Religious Culture and Economic
Performance: Agricultural Productivity

of the Amish, 1850-80

M E T I N M. CO§GEL

The fanning practices of the Amish have differed in various ways from those of
other farmers. I use the information from federal census schedules to examine the
differences during the period 1850 to 1880 in light of Amish culture. Amish farmers
did not resist technological change during 1850-80, but the evidence shows other
systematic differences. They adopted distinct patterns in investment to ensure the
survival of their religious culture, which in turn affected their relative perfor-
mance.

Do religious beliefs affect economic activities and performance? Thisis an old and important question, but also a complicated one to
address. For large groups, the role of religion is particularly elusive
because it is difficult to identify precisely which religious beliefs have a
direct impact on economic behavior and to isolate the effect of this
behavior on productivity. The problem is highly simplified, however,
for smaller religious groups such as the Amish, who are well known for
their distinct religious beliefs and lifestyle.

Historians and sociologists have extensively studied the origins,
evolution, and significance of Amish customs. The effect of Amish
beliefs on economic activities and performance, however, has received
little systematic analysis. In this article I investigate the agricultural
practices and productivity of Amish farmers in a comparative frame-
work, focusing particularly on Amish settlements around Kalona, Iowa,
during the period 1850 to 1880. The analysis is based primarily on the
information recorded in the agriculture and population schedules of the
U.S. Censuses. Comparisons between the Amish and other farmers
reveal various persistent differences in farming that reflect some of the
distinct features of Amish culture.

The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 53, No. 2 (June 1993). © The Economic History
Association. All rights reserved. ISSN 0022-0507.

The author is Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
06269-1063.

I am grateful to Lester J. Miller, the staff at the State Historical Society of Iowa City, and the
Iowa Mennonite Museum and Archives for information on Kalona history. George Grantham,
David Wishart, and the editors of this JOURNAL provided helpful comments and suggestions. I also
thank Brad Andrew, Jennifer Easdon, and Linda Rudolph for research assistance, and the
University of Connecticut Research Foundation for financial support.

319



320 Co§gel

THE AMISH IN IOWA

The history of the Amish people began with the upheavals of the
Protestant Reformation.1 In the 1690s they emerged as the most
orthodox followers of the Swiss Anabaptist leader, Jacob Amman.
Escaping religious persecution, they migrated to America in two waves,
first in the early 1700s, and later between 1815 and 1860. The first Amish
families moved to Iowa in 1846 and formed the largest Amish settlement
west of the Mississippi River in Johnson County, near the present town
of Kalona.2

This study focuses on the two townships in Johnson County where
the Amish concentration was heaviest, Sharon and Washington. It also
focuses on the period 1850 to 1880, because the community had no
major schisms before the 1880s, and the current opposition to techno-
logical advances had not yet emerged. The Amish in these townships
differed from other farmers in their religious culture, but faced the same
physical constraints in farming. The two townships thus provide a
setting where it is possible to assess the effect of religious culture in a
comparative framework. Moreover, the agriculture schedules of the
U.S. Censuses for this period provide detailed information about the
operations of each farm, allowing for quantitative comparisons.

Genealogical studies and oral histories make it possible to distinguish
Amish from other farmers in census records. Agriculture schedules
recorded 3 Amish farmers in 1850, 28 in 1860, 73 in 1870, and 94 in 1880.
During the same time period, there were also 45, 108, 203, and 237
non-Amish farmers, whose records are available in complete form.3

FARMING AND THE AMISH

How would we expect the religious beliefs of the Amish to affect their
farming practices and productivity? The Amish regulate their economic
practices according to their interpretations of the Bible and prefer
farming over other occupations for religious reasons. The precