 population, was

a major factor in bringing about the boom of mid-decade through press

ure on usable land and available facilities. Heretofore, substantial

migration waves in the 1880's and 1900's had largely been absorbed

in moving the frontier southward. In the 1920's, however, we find

that the cantering urbanization of prior decades was now at full

gallop with an urban rate of increase of 115 per cent from 355,500

in 1920 to 759,880 in 1950. One of the concomitants of urbanization

in Florida was diversification. Florida was doubly fortunate in

also experiencing increasing diversification in the agricultural

sector. Among the major sectors in Florida in 1950, about one-fourth

of the labor force was engaged in agriculture, about one-fourth in

manufacturing, about one-fourth in trade and transportation, and about

one-fourth in services. The diversification of Florida's economy in

the 1920's, following the pattern of earlier decades, aided Florida

greatly in reducing to some degree the rigors of the ensuing depres-

sion.










In the foregoing section, some of the major events of the

period have been briefly discussed in reference to their impact on

Florida's economic development. The rather heroic generalizations

involved are given some detail, depth, and qualification in the

chapters related to each decade. This will also be true for the

following section in which we briefly consider some of the major

themes relating to Florida's growth; primarily as distilled from

gubernatorial messages.


Major Themes

General

Abbey concisely writes that "the entire economic struggle of

Florida from Ponce de Leon to the present has been the conquest of

. poor communications, sparse population, and undrained lands."9

Communications was largely a problem of entrepreneurship, capital,

and technology; population was a problem of inducing immigration; and

the undrained lands posed financial and technical problems, compli-

cated by the problem of public land utilization or disposal. To a

considerable degree, Florida used one problem to help solve the

others. Public lands were used to entice the capital to build the

communications to bring in the migrants. Thus a major theme running

through this period concerns the attitude of the state toward these

various factors of production.


9Abbey, p. 345.





J










Another major theme of this period relates to the availabil-

ity and use of state resources, other than land, to promote economic

development. This mainly concerned state finance and state regulatory

power, with frequent relationships between them. State finance in

Florida was primarily concerned with the nature, magnitude, and fair-

ness of taxes with the economical use of state revenues for state

objectives, and with the subject of state and local government debt.

The state objectives, other than those inherent in the preced-

ing themes, could be taken as a separate major theme. The development

of the common schools and the state institutions of higher learning

constituted a very large investment in the human capital of Florida.

Common schools were primarily funded at the local level but the state

exercised the ultimate control over both funding and operations.

Among the ameliorative type institutions, the penal system was a

recurrent theme which pervaded the gubernatorial messages for the

entire period.

The last of the major themes, which could be given some

attention here, is related to control of the state. Of interest here

would be the relationship of economic power to political power. This

of course brings in questions of suffrage, election procedures, appor-

tionment, and lobbying. Florida's governors devoted much attention to

these questions in their several messages. They constitute a theme of

very considerable import in relation to the economic development of

Florida.

The remainder of this section sunnarizes some of the high-

lights of the first of these major themes, based on more detailed









treatment in the series of chapters on each decade.10 Detailed treat-

ment of some of the more peripheral areas has had to be curtailed or

omitted to reduce the bulk of this study. Among these areas are those

dealing with public education, the ameliorative institutions, and the

issue of political control of the state as a function of economic

power and as a measure of democracy.


State Attitudes

Population.--There seems to be correlation of sorts between the

state attitude to population increase, as expressed in gubernatorial

messages, and the magnitude of immigration. The Reconstruction gover-

nors pressed heavily for immigration measures and spoke optimistically

about the success of their efforts, despite laggard legislatures and

some lack of public interest. Governor Harrison Reed claimed an influx

of 40,000 migrants between 1868 and 1871 and, in 1875, Governor Marcellus

L. Stearns noted a general increase and looked hopefully forward to a

population of one million by 1900; a goal only half met by that date

and not achieved until 1920.

It seems likely that the transition from Reconstruction to

Redemption in 1877 tended to slow down the influx of migrants into

Florida until after 1880. The Redemption governors still pressed to

promote immigration but the legislators responded sluggishly--if at all.

In the 1880's, Governor William D. Bloxham and Governor Edward A. Perry

continued to move for action to increase immigration. The Department

of Immigration of 1870 had died and had been succeeded by a Bureau of

10Thus the sources for statements in this section are to be
found in these later chapters, unless otherwise cited.





4










Immigration in 1879; followed in turn by a voluntary "Florida Immi-

gration Association" in 1887 and then by another Bureau of Immigration--

headed by the governor and directly financed by a one-eighth mill prop-

erty tax. The Bloxham sale to Hamilton Disston in 1881 had multiple

objectives, not the least of which was to remove major road-blocks to

immigration.

As a result of many and complex causal factors, immigration

in the 1880's greatly exceeded that in the 1870's. The 1890's, how-

ever, brought a large decline in immigration. This may have been due

in part to the yellow fever epidemics in the late 1880's, which forced

an extra session of the legislature, and which undoubtedly were well

publicized in the nation. The gubernatorial messages of the 1890's

also demonstrated an unusual disinterest in specific action to promote

immigration. Cyclical migration waves, which were thus given the

pattern of a low in the 1870's, a high in the 1880's, and a low in the

1890's, continued in this pattern for the rest of the period. The in-

fluence of the Spanish-American War and World War I on migration are

credited in the preceding section on major events. The fortuitous

timing of these wars, however and moreover, may have greatly reinforced

the hypothesized cyclical effect, at least in amplitude.11



lln a study of the California experience between 1900 and
1950, Gordon discusses the timing of migration waves in relation to
population growth. While not necessarily concluding that these waves
are cyclical (in the sense of being self-generating), Gordon does point
to the possibility that unusually high migration in one period will
be followed by a period of absorption "before economic conditions are
favorable for a new influx of migrants." In Florida, these periods
seem to have assumed the character of decennial periods in timing and










State attitudes toward inducing immigration were generally

favorable in the decade of the 1900's; Governors Napoleon B. Broward

and Albert W. Gilchrist advocating advertising campaigns and

Gilchrist advocating free transportation for intending settlers.

The advent of the Progressive era also brought with it more concern for

the welfare of the population. Such areas as child labor, arbitration

of labor disputes, employee safety provisions, and employer's liability

became the subject of frequent gubernatorial proposals.

This concern continued on into the 1910's and in 1919 Governor

Sidney J. Catts suggested that union labor had asserted sufficient power,

in bringing the eight-hour day to the railroads, to warrant treatment of

union labor as part of the great body politic. Not much action was taken

in respect to inducing migration during the 1910's. Governor Park

Trammell proposed a rather trifling Settler's Act and Catts, at the end

of the decade, proposed that a special train loaded with Florida products

tour the nation to advertize Florida. This decade, generally, appears

to have been a period of absorption. There was, however, a violent

change in the racial composition of immigration. This is detailed

in the decade chapter but, essentially, white immigration increased

substantially while colored immigration virtually stopped. Within the

state, there was a very moderate shifting about of the white popula-

tion among the counties in the net but a violent internal movement



duration but it is suspected that their character would have been
greatly modified if the wars had been otherwise timed. See Margaret
S. Gordon, Emplyment Expansion and Population Growth (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1954), p. 147.










of the colored population. The explanation for this departure from

prior migration patterns is largely to be found in the increasing

racial tensions which, both logically and paradoxically, accompanied

the Progressive era. Some details are provided in the racial aspects

section of the chapter on the 1900's. The tensions had reached the

point where Broward, in 1907, was seriously proposing colonization

of the Negro; an idea which Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln had enter-

tained in their times.

The state attitude toward population increase in the 1920's

was more concerned with how to provide facilities, governmental and

otherwise, for the vast in-migration than with trying to induce more.

Not that more people were not desired but natural forces appeared to

have taken control of that problem. The temper of the times is well

illustrated in the following quotations from a book by Stockbridge and

Perry, published in 1926 but completed in 1925. Governor John W.

Martin wrote the foreword which congratulated the authors on their

"monumental work," noting that they had gone below the surface of events.

Starting with the premise that Florida land had sold for 25 cents per

acre in 1880 when the population of Florida was only one-quarter of a

million, the authors pointed out that the population in 1925 was five

times as great and the same land was selling for 700 dollars per acre.

They then asked this rhetorical question: "What will it be worth when

the population of Florida is again multiplied by five?"12 It is perhaps


1'Frank Parker Stockbridge and John Holliday Perry, Florida
in the Making (New York: The de Bower Publishing Co., 1926), p. Xvi.










technically unfair to the authors to extrapolate the implications of

this question in mathematical terms but, if the same proportions held,

Florida land would sell for a tidy 1,960,000 dollars per acre. The

authors quote former Governor Cary A. Hardee to the effect that nowhere

else can land be found "that will produce, with careful, industrious

and intelligent cultivation, crops of a net value of from $200 to $1000

per acre, that can still be bought at from $50 to $200 per acre."13

In a concluding vision the authors write that Florida' s boom has only

begun and that: ,

Long before the middle of the twentieth century Florida is
destined to be one of the three or four most densely populated
states in the Union, with at least ten million permanent in-
habitants and a winter population of as many more.14

Actually, the population of Florida in 1950 was about 2,771,300.

Land.--The land problems of Florida antedated the Reconstruc-

tionists. Public lands had been used to provide a reserve to guarantee

the payment of railroad bonds before the Civil War. The Reconstruction

governors inherited the land problem and then they aggravated it. When

the Redeemers took power there was no essential change in the policy

to use land to subsidize railroads and canals on the basis of public

necessity. Bloxham cleared the title on state lands in 1881, in the

manner described on page 133, and the state then really entered the

subsidization business. A minor hitch developed in 1887 when Perry

found that the national government was not patenting lands to the



13Ibid., p. 48.

14'bid., p. 298.










state as fast as the legislature was granting them to the railroads.

Less than 2 million acres of state public lands had been disposed of

prior to 1881; but by 1888 the figure had reached about 16 million acres.

This was from a total state land area of about 55 million acres. By

1891, the state had claimed an additional 6 million acres in addition

to the 16 million already patented by the federal government; which

had been largely disposed of to the railroads. Of the more than

22 million acres claimed by the state it has been estimated by Dau, as

cited later, that about 10 million acres were falsely claimed in that

the land did not meet the technical qualifications in the basic federal

law.

Land reclamation efforts were launched by Bloxham in the 1880's

but large scale operations awaited the planning of Governor William S.

Jennings and implementation by Broward and his successors. The key

role of Broward in the drainage of the Everglades is well detailed, as

cited later, in Proctor's biography of Broward. The vicissitudes of

Everglades drainage are too complex to summarize readily. In 1927,

Governor Martin was proposing a $20 million bond issue to complete the

project but by 1931 Dovernor Doyle E. Carlton had tapped the federal

till for a $7 million contribution to be matched by $2 million from the

Drainage District. Taking a broad view, it appears that the acres of

land reclaimed by Everglades drainage were less important in the long

run than the impetus all this activity and publicity gave to the develop-

ment of South Florida in general.

Capital.--State attitudes to capital growth in Florida were

analagous to those relative to population growth, and the two were










frequently coupled. A specified purpose of immigration pamphlets was

to "attract the capitalists of the North"; as well as immigrants.

The public lands, themselves, were a prime capital resource to be spent

for social overhead capital and, conceptually only, for human capital.

The close linkage between population and capital formation is empha-

sized by Kuznets.15

The story of how the public lands were spent is told elsewhere.

However wastefully, they did bring about capital formation in Florida--

and the conditions for more capital formation. The decade chapters

give scattered statistics which indicate the general growth of banking

in Florida. During this period, banks were the primary financial in-

termediary in bringing about capital formation. In 1874, there was

only one national bank in Florida; in 1884, there were three; and in

1889, there were thirteen, with deposits of $2,352,000. In 1885, there

was only one state bank in Florida and there was no state banking law

until 1889.

In 1881, Bloxham proposed a constitutional amendment to tfept

capital by exempting new manufacturing operations from taxation for a

period of five or ten years. In 1893, Governor Henry L. Mitchell warned

against unfriendly legislation which would repel "foreign" (out of state)

capital. A glance at the bank deposits for that year, in comparison with

the immediately preceding years, provided some cause for Mitchell's alarm.



15Simon Kuznets, Capital in the American Economy: Its Forma-
tion and Financing (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961),
p. 327.










In 1905, Jennings noted that Florida had enjoyed the largest capital

increment in the South in the lumber industry during the prior five

year period, but he gave no source for this data. Jennings also noted

that in terms of physical railroad capital, Florida had more mileage

per capital than any other state; this, of course, not without problems

relating to railroad solvency.

In 1905, Broward was quite concerned about the drain on money

capital by out-of-state life insurance companies, a drain he estimated

as a net loss equivalent to a ten mill tax on the assessed value of

all Florida property. He proposed that the state go into the life

insurance business, and he reiterated this proposal in 1907. By 1910,

Florida's 154 state banks had deposits exceeding $17 million and the

45 national banks in Florida had deposits of about $26 million. For

the fiscal year ending June 50, 1910, there were about 1,500 corpor-

ations in Florida with a combined capital stock of $138 million and

indebtedness of $91 million. The net income of these corporations

for the fiscal year approached $9 million.

The 1920's were characterized by heavy public investment by

Florida's counties and municipalities. It is somewhat incongruous to

see the governors of Florida congratulating the state upon its splen-

did financial condition, lack of bonded indebtedness, and the immunity

of the state to loss of funds through bank failures, at the very same

time they were bemoaning the opposite attributes of those mere crea-

tures of the state--the political subdivisions of the state. Not that

the governors were not concerned and did not propose safeguards.










Hardee suggested as a minimum criteria that improvements funded by

bonds be as long-lived as the bonds, surely not an unreasonable

minimum. Martin, from the vantage point of 1927, called for a stop

to the wholesale issuing of bonds by counties and municipalities.

Though state finances "were never on a sounder basis" he noted that

Florida local governments had in 1925 issued some 35 per cent of all

bonds issued in the nation.

In 1925, Martin had declared that "Florida needs capital and

must have it"--along with the requisite labor force. Thus he urged

that "no statute should be enacted inimical to either." In 1927, he

was not dismayed by the current interruption and consequent necessary

readjustments. After all, he reported, millions of dollars of capital

had come into the state and large acreages of Florida land had been

sold for "splendid prices."

In 1929, Carlton acknowledged progress in the boom period,

citing an advance of 1000 per cent in public improvement in ten years,

but sternly warned of the cost yet to be paid. Carlton also declared

for the encouragement of industrial development; and resurrected

Bloxham's 1881 proposal for tax remission for new industries, subject

to a proviso that the new industries not be competitive with existing

state industries.

Any discussion of capital formation in Florida, however limited,

would be remiss if it did not mention the introduction of large amounts

of money capital by wealthy individuals who made Florida their new home--

or a second home. One must presume that normal investment considerations










largely governed the application of these funds to projects within the

state. However the motivations for coming to the state, while largely

unknown and probably complex, appear to have been based in part on

such considerations as personal health and climatic appeal.16 It is

also probable that there was an agglomerative effect based on the herd

instincts of society and wealth. To mention a few of these individ-

uals, Martin credits Flagler with having spent about $50 million in

Florida, primarily derived from a multi-million dollar fortune accum-

ulated prior to his arrival in 1885 at the age of 55.17 Abbey states

that "Flagler spent money in Florida, while Plant made money."18 It is

noted, however, that Plant had extensive holdings before his Florida

operations and his biographer cites a periodical of the late 1890's

which states that he employed more men in the operation of the South-

ern and Texas Express Companies than he did in his twelve railway

corporationa.19

16For example, Abbey quotes Flagler as stating: "I made a
careful survey of the situation, calculated upon the prospects and
concluded to take advantage of the opportunity, and we who made early
investments have proved the faith in our own judgment." See Abbey,
p. 557. But Martin, Flagler's biographer, writes (possibly in a dif-
ferent context): "The entire scheme seemed to be essentially a hobby.
Sustaining this hobby, too, was another motive. He regarded
furnishing large numbers of persons with employment as the highest
form of charity." Sidney Walter Martin, Florida's Flagler (Athenst
The University of Georgia Press, 1949), p. 115. The motivation sug-
gested by Abbey would appear more appropriate in a properly function-
ing democratic capitalistic society.
17Ibid., p. 202.
1Abbey, p. 557.
19G. Hutchinson Smyth, The Life of Henry Bradley Plant
(New Yorks G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), p. 154.





ii











There are many others who could be named. On the West Coast,

the Ringling family took up residence in the early 1910's and by 1925

John Ringling was reportedly worth $100 million--on paper; some por-

tions of which remained permanently invested in Florida.20 In the

Miami area Carl Graham Fisher poured a fortune into the development of

Miami Beach, according to the biography by his wife which probably

tends to exaggerate his achievements somewhat.21 A relative new-

comer to the Florida scene was Alfred I. duPont who had a block of

duPont stock with a market value of about $120 million prior to the

stock market crash in late 1929.22 Operating from Jacksonville, he

was a stabilizing influence in Florida finance, especially during the

critical period between 1926 and 1950. His investments in real estate

only amounted to about $1 million in urban property and $1 million in

land but his major role was in creating the largest banking system in

the state, and one with ample reserves. Total deposits in the duPont

chain of banks at the end of 1950 were over $27 million.23 This was

during a period when over 80 Florida banks closed.24 Patrick has writ-

ten that the depression was not as severe in Florida as in other states



20Henry Ringling North and Alden Hatch, The Circus Kings
(Garden Citys Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1960), p. 197.

21Jane Fisher, Fabulous Hoosiert A Story of American Achieve-
ment (New York: Robert M. McBride and Co., 1947).

22Marquis James, Alfred I. duPont: The Family Rebel (New York:
The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1941), p. 422.

25Ibid., p. 448.

24Ibid., p. 450.










and one might conjecture that this preliminary stabilizing operation

may well have been a major contributing factor to reducing the severity

of the depression.25 Many other names could be mentioned, perhaps

ranging down from the sublimely wealthy to their bamboozlers, the

legendary Mizners.26 But this chapter must now give way to one which

presents a quantitative summary of the period.
































25Rembert W. Patrick, Florida Under Five Flags (rev. ed.,
Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1955), p. 95.

26The title of a book by Alva Johnson, The Legendary Mizners
(New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953); a colorful account of
Palm Beach in the 1920's.














CHAPTER III


QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW


General


In the later chapters of Part I, each decade will be treated

as a structural unit of the total period. In these later chapters,

economic sectors and economic factors will be presented against the

institutional background of the times. Inevitably, there must be

compromise between a topical and a chronological arrangement. In

these later chapters the topical is subordinated to the chronological.

This overview chapter attempts some treatment of the whole period to

outline the quantitative framework of the following chapters. It may

thus help to provide a general perspective of the period in terms of

a few economic variables; both in absolute terms and in terms relative

to the nation and selected states.

The key economic variable in this study is labor force, for

reasons presented in the chapter on methodology. For our immediate

purposes, the key role of labor force as a measure of economic growth

is illustrated in the following diagram. On the supply side, labor

force and average workweek changes determine labor input changes.

Labor input and productivity changes provide a measure of economic

growth in terms of total output. On the demand side, labor force

and average wage changes determine labor income changes. Labor income


37










and property income changes provide a measure of economic growth in

terms of total income. The common ingredient is thus labor force

change which can be considered as determined by population and by

labor force participation rate changes. Population changes are then

resolvable into natural increase and migration.


LABOR INCOME PROPE


AVERAGE
WACE


Fig. l.--Key Role of Labor Force in Measurement of Economic Growth.


Florida's economic growth in absolute terms is simply presented.

To effectively present its growth relative to that of other states

and the nation, however, a statistical method known as the shift tech-

nique is employed. The relative measures of economic change thus

developed are readily understandable and do not require specific knowl-

edge of the shift technique itself (which is formally discussed in the

methodology chapter).











The choice of the other states or regions with which to compare

and contrast Florida's economic growth is a problem. One logical ap-

proach is to consider Florida in relation to the nation and to such

intermediate regions as are commonly considered to include Florida.

Even this poses questions; such as the specific states composing a

region--the outlines are always blurred. Even within a brief period

the choice is not always obvious. Over a span of six decades, the

problem increases because regional boundaries are not static. In

view of these considerations, and others, the choice of comparable

regions for the purposes of this study narrowed itself down to three

states and the nation. Georgia and Alabama were selected both as

neighboring states and as general representatives of the Deep South.

California was selected as another example of a rapid growth state

with somewhat comparable climatic conditions and a similar peripheral

coastal position relative to the nation's economic core.

The next section will deal with the population changes which

underlie labor force changes, especially the related aspects of mi-

gration, labor force participation rates, and urbanization. The third

section will consider labor force changes in several variations.

These two sections will emphasize economic change in Florida in rela-

tion to that in the nation and in the selected states. The fourth

section will then concentrate on the patterns of change in Florida

itself, both in respect to Florida's share of national change in the

several industrial sectors and in respect to what contribution these

individual sectors make to Florida's economic development and changing









economic structure. A final section will summarize some of the labor

force changes and will also introduce some wealth and personal income
comparisons. It should also be noted that somewhat more detailed
presentations of Florida's labor force changes are contained in the
series of chapters on the individual decades which follow this chapter.
Labor force estimates at the substate level are presented only in the
reference tables, as described in Part II.

Population Changes

This study focuses on labor force changes as a measure of
economic growth to a very considerable degree, for reasons stated
elsewhere. Underlying these labor force changes are changes in
population and changes in labor force participation rates, the per-
centage of the population in the labor force. Underlaying changes
in population are the factors of natural increase and migration.
The relative importance of these latter factors are set forth in
Table 1 which shows the population for each decade, the respective
numerical contributions of natural increase and net migration, a
measure of the decennial changes in rate of natural increase, and a
measure of the net migration for each decade as a percentage of the
end population of that decade. In summary, natural increase dominated
in the first three decades, net migration in the last three decades,
and net migration for the total period. The rate of natural increase
suffered a general decline over the period while the relative measure
of net migration increased in a wave-like or cyclical fashion; with





J










alternations each decade and with each successive decade higher than

the second preceding decade.1


TABLE 1

TOTAL POPULATION AND CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS


Year(s) Population Net Natural Increase Net Migration
100's Migration No. Rate %of end Pop.
100's 100's % %


1877


2695


3914


5285


7526


9685


14682


Source: Reference


144


579


429


1204


1151


3577



6884


Tables,


674


640


942


1037


1008


1620



5921


P-1 and M-1.


1Compare with the pattern of urbanization as described in a
later section. Factors relating to this cyclical pattern were dis-
cussed in Chapter II.


1870
1870's

1880
1880's

1890
1890's

1900
1900's

1910
1910's

1920
1920's

1930

Total


29.5


19.4


20.5


16.2


11.7


13.5


5.3


14.9


8.1


15.9


11.9


25.0










It is instructive to present the net migration rates for

Florida in contrast with those of the adjoining deep South states of

Georgia and Alabama, and in comparison with those of California.

Tables 2 and 5 do this in terms of the native white population and the

negro or nonwhite population. In summary, both Florida and California

had substantial in-migration rates; averaging about 160 and 245,

respectively, per thousand of native whites. Both states demonstrated

an increasing trend in rates over the period, with a temporary drop

in the 1890's. Georgia and Alabama, by contrast, had consistent out-

migration rates; averaging about 50 and 48, respectively, per thousand

of native whites over the period. There was no pronounced trend for

these two latter states over the period and, dropping one extreme

value, the out-migration rates varied between 24 and 64 for the eleven

measurements for the two states.

Nonwhite net migration figures for California are not available

but the contrast between Florida and its two neighbors for nonwhite

are rather similar to those for white population. Florida's average

in-migration of 112 per thousand would have approximated the white

average of about 160 except for low rates in the 1870's and 1910's--

periods when racial issues were boiling. The out-migration rates for

Georgia and Alabama averaged about 68 and 53 respectively; a bit higher

than for whites but not very dissimilar if the high rates in the 1920's

are discounted.

In examining these comparative net migration rates, as between

Florida and its two neighboring states, the inter-relationship between










them should be noted. It is a common generalization that (with nota-

ble exceptions) migration interchange varies inversely with distance.

To a large extent Florida's in-migrants were the out-migrants of Geor-

gia and Alabama. Out of some 277,100 native whites resident in Florida

in 1900, for example, some 185,500 were born in Florida. Of the remain-

ing 91,600, about 29,000 were born in Georgia and about 15,700 were

born in Alabama; these two states providing about one-half of the

total in-migrants. Similar figures for 1950 are 492,000 born out of

Florida; 125,700 from Georgia and 57,300 from Alabama, about 37 per

cent of the total in-migrants. It may be suspected that the decreased

percentages from 50 to 37 per cent (it was 59 per cent in 1870) repre-

sents to a large degree the influence of developments in transportation

and communication.2


TABLE 2

NET MIGRATION RATES OF NATIVE WHITES
(PER 1000 AVERAGE POPULATION)


Years Florida Georgia Alabama California


1870's 79 -59
1880's 166 -56
1890's 49 -42
1900's 156 -31
1910's 189 -24
1920's 319 -106
Summation 958 -298
Average 160 -50

Source: Lee, p. 78. The
used in deriving these figures.


-61 162
-26 183
-64 117
-38 329
-45 276
-55 400
-289 1467
-48 245

census survival method was


2These figures come from tables in Lee, p. 257.


ii










TABLE 5

NET MIGRATION RATES OF NEGROES* OR NONWHITESt
(PER 1000 AVERAGE POPULATION)


Years Florida Georgia Alabama California

1870's1 20 -40 -82
1880's+ 150 +18 -12
1890's+ 141 -53 4
19001s* 191 -18 -50
1910's* 19 -75 -90
1920's* 168 -260 -102
Summation 669 -406 -320
Average 112 -68 -55

Source: Lee, p. 78. The census survival method was
used in deriving these figures.


Although not a factor which directly affects the total popula-
tion of Florida, it may be useful to have a measure of internal migra-

tion within Florida to compare with Florida's net migration rates.
Assuming the correctness of our net migration figures for the state,
and assuming that state rates of natural increase are applicable to

the counties, it is a simple matter to compute the net migration for
each county. The algebraic sum of county net migration must neces-
sarily correspond with state net migration. However the nonalgebraic
summation provides some indication of the net internal flow of migra-
tion among the counties of Florida. This in turn provides some per-
spective in space, not only as to the county destination of net in-
migrants to the state, but also as to the ebb and flow within the
state, a significant consideration. County net migration totals,




j











as computed, are contained in reference table M-2. For our immediate

purpose we are concerned only with the summation of county net in-

migration and out-migration. These figures are presented in Table 4

and are discussed more fully in Part II. For comparative purposes,

the percentages of net internal migration and net external migration,

in terms of end population, are set forth in the table. Net internal

migration among counties consistently exceeds net migration into the

state, averaging about 22.4 per cent for the former and 15.2 per cent

for the latter over the period. This is a suggestive comparison only,

subject to the validity of the stated assumptions which have not been

tested. So much for this discussion on internal migration, which is

perhaps a digression but does serve to emphasize that population mobil-

ity has complexities that can not be measured at state borders.


TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF NET INTERNAL AND NET EXTERNAL MIGRATION
(As Percentage of End Population for Each Decade)


Net Internal Net External
Year Migration 4 Migration 4

1870-80 15.0 5.3
1880-90 25.3 14.9
1890-00 17.0 8.1
1900-10 21.7 15.9
1910-20 26.6 11.9
1920-30 28.7 23.0
Summation 134.3 79.1
Average 22.4 13.2

Note: Migration and population figures in 100's.

Source: Reference Tables P-l and M-5.










Now that we have some idea of the constituents of population

growth in Florida, and some conception of the relative influence of

net migration on population growth as between Florida and certain

other states, it is informative to contrast the percentage rates of

increase of total population for these states. As we see in Table 5,

Florida and California maintained percentage rates of population in-

crease above the national average in each decade of the period. Over-

all, the average rate for Florida was almost twice that of the nation

and California's rate was double the nation's. Florida and California

manifested no particular trends over the period and California's drop

in the 1890's, to about the national rate, was the most notable depar-

ture from these consistently high rates of population growth. On the

other hand, the national rate drops quite steadily over the period to

about half the starting rate--as does the rate for Alabama also.

Georgia's experience closely corresponds to that of Alabama, except

for a sharp drop in the 1920's to a negligible increase of only 1 per

cent in Georgia's population for that decade.




















j










TABLE 5

COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE RATES OF POPULATION DECREASE


Years Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's 45 50 27 54 50
1880's 45 19 20 40 26
1890's 35 20 21 22 21
1900's 42 18 17 60 21
1910's 29 11 10 44 15
1920's 52 1 13 65 16
Summation 246 99 108 285 129
Average 41 17 18 48 22


Source: Based on U.S. Censuses. Actual population figures,
in round numbers, are used in Table 6.



Returning now to our focus on labor force we know by definition

that the labor force participation rate and the population determine

the labor force. Having considered the two major determinants of

population, and the nature of the resulting population changes, we

next examine the behavior of labor force participation rates over the

period. Table 6 sets forth the population and labor force figures for

the selected states and the nation for each decade of the period, and

the resultant computed labor force participation rates. Table 7 sum-

marizes Table 6 for ease of reference. Florida's experience was with-

in 1 per cent of that of the nation for each decade, except in 1920

when Florida jumped 2 per cent as the nation declined 3 per cent.

Georgia and Alabama started and ended with about the same participation

rates but Alabama enjoyed abnormally high rates in 1900 and 1910,











rates approaching those of California. Both Georgia and Alabama

started well above the national rate but ended at about the national

rate. California started even higher above the national rate and

closed at about the same level. Net change over the period for

Georgia, Alabama, and California was only in the 1 or 2 per cent range

while Florida and the nation, starting from much lower initial rates,

made rate gains of 9 and 8 per cent, respectively.

Kuznets reports that roughly half of the national rise in

labor force participation rates from 52 to 40 per cent between 1870

and 1950 is attributable to a relative decline in the population under

10 years of age. Other demographic factors, as well as non-demographic

factors, accounted for the remainder. Chapter II of the Kuznets book

is devoted to a discussion of the age and sex composition of the labor

force and the related changes in participation rates. Part II of this

study contains a section on labor force participation rates in Florida

counties and utilizes the age-sex-race compositional differences among

Florida counties to develop an independent series of substate labor

force estimates for each decade of the period.


SKuznets, Vol. II, p. 9.











TABLE 6

COMPUTATION OF COMPARATIVE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES


Year Factor Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870 Pop. 188 1184 997 560 586'
Labor F 61 445 565 259 125
LFPR 32 38 37 43 52

1880 Pop. 270 1542 1265 865 502
Labor F 92 598 493 377 174
LFPR 54 39 59 44 35

1890 Pop. 391 1857 1515 1215 629
Labor 157 669 542 544 227
LFPR 35 36 36 45 36

1900 Pop. 529 2216 1829 1485 760
Labor F 202 864 763 644 291
LFPR 58 39 42 43 58

1910 Pop. 753 2609 2138 2378 920
Labor F 522 1160 998 1108 382
LFPR 43 39 47 47 42

1920 Pop. 969 2896 2548 5427 1057
Labor F 385 1129 908 1513 416
LFPR 45 39 39 44 39

1930 Pop. 1486 2909 2646 5678 1228
Labor F 499 1162 1026 2501 488
LFPR 41 40 59 44 40


Notes: State Population and Labor Force figures in thousands.
*U.S. Population and Labor Force figures in 100,000's.
Labor Force Participation Rates in per cent.


Source U.S. Census for Decennial Periods.










TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES


Year Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870 32 58 57 43 32
1880 34 59 59 44 35
1890 35 36 36 45 36
1900 38 39 42 43 38
1910 43 59 47 47 42
1920 45 39 39 44 59
1930 41 40 59 44 40

Net Change
for Period +9 +2 +2 +1 +8


Source: Table 6.



Table 8 indicates the strong influence on participation

rates of the proportion of the population ten years old and older and

of the sex composition of the population, in specific relation to

Florida.

TABLE 8

FLORIDA LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES
DIFFERENTIATED BY AGE AND SEX

Year Total Population Male Population Female Population
All Ages Over 9 All Ages Over 9 All Ages Over 9

1870 32.3 46.3 53.8 77.5 10.5 15.0
1880 54.0 49.6 54.1 78.9 13.4 19.5
1890 36.8 50.9 57.3 78.8 15.0 20.8
1900 38.1 52.3 59.6 80.7 14.8 20.6
1910 42.8 57.0 63.2 83.2 20.4 27.5
1920 59.8 51.3 60.6 77.7 18.0 23.3
1930 40.8 51.0 60.9 76.1 20.5 25.7


Source
Census, 1950, p.


Adapted from Table 1 of Occupation Statistics, U.S.
337.










In Table 8, note the relatively reduced range of difference

in the participation rates for the population and over as compared

with all ages. Also note the relative stability in male rates and the

increasing trend in female rates.

Another aspect of population change has to do with the chang-

ing proportion of the population in urban and rural environments.

In 1870, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama were less than 9 per cent

urbanized, in contrast to a national level of 26 per cent and Califor-

nia's level of 57 per cent. By 1950, Florida with 52 per cent of its

population urbanized was approaching the national level of 56 per cent.

Georgia and Alabama had dropped well behind with levels of 51 and 28

per cent, respectively, while California had jumped up to 75 per cent.

Table 9 states the percentage rates of increase in urbanization for

each decade for these states and the nation to give some conception

of the varying rates and magnitudes of change over the entire period.

As a generalization which applied to Florida and Alabama exactly, and

to Georgia, California, and the nation, with exceptions, we find that

urbanization tended to come in waves, roughly corresponding to the

waves of net migration. Relatively, the 1870's, 1890's, and 1910's

were decades with low percentage rates of urban increase. The alter-

nate decades of the 1880's, 1900's, and 1920's were generally decades

of high rates of increase. Florida's average decennial rate of increase

was almost double that of Georgia and Alabama, and much higher than

that of California; but the latter, starting with a high urbanization

percentage, continued to maintain its commanding lead in percentage of

urbanization throughout the period, as shown in Table 10.











TABLE 9

COMPARISON OF URBAN PERCENTAGE RATES OF INCREASE


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's 76 45 9 77 43
1880's 188 77 122 59 56
1890's 58 35 42 52 56
1900's 105 55 71 89 59
1910's 61 55 57 59 29
1920's 115 25 46 78 27

Summation 585 270 527 594 250

Average 97 45 55 66 38


Sources Computed from reference tables in Lee, p. 555.







TABLE 10

COMPARISON OF URBAN PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.


1870 8 8 6 57 26

1950 52 51 28 75 56


Source: Computed from Tables 6 and 9.











It may be pertinent at this point to note that there are many

inter-relationships between the degree of urbanization and the other

aspects of population and labor force change considered in this study.

The age-sex-race composition of the population has an obvious bearing

on urbanization; natural increase and migration are its determinants;

and we shall later consider the influence of the varying proportions of

labor force in the several industrial sectors.


Labor Force Changes


General

In the foregoing sections we have dealt with absolute changes

in such factors as natural increase, net migration, labor force par-

ticipation rates, and urbanization. In the following sections we shall

employ the shift technique to dissect and analyze relative changes in

the labor force, particularly at the industrial sector level. The

shift technique is formally described under the methodological chapter

in Part II, but can be readily followed on a step by step basis as

developed in the following sections. We shall first be concerned with

the total net shift of labor force in Florida and comparative states;

second, with the components of this total net shift; third, with

sector net shifts; and fourth, with sector contributions to state

labor force changes.

During the sixty-year period under consideration, the labor

force of the nation grew--or declined--differentially in each indus-

trial sector in each decade. With unity representing no change in the







54



labor force from one decennial period to the next, the national growth

rates for each sector for each decade are set forth in Table 11.


TABLE 11

U.S. GROWTH RATES BY SECTOR BY DECADE

Sectors 1870's 1880's 1890's 1900's 1910's 1920's

Total 1.591 1.307 1.279 1.515 1.090 1.173

Agriculture 1.294 1.104 1.215 1.209 0.861 0.985

Fishing 1.526 1.455 1.146 0.990 0.774 0.871*

Forestry 1.578 2.050 1.086 1.514 1.166 0.871'

Mining 1.505 1.555 1.455 1.712 1.150 0.905

Manufactures 1.409 1.456 1.267 1.652 1.205 1.099

Trade 1.174 1.45533
1.520 1.837 1.433 1.312
Transport 1.161 1.254

Services

Professional 1.3355 1.522 1.289 1.518

Public ----- ----- 1.677 1.111
1.518 1.302
Other 1.280 1.070 0.905 1.455

Clerical ----- ----- 1.800 1.287


Note: *Combined for the 1920's only.

Source Unpublished computations based on U.S. Censuses.











Total Net Shift

It is obvious that the several states had growth rates which

varied from the national growth rates. One convenient way to measure

these state variations is termed the shift technique. By applying

the national growth rate for the 1870's to the Florida labor force

in 1870 we can derive a hypothetical Florida labor force for 1880 on

the assumption that the national growth rate and Florida's growth rate

were identical. However we normally find that the Florida labor force

figure derived under this assumption does not correspond to the actual

Florida labor force as enumerated in the 1880 census. The degree of

this noncorrespondence is a useful measure and is termed the total

net shift. The total net shifts for Florida, and the three states used

for comparative purposes, are set forth for each decade; both in labor

force figures, in Table 12, and in percentages of a national total

of + 100 per cent, in Table 18.4

Florida's performance is unique in that its growth experience,

in terms of total labor force, was above the national norm in each

decade of the period. Georgia and Alabama, after subpar growth in

the first two decades, spurted ahead rapidly in the 1890's and 1900's

and then again fell below par in the last two decades. California's

4These tables, and all others in this study which are related
to the shift technique, are based on unpublished shift computations
which are much too volininous to reproduce herein. The cost of pre-
paring the basic shift data was funded under a project of Resources
for the Future, Inc., and the data are in the custody of Dr. Edgar S.
Dunn, Jr. of the University of Florida. Consequently, related tables
used in this study will not be further identified as to source.
Perhaps it should also be noted that data from the several U.S.
Censuses underlie the shift computations.











growth was of course phenomenal, except for a brief slump below national

levels in the 1890's. Quantitatively, Florida's gains over the period

were about equivalent to Alabama's losses and about 22 per cent of

California's competitive gains.


TABLE 12

TOTAL NET SHIFT IN LABOR FORCE (IN 100's)

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's + 71 206 152 + 446
1880's + 172 -1128 -1026 + 520
1890's + 266 + 94 + 706 516
1900's + 575 + 252 44 +2619
1910's + 541 -1557 -1794 +5051
1920's +1468 -1628 594 +7256
Summation +2895 -5975 -2704 +15576





TABLE 15

TOTAL NET SHIFT IN LABOR FORCE AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL U.S. SHIFT

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's + 0.7 2.1 1.6 + 4.6 +100
1880's + 1.5 -10.1 9.2 + 4.7 7100
1890's + 2.8 + 1.0 + 7.5 5.5 +100
1900's + 5.4 + 1.5 0.3 +15.5 7100
1910's + 2.2 8.6 -11.4 +19.4 ;100
1920's + 7.5 8.5 2.0 +57.2 7100
Summation +18.1 -26.6 -17.0 +75.9

Average + 3.0 4.4 2.8 +12.6











Components of total net shift.--Total net shifts are a useful

measure of relative growth but it is revealing to go beneath this meas-

ure to examine the two components of total net shift. First, we can

consider the labor force of each industrial sector individually, in

the same manner as we did the total labor force. Thus we compute the

net shift for each state for each decade for each sector. This pro-

vides a measure of how the states fare competitively with one another

in respect to sector labor force with their relative success based

largely on their relative access to inputs and markets--variable over

time. In the following table the competitive sector results have been

summed to provide a total competition shift, the first component of

our total net shift.


TABLE 14

TOTAL COMPETITION SHIFT (IN 100's)

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California

1870's + 92 + 8 + 51 + 297
1880's + 241 458 379 + 145
1890's + 287 + 279 + 879 615
1900's + 659 + 861 + 449 +2556
1910's + 472 6 490 +2500
1920's +1507 954 + 332 +6555
Summation +3258 250 + 842 +11436




Florida is again unique, among the states compared, in its

consistent above par competitive performance in each decade of the

period. Georgia and Alabama had above average performances in the











1870's, slumped in the 1880's, recovered very well in the 1890's and

1900's, and slumped again (with Alabama recovering in the 1920's).

California's performance was again characterized by a slump in the

1890's and by phenomenal competitive growth thereafter. Netting out

the period, Georgia had a small cumulative competitive loss, Alabama

registered a small gain, and Florida's substantial gain was about

28 per cent that of California's.

The other component of total net shift is total composition

shift. It can be derived independently but for the present purpose

it is more convenient to view it as the algebraic difference between

total net shift and total competition shift. Total composition shift

provides a measure of how the states compare with one another in terms

of their relative shares of rapid growth and slow growth industrial

sectors; or, as sometimes phrased, in terms of their industrial mix.

The relative success of the states in this component of relative growth

is thus linked to national supply and demand factors, which are implic-

itly summed up in the earlier table on national growth rates for the

several sectors. The following table presents the total composition

shift over the period, the other component of our total net shift.











TABLE 15

TOTAL COMPOSITION SHIFT (IN 100's)


Years) Florida Georgia Alabama California

1870's 21 215 203 +149
1880's 70 690 647 +575
1890's 21 185 175 +100
1900's 85 608 495 + 65
1910's -131 -1551 -1504 +551
1920's 59 674 726 +705
Surmation -567 -5721 -5546 +1941



Florida was again consistent in its total composition effect,

but this time consistently below the national average. As compared

with Georgia and Alabama, however, Florida composition losses were only

in the 10 per cent range, not only for the period average but amazingly

close to the 10 per cent approximation for each decade. The summation

of Florida's composition losses over the period amounts to only 56,700

jobs, as compared with 572,100 for Georgia and 554,600 for Alabama.

California had the opposite experience in maintaining composition gains

for the entire period, with the last two decades being the largest

gainers.

A cursory glance at the two foregoing tables indicates that

total competition shift tends to be the dominant component of total net

shift in the cases of Florida and California; and that total composi-

tion shift tends to be the dominant component for Georgia and Alabama.

The relative dominance of each component is stated in the following

two tables, which are complementary. The percentages are summed and










averaged to give a visual impression of the average dominance for the

over-all period. It is obvious however that these summations are not

comparable with the algebraic summations of the two prior tables.

Essentially, it appears, the competition effect tended to approach

75 per cent dominance in all states combined, 75 per cent dominance

in California, 84 per cent dominance in Florida, and only 57 and 41

per cent sub-dominance, respectively, in Georgia and Alabama. There

seem to be no strongly pronounced trends to change these percentages

over time, except perhaps for a decreasing competitive dominance for

all states and increasing competitive dominance for California.

Florida is characterized by a negligible 5 per cent composition

loss in the 1920's, meaning that the rapid growth and slow growth

sectors, as weighted by Florida's participation in each, were in ap-

proximate balance.


TABLE 16

TOTAL COMPETITION SHIFT AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL NET SHIFT

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California All States

1870's 81 5 20 67 84
1880's 78 59 57 28 95
1890's 95 60 84 86 84
1900ts 89 59 48 98 74
1910's 78 00 27 82 46
1920's 97 59 51 90 71

Summation 516 220 247 451 452

Average 86 57 41 75 75


dl










TABLE 17
TOTAL COMPOSITION SHIFT AS PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL NET SHIFT


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California All States

1870's 19 97 80 33 16
1880's 22 61 65 72 7
1890's 7 40 16 14 16
1900's 11 41 52 2 26
1910's 22 100 73 18 54
1920's 3 41 69 10 29
Summation 84 380 555 149 148

Average 14 63 59 25 25



Another way of viewing the relative proportions of competition
and composition shifts, in relation to the national norm, is in terms
of state percentages of total national competition and composition

shifts. The following two tables present this view. On the basis of

the national totals of + 100 per cent, Florida contributed from 1 to
8 per cent of national competitive gains; consistently increasing over
the period and approximately doubling in the 1880's and again in the

1920's.5 The experience of Georgia and Alabama was spotty and without

pronounced trend, ranging from 5 per cent losses to 4 per cent gains
for the former and from 4 per cent losses to 8 per cent gains for the

latter. California was characterized by a sub-par performance in the


5It seems advisable at this point to use the terminology of
gains and losses for ease of comprehension. It should be clear, how-
ever, that these are relative terms and are defined by the method of
their derivation.




A










1890's and a phenomenal performance thereafter; contributing over

35 per cent of total national competition gains in the 1920's.

In respect to composition shifts, Florida consistently made

deficit contributions to the national totals, but on a minor and

generally decreasing basis ranging from -1.2 per cent in the 1870's

to -0.5 per cent in the 1920's. Georgia and Alabama each averaged

about -9 or -10 per cent of the total national composition loss of

-100 per cent; without much apparent trend from decade to decade.

California consistently contributed to total national composition

gains, ranging from a high of 8 per cent in the 1870's to a low of

1 per cent in the 1900's and a high of 10 per cent in the 1920's.



TABLE 18

CCMPARATIVE STATE PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL U.S. COMPETITION SHIFT

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's +0.95 +0.07 +0.51 +2.99 +100
1880's +2.52 -4.22 -5.65 +1.59 +100
1890's +2.68 +2.61 +8.25 -5.76 +100
1900's +3.38 +4.41 +2.51 +15.11 +100
1910's +4.14 -0.05 -4.50 +21.91 +100
1920's +8.17 -5.17 +1.80 +55.54 +100

Summation +21.62 -2.55 +4.90 +69.18

Average +5.60 -0.39 +0.82 +11.52










TABLE 19

COMPARATIVE STATE PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL U.S. COMPOSITION SHIFT


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California U.S.

1870's -1.17 -11.67 -11.11 +8.15 +100
1880's -1.08 -10.75 -10.05 +5.83 +100
1890's -1.04 -9.56 -8.74 +5.04 +100
1900's -1.25 -8.87 -7.20 +0.92 +100
1910's -0.97 -10.04 -9.69 +4.10 +100
1920's -0.55 -9.17 -9.87 +9.57 +100

Summation -6.02 -59.84 -56.66 +55.61

Average -1.00 -9.97 -9.44 +5.60




Sector Net Shifts--State Shift as Percentage
of National Shift

Up to this point we have examined Florida's decennial changes

in labor force in gross terms of total net shift and its two components.

We have some perspective on Florida in relation to the nation, in rela-

tion to the two adjoining states as representatives of the Deep South,

and in relation to one of its principal rivals--California. We now go

beneath this level of aggregation and consider the sector net shifts

for the major industrial sectors. The sector net shifts are computed

in the same manner as total net shifts. Applicable results of this com-

putation are contained in the following sector tables. They are pre-

sented in terms of state shift as a percentage of national shift, with

the latter represented by + 100 per cent. Also presented in the last










TABLE 20

SECTOR NET SHIFTS--STATE SHIFT AS PERCENTAGE OF
U.S. SHIFT BY DECADE


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California 1 % in Terms
of Labor Force

Agriculture
1870's + 0.6 0.8 + 0.6 + 2.8
1880's 0.5 -14.0 -11.2 + 9.5 4508
1890's + 1.4 + 2.8 +10.6 1.9 6064
1900's + 2.4 +11.2 + 4.8 + 5.8 9512
1910's + 1.6 4.8 -18.8 +20.5 5865
1920's + 6.5 -21.5 + 0.9 +17.6 4320
Fishing
1870's + 0.8 0.9 + 0.4 +20.7
1880's + 5.0 + 1.4 0.5 -22.3 109
1890's + 7.6 + 2.5 + 1.8 2.9 89
1900's +14.7 0.2 0.2 +22.4 83
1910's +32.5 0.5 + 0.1 +10.0 58
1920's + 1.4 + 4.5 + 3.8 + 3.2 67
Forestry
1870's + 1.4 +16.5 5.9 + 5.6
1880's + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.5 -15.8 156
1890's + 8.2 + 7.0 + 2.8 4.6 178
1900's +10.4 -28.5 6.9 1.8 517
1910's -27.9 -12.4 4.2 6.0 362
1920's + 7.7 1.3 + 3.5 + 2.5 285
Mining
1870's + 0.1 + 0.5 + 1.4 -50.5
1880's + 0.4 + 0.8 + 7.9 -41.8 845
1890's + 1.5 0.8 +12.1 -15.5 470
1900's + 1.6 + 0.5 2.0 -15.7 924
1910's 0.7 1.1 + 2.1 7.6 1414
1920's 0.6 + 1.6 1.0 +22.6 775
Manufacturing
1870's + 1.4 1.5 1.2 + 9.2
1880's + 2.7 + 5.3 + 3.3 + 5.1 2751
1890's + 2.9 + 3.8 + 5.0 5.1 2142
1900's + 4.5 + 0.9 + 1.5 +12.4 5649
1910's + 2.2 + 1.9 + 3.7 +15.8 5659
1920's + 4.4 + 4.7 + 2.8 +22.9 7088







J











TABLE 20--Continued


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California 1 % in Terms
of Labor Force

Trade and
Transportation
1870's + 1.7 1.1 4.6 + 6.5
1880's + 1.4 + 3.8 + 2.3 2.1 2218
1890's + 1.2 5.5 0.5 2.8 1578
1900's + 2.6 + 3.0 + 1.9 +14.7 4855
1910's
Trade + 6.0 + 2.8 0.1 +19.8 1592
Transport + 4.2 + 1.0 + 2.4 + 5.1 1219
1920's
Trade + 9.4 4.4 + 0.6 +44.9 5041
Transport + 7.8 4.0 + 1.7 +50.2 1412
Services
1870's + 0.5 + 2.7 + 5.2 + 2.5
1880's + 4.5 + 0.3 2.7 + 2.8 5154
1890's
Profess. 0.3 + 1.7 1.9 + 4.1 512
Other + 4.0 + 3.6 + 5.7 -12.5 2354
1900's
Profess. + 0.9 1.9 + 0.9 +16.7 874
Other 0.4 5.2 2.7 +15.2 5756
1910's
Profess. + 6.0 + 0.4 1.4 +37.5 697
Public + 1.9 + 3.6 1.7 + 4.9 884
Other +12.3 + 3.3 + 1.7 +22.7 1247
Clerical + 1.6 0.1 1.2 + 8.9 1290
1920's
Profess. + 8.1 3.7 + 0.8 +42.5 1381
Public + 5.5 4.1 + 2.0 +14.7 689
Other + 9.5 2.8 0.5 +27.5 2508
Clerical + 5.8 1.5 + 1.5 +42.1 1959










column of the tables is a figure representing what one per cent means

in terms of actual labor force for the corresponding decade. This will

provide some idea of the relative magnitude of the shifts in the several

sectors.

The highlights of the foregoing sector tables may be briefly

summarized on a sector by sector basis as follows.

Agriculture.--Florida's growth experience, in terms of agri-

cultural labor force, was above the national norm in all decades ex-

cept that of the 1880's. It tended to relative improvement over the

period, characterized by a multiple jump in the 1920's. Georgia and

Alabama experienced major losses--or minor changes--in all except the

two middle decades, the 1890's and the 1900's. California slumped in

the 1890's but posted major shares of the national gains in the 1910's

and the 1920's.

Fishing.--Florida's growth in labor force in the fishing sector

was above the national average throughout the period and reached its

relative peak in the 1910's when Florida accounted for almost one-third

of the national gains. Georgia and Alabama varied slightly above or

below the national norm over the period but both exceeded Florida's

performance in the 1920's. California had a varied experience, provid-

ing 21 per cent of the national gains in the 1870's and 22 per cent

of the national losses in the 1880's. This was followed by a resurgence

to the 22 per cent level in the 1900's and a drop to smaller gains

thereafter.







j











Forestry.--Florida's share in the relative national gains in

forestry was especially substantial in the 1890's, 1900's and 1920's.

There was a sharp reversal in the 1910's, when Florida contributed

almost 28 per cent of the national losses. Georgia commanded a 17 per

cent share of national gains in the 1870's but slumped to a share of

28 per cent of the national losses in the 1900's; thereafter recover-

ing but not to the national level. Alabama's experience was more

stable, with swings of lesser magnitude. California started and ended

the over-all period with minor shares of the national gain but had

losses in the four intervening decades, notably 16 per cent of the

national loss in the 1880's.

Mining.--Florida had a small positive net shift in the mining

sector for the first four decades and a small negative shift there-

after. Georgia had shifts similar in magnitude though a bit different

in timing. Alabama enjoyed larger positive net shifts in the 1880's

and 1890's of about 8 and 12 per cent, respectively, but the shifts

in the other decades were small. California tended to dominate the

negative net shifts, especially in the earlier decades, with downward

shifts of 51 per cent in the 1870's, 42 per cent in the 1880's, 16 per

cent in the 1890's, and 14 per cent in the 1900's. However in the

last two decades, California changed from a downward shift of about

8 per cent to an upward shift of 25 per cent in the 1920's.

Manufacturing.--Florida maintained an upward net shift through-

out the period which averaged about 5 per cent per decade without

discernable trend. Georgia and Alabama, after a downward shift in the

1870's, had a pattern very similar to that of Florida for the remaining










decades, in respect both to a magnitude of about 3 per cent and as

to lack of a discernable trend. California set a somewhat different

pattern in both respects. During the first three decades, California

slumped from an upward net shift of 9 per cent to a downward net shift

of 5 per cent. During the last three decades, California had upward

net shifts of 12, 14, and 23 per cent, chronologically.

Trade and transportation.--During the first four decades,

Florida averaged almost 2 per cent in upward shift. During the last

two decades the trade sector commanded strong gains of 6 and 9 per cent

and the transport sector contributed upward shifts of 4 and 8 per cent.

Georgia had a rather mixed experience of upward and downward shifts,

closing on the latter note with losses of about 4 per cent in both

trade and transport in the 1920's. Alabama's experience was also

mixed and corresponded generally with that of Georgia, except for a

small gain in both trade and transport in the 1920's. California had

downward shifts in the 1880's and'1890's but closed with strong gains

in the 1910's and 1920's; especially in the trade sector with percent-

ages of 20 and 45 per cent of the national upward shift.

Services.--Florida had rather neutral or small upward shifts

in the first four decades; with the 1880's and 1890's being above the

1870's and the 1900's. In the 1910's and 1920's, professional ser-

vices contributed 6 and 8 per cent, respectively, to national gains;

public services about 2 and 6 per cent; and other services demonstrated

strength with about 12 and 10 per cent,respectively. The clerical sub-

sector has been placed under the heading of services as a matter of










convenience. Actually, clerical workers were employed in all indus-

trial sectors, particularly trade and transport, services, and manu-

facturing--in that order.6 Georgia and Alabama had scattered gains and

losses during the period, with the former closing the 1920's with a

5 per cent downward shift and the latter finishing with a small 1 per

cent gain. California had consistent upward shifts throughout the pe-

riod, except for services (6ther than professional services) in the

1890's. From the 1900's on, California's gains were in the magnitude

of some 15 to 30 per cent of national gains in the services sector.

Sector Contributions to State Shifts

In the preceding section we have viewed state sector changes as

a percentage of the national change in the respective sectors in order

to gain some understanding of the relative growth or decline of the

state in relation to national growth or decline in respect to these

sector shifts. In this section we shall view each state as an entity

and consider the proportion which each sector contributes to total state

shift. We seek to gain an understanding of the individual effect of

each sector in contributing to the relative growth or decline of the

state. The percentages used to state the sector contribution to state

changes are nonalgebraically additive to 100 per cent, representing the

total state change. Thus they are computed as a ratio of the change in

each sector to the total state change, also nnRalgebraically summed

from sector net shifts. Table 21 will provide the basis for further

discussion.

6See Chapter 12 for the estimated distribution of clerical
workers in Florida in 1910, 1920, and 1950; as computed to establish
a state labor force control series for substate disaggregation.










TABLE 21

SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATE NET SHIFTS
BY DECADES


Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California

Agriculture
1870's +38 -27 +18 +27
1880's 6 -77 -63 +40
1890's +30 +38 +70 -18
19001s +355 +64 +55 +13
1910's + 9 -38 -68 +28
1920's +18 -57 +11 +11
Summation +122 -97 +23 +101
Average +20 -16 + 4 +17

Fishing
1870's +0.7 -0.4 +0.2 +2.4
1880's +2.0 +0.2 -0.0 -2.5
1890's +2.3 +0.5 +0.2 -0.4
1900's +1.7 -0.0 -0.0 +0.7
1910's +2.9 -0.1 +0.0 +0.2
1920's +0.1 +0.1 +0.7 +0.0
Summation +9.7 +0.3 +1.1 +0.6
Average +1.6 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1

Forestry
1870's +2.0 +11.7 -3.7 +0.7
1880's +0.5 +0.2 +0.1 -2.7
1890's +5.0 +2.9 +0.5 -1.2
1900's +4.7 -5.4 -2.6 -0.2
1910's -14.5 -9.3 -1.4 -0.8
1920's +1.4 -0.2 +2.8 +0.1
Summation -0.9 -0.1 -4.3 -4.1
Average -0.2 -0.0 -0.7 -0.7

Mining
1870's +0.3 +0.9 +3.9 -27.2
1880's +1.1 +0.8 +8.4 -33.9
1890's +2.4 +0.9 +6.2 -11.0
1900's +2.1 +0.3 -2.1 -4.5
1910's -1.4 -3.1 +2.8 -3.9
1920's -0.3 +0.7 -2.1 +2.7
Summation +4.2 +0.5 +17.1 -77.8
Average +0.7 +0.1 +2.9 -13.0











TABLE 21--Continued

Year(s) Florida Georgia Alabama California

Manufacturing
1870's +24 -13 9 +23
1880's +27 +11 +11 + 8
1890's +22 +19 +12 -16
1900's +56 + 5 +10 +25
1910's +17 +22 +20 +28
1920's +20 +20 +54 +25
Summation +146 +62 +98 +95
Average +24 +10 +16 +16

Trade and
Transportation
1870's +20 7 -25 +11
1880's +12 +10 + 6 4
1890's + 6 -17 1 6
1900's +18 + 9 +11 +25
1910's +21 +12 + 5 +12
Trade +14 + 9 0 +11
Transport + 7 + 5 + 5 + 1
1920's +26 +11 +12 +28
Trade +19 + 8 + 5 +21
Transport + 7 + 5 + 7 +7
Summation +103 +18 + 6 +66
Average +17 + +1 +11
Services
1870's +15 +40 +41 + 9
1880's +52 + 1 -11 + 8
1890's +31 +21 + 8 -41
Profess. 1 + 2 1 + 5
Other +52 +19 + 9 -44
1900's 2 -19 -18 +52
Profess. + 1 1 + 1 + 5
Other 5 -18 -19 +27
1910's +33 +16 1 +26
Profess. + 6 + 1 1 +10
Public + 2 +7 1 +2
Other +22 +8 +2 +10
Clerical + 5 0 1 + 4
1920's +52 -11 +15 +54
Profess. + 7 5 + 5 + 9
Public +2 + 4 +2
Other +16 4 2 +11
Clerical + 7 2 + 8 +12
Summation +161 +48 +32 +68
Average +27 + 8 + 5 +11











In examining Table 21 and in considering sector contributions

to state changes it is useful first to consider major changes, compar-

isons, and contrasts on a chronological basis by decades. It is also

helpful to examine the general character of the contribution of each

sector over the entire period. First then, we take up the chronological

treatment.

The 1870's.--All four states made moderate contributions to

total competitive gains in the 1870's. In Florida, all sectors con-

tributed to competitive gains, with agriculture and manufacturing pro-

viding about 58 and 24 per cent, respectively, of Florida's total gains.

In Georgia, these two 'sectors contributed only to losses and it took

a large competitive gain of some 40 per cent in the services sector to

provide a small net gain. In Alabama, the services sector was also

dominant with a gain of some 41 per cent which, together with a gain

of 18 per cent in agriculture, overbalanced large losses in trade and

transport and in manufacturing. California was similar to Florida in

that the major contributing sectors were agriculture with 27 per cent

and manufacturing with 25 per cent; but very different in suffering

a large competitive loss of about 27 per cent in the mining sector.7

The 1880's.--In this decade, Florida more than doubled its

share of competitive gains; while California halved its share and

Georgia and Alabama suffered heavy competitive losses. Florida made


7U.S. Census data for 1870 is usually treated with caution
because of probable under-enumeration in certain Southern States in
1870. According to Lee, this would not affect Florida appreciably
but there may be some understatement for Georgia and Alabama. P. 402.











gains in all sectors except agriculture (the largest gainer in the

preceding decade); with services and manufacturing contributing about

52 and 27 per cent respectively. Georgia actually made competitive

gains in all sectors except agriculture but a heavy loss of some 77

per cent in that sector resulted in a large net loss. Alabama's ex-

perience was similar, with the agricultural sector providing some

63 per cent of the total for a heavy net loss. In California, agri-

culture with a contribution of 40 per cent remained the dominant gain-

ing sector and mining with 54 per cent remained the dominant losing

sector for a small net gain of about 1.4 per cent. This was down

from the 5 per cent of the prior decade, and below Florida's 2.3 per

cent of the national competition gain.

The 1890's.--Florida modestly increased its share of competi-

tion gains to 2.7 per cent in the 1890's; with Georgia recovering

rapidly to almost match these gains; with Alabama making a tremendous

recovery to triple Florida's gain; and with California continuing its

competitive slump to a net loss of 5.8 per cent of the national losses.

Florida made gains in all sectors, except for a minor loss in profes-

sional services; with other services, agriculture, and manufacturing

making the dominant contributions of 52, 30, and 22 per cent, respec-

tively. Georgia's recovery was characterized by gains in agriculture,

other services, and manufacturing of 58, 19, and 19 per cent, respec-

tivelyj the only important losing sector being trade and transport with

17 per cent. Alabama's performance included gains in all sectors,

except for negligible losses in trade and transport and professional






74



services; with agriculture, manufacturing, and other services contrib-

uting 70, 12, and 9 per cent, respectively, to the gains. California's

competitive slump included losses in all sectors except professional

services; with other services, agriculture, manufacturing, and mining

contributing 44, 18, 16, and 11 per cent, respectively, to the over-

all loss.

The 1900's.--During this decade, Florida increased its share

of national competition gains to 5.4 per cent. Georgia increased its

position to 4.4 per cent while Alabama dropped down to 2.5 per cent

and California began its remarkable competitive growth sequence by

moving from its 5.8 share of the national deficit in the prior decade

to a 15.1 per cent share of national gains in the 1900's. Florida made

gains in all sectors, except for a negligible loss in other services.

The dominant sectors on the gain side were manufacturing, agriculture,

and trade and transport with gains of 56, 35, and 18 per cent, re-

spectively. Georgia's improved position was marked by a large com-

petitive gain of 64 per cent in the agricultural sector, with other

services being the only major losing sector to the extent of about

18 per cent. Alabama's experience was identical in pattern to that of

Georgia, with agricultural gains of 55 per cent and other service

losses of 19 per cent. California gains were general except for a

4.5 per cent loss in mining and a minor loss in forestry. The lead-

ing California gainers were other services, trade and transport, man-

ufacturing, and agriculture; with gains of 27, 25, 25, and 13 per cent,

respectively.




i-


75



The 1910's.--Florida again made an increase in its share of

national competitive gains from the 5.4 per cent of the prior decade

to 4.1 per cent in this decade. Georgia slumped to a neutral position

while Alabama declined sharply to a 4.5 per cent loss position.

California jumped sharply from the 13.1 per cent share of national

competitive gains in the prior decade to 21.9 per cent in the 1910's.

Florida gained in all sectors, except forestry and mining which had

losses of 14.5 and 1.4 per cent, respectively. The major gaining

sectors were other services, manufacturing, trade, and agriculture,

with percentages of 22, 17, 14, and 9 per cent, respectively. Georgia's

major gaining sectors were manufacturing, trade, and other services,

with percentages of 22, 9, and 8 per cent, respectively major losers

were agriculture with 58 per cent and forestry with 9 per cent. Ala-

bama's gaining sectors were manufacturing, 20 per cent; mining, 5 per

cent; and transportation, 5 per cent. The primary losing sector was

agriculture with 68 per cent. California repeated its performance of

the prior decade with only a 4 per cent loss in mining and a 1 per cent

loss in forestry; a duplicate of Florida as to losing sectors. The

leading California gainers were agriculture with 28 per cent, manu-

facturing with 28 per cent, trade with 11 per cent, other services

with 10 per cent, and professional services with 10 per cent; again

very similar to Florida's experience.

The 1920's.--In this period Florida almost doubled its share of

total national competitive gains to a level of 8.2 per cent. Georgia

continued its drop from a neutral position to a 5.2 per cent loss


-q 1'1






76



position; while Alabama made a good recovery from its deficit position

to a 1.8 per cent share of national gains. California dominated the

nation with 35.5 per cent of total national competitive gains; followed

by Texas with 13.4 per cent; Michigan with 10.4 per cent; North

Carolina with 8.3 per cent; and Florida with 8.2 per cent. Florida

made gains in all sectors except for a very small loss in mining.

The principal gaining sectors were manufacturing with 20 per cent,

trade with 19 per cent, agriculture with 18 per cent, and other services

with 16 per cent. Georgia made gains of 20 per cent in manufacturing

and less than 1 per cent in fishing and mining. All other sectors lost

competitively; agriculture with 57 per cent, trade with 8 per cent, and

other services with 4 per cent. Alabama suffered competitive losses

only in mining and other services, about 2 per cent for each. The

primary gaining sectors for Alabama were manufacturing with 55 per cent

and agriculture with 11 per cent. California enjoyed a perfect record

with gains in all sectors; dominated by manufacturing with 25 per cent,

trade with 21 per cent, agriculture with 12 per cent, and other serv-

ices with 11 per cent.

Next we consider the general influence of each individual

sector over the total period. For convenience in discussion, use

will be made of an average percentage which represents the algebraic

summation of the sector percentages for each decade, divided by the

number of decades. It must be recognized that a low average percent-

age does not mean that the respective sector has not made large con-

tributions to sector gains or losses in decennial periods) these may











have been netted out. It will thus be necessary to go behind these

average percentages in many cases, as has been done in the prior

chronological section. It should also be recognized that these net

percentages bear no numerical relation to labor force figures since

a large percentage in one decade may actually represent a lesser

labor force figure than a smaller percentage in another decade.

Thus the net percentages implicitly assume that the character of

sectoral growth in one decade is of equal importance to that in each

of the other decades. Table 22 is merely a summary of the averages of

the preceding tables.


TABLE 22

SUMMARY AVERAGE OF COMPARATIVE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS
TO STATE NET SHIFTS

Sector Florida Georgia Alabama California

Agriculture +20.6 -16.0 + 4.0 +17.0
Fishing + 1.6 + 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.1
Forestry 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.6
Mining + 0.7 + 0.1 + 2.9 -13.0
Manufacturing +24.0 +10.0 +16.0 +16.0
Trade-Transport +17.0 + 3.0 + 1.0 +11.0
Services +27.0 + 8.0 + 5.0 +11.0


The services sector has been the largest contributor to the

upward shift in Florida's labor force relative to that of the nation

over the six decade period. In net average percentage terms the

services sector has contributed about 27 per cent; as compared with

24 per cent for manufactures, 20 per cent for agriculture, 17 per cent


_










for trade and transport, 1.6 per cent for fishing, 0.7 per cent for

mining, and a downward shift of 0.2 per cent in forestry.

Georgia's strongest sector has been manufacturing with an

upward shift, in net average percentage terms, of 10 per cent; fol-

lowed by services with 8 per cent, and trade and transport with 5 per

cent. Fishing, forestry, and mining made negligible net contributions

and agriculture was the weak sector with a downward net shift of 16

per cent--almost nullifying the gains.

Alabama's strongest sector has also been manufactures with

an upward average net shift of 16 per cent; followed by services with

5 per cent, agriculture with 4 per cent, and mining with 5 per cent.

The remaining sectors were all 1 per cent or less, with fishing as

the only losing sector.

California's strongest sector over the total period has been

agriculture with a net average upward shift of 17 per cent; closely

followed by manufactures with 16 per cent, services with 11 per cent,

and trade and transport with 11 per cent. Forestry and fishing were

below 1 per cent, with the latter a losing sector. Mining was the

weak sector with an average downward net shift of 13 per cent.











Summary of Florida Labor Force Changes


The changing importance of the several industrial sectors to

Florida's economic development is revealed, in part, by Table 25.

This table shows the percentage of total labor force contributed by

each sector at each decennial measuring point. The phrase "in part"

is a necessary qualification since there is no single adequate meas-

ure of economic change. For example, a declining labor force in some

sectors may be more than offset by increasing productivity and the

effect of changes in the average work week must also be considered.


TABLE 23

SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO FLORIDA TOTAL
LABOR FORCE BY DECADES

Sector 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1950


Agriculture 75.1 70.8 52.4 45.7 36.6 27.9 22.3
Fishing 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0
Forestry 0.8 1.1 1.5 5.2 5.9 5.2 1.1
Mining 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.4
Manufacturing 6.6 9.2 16.1 18.9 25.2 26.7 24.5
Trade-Transport 5.8 8.5 15.5 14.2 15.0 19.6 24.8
Services 11.4 10.1 15.8 14.4 17.5 20.8 26.0

Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 99.9


Source: Reference Table LS-5.











Florida's economic structure, in terms of labor force, was

vastly different in 1930 as compared to 1870 and the path of struc-

tural change varied from sector to sector. Agriculture, as the domi-

nant extractive industry, declined from about 75 to 22 per cent of the

total labor force over the period. The other extractive sectors

(fishing, forestry, and mining) increased their labor force shares over

the total period; in summation, from 1.1 to 2.5 per cent. Fishing

tended to gradually increase in importance over the period. Forestry

increased in importance to a peak of about 6 per cent in 1910 and then

retreated to its earlier share. Mining also reached a peak of about

1.1 per cent in 1910 and then declined by about two-thirds. Manufac-

turing made rather steady structural gains until 1920 and then de-

clined slightly, in labor force share. Trade and transport made

steady gains over the period; as did services, except for minor and

transient reversals in 1880 and 1900. In summary, the extractive

sectors dropped from 76.2 to 24.8 per cent over the period; manufac-

turing rose from 6.6 to 24.3 per cent; and the remaining sectors rose

from 17.2 to 50.8 per cent.

These structural changes do not necessarily mean that the

actual labor force in any sector declined over the period. In fact,

the extractive sectors increased from a labor force of 46,500 in 1870

to a labor force of 148,700 in 1950; making gains in every decade ex-

cept the 1910's. The only specific sectors which had absolute declines

in any decade were agriculture in the 1910's and forestry and mining

in the 1910's and 1920's. Mining and forestry had their labor force











peaks in 1910 but all other sectors reached their highest labor force

figure in 1950. Florida's period of slowest growth in labor force

was in the 1910's, when the increase in total labor force amounted

to about 20 per cent. In all other decades it varied between a low

of 47 per cent and a high of 60 per cent.

The foregoing paragraphs have dwelt with changes in the in-

ternal structure of Florida's labor force without external reference.

It is apparent that the national economy was also changing in struc-

ture during this period and it is instructive to view Florida's

chEnging structure in terms of its share of the national change.

Table 24 presents Florida's change as a percentage of national change

(as measured by the summation of the relative gains and losses of the

several states in relation to the national average).

Table 24 shows that agriculture generally tended to increase

its share of national gains. The negative contribution in the 1880's

is accounted for by a most radical change in Florida's economic struc-

ture. In 1880 agriculture employed 71 per cent of Florida's labor

force, as compared to only 52 per cent in 1890. While agricultural

employment did increase 11 per cent in this decade all other sectors

increased by 100 per cent or more. Thus the agricultural share went

down over 18 per cent, in absolute terms; while the manufacturing share

went up almost 7 per cent, trade and transport went up 5 per cent, and

services went up 6 per cent. The employment opportunities in these

latter sectors absorbed almost the entire increase in Florida's labor

force for that decade. The small dip in agriculture's share of the

gains in the 1910's is probably closely related to the pull of World













FLORIDA SHARE OF


TABLE 24

U.S. NET SHIFT BY SECTORS BY DECADES


Sector 1870's 1880's 1890's 1900's 1910's 1920's


Agriculture 0.6 -0.3 1.4 2.4 1.6 6.5
Fishing 0.8 5.0 7.6 14.7 52.3 1.4
Forestry 1.4 0.8 8.2 10.4 -27.9 7.7
Mining 0.1 0.4 1.5 1.6 -0.7 -0.6
Manufacturing 1.4 2.7 2.9 4.5 2.2 4.4
Trade 6.0 9.4
1.7 1.4 1.2 2.6
Transport 4.2 7.8
Services 0.5 4.5
Professional -0.5 0.9 6.0 8.1
Public 1.9 5.5
Other 4.0 -0.4 12.5 9.5
Clerical 1.6 5.8


Note: National shifts add up to + 100 per cent.

Source: Unpublished shift tables, as previously cited.




War I manufacturing employment on the agricultural labor force.

One of the subjects which brought about the extra session of the

state legislature in November of 1918 concerned the problem of getting

the labor force back from the factories and shipbuilding to the farms.

In 1919, Governor Catts pointed to several national problem areas,

notably the high-wage experience in war-time jobs which tended to

inhibit much desire to return to low-wage agricultural employment.

Furthermore, much low-wage employment had been eliminated by increasing

mechanization of farm operations.






85


Florida's fishing also tended to increase its share in national

gains, very dramatically so until a sharp drop in the 1920's. This

drop was only in relative terms, however, with the actual labor force

increasing by almost 42 per cent from 4,500 to 6,100 during the decade.

Concurrently the relative importance of fishing to Florida's economy

declined slightly from 1.1 to 1.0 per cent, in terms of labor force.

Florida's share of national gains in the forestry sector was fairly

stable except that in the 1910's the state made a heavy contribution

to national losses. The labor force in this sector declined 36 per

cent from 19,000 to 12,200 in this one decade. The actual decrease

in forestry cut (timber production) between 1909 and 1919, however,

was only 5.4 per cent; demonstrating a substantial productivity in-

crease in this sector. In terms of labor force, the relative direct

importance of the forestry sector in the state's economy decreased

from 5.9 per cent in 1910 to 3.2 per cent in 1920. However the for-

estry sector was also important as a major source of raw materials

for Florida manufactures and, perhaps somewhat passively, as trans-

portation tonnage which necessitated investment in transportation

facilities and related services. Concurrently with this decline in

forestry labor force, employment in the lumber industry in the Pacific

Northwest increased from 68,300 to 94,600 -in 1919.9


8United States Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census of
the United States taken in the year 1920. Vol. VIII, Manufactures,
1919. General Report and Analytical Tables, p. 252.

James Neville Tattersall, "The Economic Development of the
Pacific Northwest to 1920" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of Washington, 1960), p. 179.











The Southern states were still dominant in lumber production but this

dominance was to shift to the Western states in the following decade.10

It is a bit awkward to have trade and transportation combined

in one sector. It may be helpful to point out that in the nation,

in 1880 and in 1900, the proportion of employment in trade was about

twice that in transportation; and that by 1940 the proportion had

increased to almost three-to-one. In Florida, the trade and transpor-

tation subsectors were roughly equal in 1880 and in 1900; but trade

had attained a more than three-to-one ratio by 1940.11 Rather unex-

pectedly, Florida's share of national gains in the trade and trans-

portation sector declined slightly from the 1870's to the 1880's.

Unexpectedly, because the 1880's was the decade of vast expansion in

railroad transportation. On the other hand, one might speculate that

it was precisely the introduction of this highly productive means of

transport which brought about a relatively larger reduction in employ-

ment in less productive means of transport. Then, too, there were

concurrent relative declines in agriculture and forestry, the sectors

providing the largest tonnage demand for the transportation of their

products. The small decline in the 1890's, and the subsequent doubling,

or near doubling, in national gains for the following decades, appear

consistent with expectations.


10Ibid., p. 184.

1lLee, pp. 625-4.











The services sector is a very complex and ever-changing aggre-

gate. Florida's share in national gains was particularly low in the

1870's and in the 1900's, for somewhat obscure reasons. In the decade

chapters the nature of these reasons may be partially isolated through

the occupational detail therein. Table 25 presents the sector contri-

butions to Florida's net shift by decades. This data has been pre-

sented and discussed earlier in contrasting Florida with selected

states. It is presented here in summary fashion for Florida alone to

emphasize the relative importance of each sector in each decade in

contributing to Florida's relative gains (or infrequent losses).


TABLE 25
SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO FLORIDA. NET


SHIFT BY DECADES


Sector 1870's 1880's 1890's 1900's 1910's 1920's


Agriculture 38.2 -5.5 30.1 33.0 8.8 18.5
Fishing 0.7 2.0 2.3 1.7 2.9 0.1
Forestry 2.0 0.5 5.0 4.7 -14.5 1.5
Mining 0.3 1.1 2.4 2.1 -1.4 -0.3
Manufacturing 23.8 27.2 21.5 36.3 17.5 20.5
Trade 13.7 18.9
20.0 11.8 5.7 18.2
Transport 7.3 7.2
Services 15.0 52.0
Professional -0.5 1.1 6.3 7.3
Public 2.5 2.5
Other 32.4 -3.0 22.2 15.7
Clerical 2.9 7.4
Totals 100.0 100.1 99.9 100.1 100.0 99.9


Source: Unpublished shift tables, as previously cited.











Table 26 compares economic change in Florida with that in the

nation, for each of the six decades, in terms of the percentages of

the composition and competition shifts of the labor force of Florida

in relation to the summation of like shifts for all other states of

the nation.

TABLE 26

SUMMARY OF FLORIDA COMPETITION AND COMPOSITION
NET SHIFTS AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL U.S. SHIFTS
BY DECADES


DaComposition Competition
Fla. % of U.S. Change Fla. % of U.S. Change

1870-1880 -1.17 +0.95
+.09 +1.39
1880-1890 -1.08 +2.32
+.04 +0.36
1890-1900 -1.04 +2.68
-.19 +0.70
1900-1910 -1.23 +3.38
+.26 +0.76
1910-1920 -0.97 +4.14
+.44 +4.03
1920-1930 -0.53 +8.17

Total +.64 +7.24

Sources Unpublished shift tables, as previously cited.



It is apparent that Florida has continually gained over the

period in terms of percentage of both composition and competition

shifts, except for a drop in the former during the 1900-1910 decade.

Also apparent is the consistently increasing gain in competition per-

centage and the consistently decreasing loss in composition percent-

agej the brief reversal of the latter in the 1900's being fully










compensated in the 1910's. Another striking feature of these changing

percentages is that the 1920's contributed more to the total change

than the prior five decades combined; some 69 per cent of the compo-

sition change and 56 per cent of the competition change.

It must be recognized that there is an inter-relationship

between the composition and competition shifts. The competition shift

still contains substantial elements of composition shift in terms of

the relative specialization of Florida in the rapid or slow growth

subsectors of each of the major sectors considered in this study. In

terms of levels of disaggregation, the composition shifts herein iden-

tified are only first level shifts and the same process of separating

competition and composition effects could be repeated at successive

levels of disaggregation if data, time, and space permitted. Another

area of inter-relatedness exists in that differential competition

shifts tend to change the relative degree of specialization in rapid

and slow growth sectors over time.

Another measure which was computed for each decade is the

composition index. The index for each decade was derived in the

chapter on the respective decade; they are summarized in Table 27.

After the first decade, the composition index has increased in

Florida's favor in each of the following decades except for the 1900's,

and this lost ground was fully recovered in the succeeding decade.

This composition index, accordingly, corresponds to the pattern of the

composition shift presented in Table 26.










TABLE 27

COMPOSITION INDEX SUMMARY BY DECADE

Decade Index

1870-1880 .465
1880-1890 .442
1890-1900 .550
1900-1910 .512
1910-1920 .562
1920-1950 .992


Source: Table 34 for the 1870's.
Like tables from other
decade chapters.



Especially dramatic is the radical change in ratio in the

last decade after the rather gradual changes of the preceding five

decades. The total change in ratio for the first five decades netted

only .099; and suddenly there was a change of .430 in the 1920's.

To afford some basis for comparison, Dunn has computed that the ratio

which is here termed a composition index was 1.540 for Florida during

the period 1939-1958. For the same period he found that all other

southern states ranged from .182 for Arkansas to .701 for Virginia.12

For the nation as a whole the index would, of course, be 1.000, or

unity. This revolution in magnitude for Florida in the 1920's would

perhaps justify a tentative hypothesis that this decade, whatever the



12Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., "The Changing Economic Structure of the
South and Its Implications for Economic Development." Prepared for
The First Annual Conference of the Inter-University Committee for
Economic Research on the South. Mimeographed and unpaged. Figures
taken from Table II. Monograph publication contemplated by University
of Florida Press in 1962.










untoward effects of the boom, was the transforming decade in Florida's

economic makeup. To the extent measured by the composition index,

it was in this decade that Florida unmistakably departed the ranks of

the South.

Other Measures of Change


Wealth

One of the many ways to visualize the over-all economic devel-

opment of Florida over a major portion of this period is in terms of

wealth. Data are not available to present decennial comparisons but

Easterlin has developed national estimates which are helpful in reveal-

ing changes in Florida's wealth between 1880, 1900, and 1920 as compared

with national wealth. Table 28 is based on data contained in the

Easterlin estimates, with some manipulation.

This table indicates that total wealth in Florida as a percent-

age of total national wealth, by location, increased by 43 per cent

between 1880 and 1900, and by 95 per cent between 1900 and 1920. The

relatively greater increase between 1900-1920 as compared to 1880-1900

is almost entirely attributable to increase in agricultural rather

than nonagricultural wealth. Corresponding percentages in nonagricul-

tural wealth, as between these two twenty-year intervals, were only

55 and 65 per cent; but for agricultural wealth were 9 and 252 per cent.

Equivalent percentages for total wealth, by ownership, are 50 and 109

per cent; and for nonagricultural wealth, by ownership, the differen-

tial between the two twenty-year intervals is again small, that between

72 and 78 per cent.







90



TABLE 28

FLORIDA PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL WEALTH
BY SELECTED CATEGORIES


Florida Percentage of National Wealth
Category 1880 Per cent 1900 Per cent 1920
Change Change

Total Wealth
By location .28 43 .40 95 .78
By ownership .22 50 .33 109 .69

(Own/Loc Ratio .79 5 .85 6 .88)

Agricultural Wealth
By location .25 9 .25 252 .88

Nonagricultural Wealth
By location .30 55 .46 65 .75
By ownership .21 72 .56 78 .64

(Own/Loc Ratio .70 11 .78 9 .85)


Notes: No allowance for foreign ownership of domestic wealth.
U.S. 100 per cent.
1920 figures based on 1919-1921 average and partly on 1922.

Source: Lee, Table 4.6, pp. 729-35.



By computing the ratio between ownership and location percent-

ages, this table also reveals the net trend toward greater local con-

trol of total wealth and nonagricultural wealth. With unity represent-

ing a net equivalence of wealth measured by ownership and location,

Florida increased its ratio from .79 in 1880 to .83 in 1900 to .88

in 1920 for total wealth; and from .70 in 1880 to .78 in 1900 to .85

in 1920 for nonagricultural wealth. Agricultural wealth is assumed by

Easterlin to have a net ownership-location ratio of unity; an assump-

tion perhaps more doubtful for Florida than for many states.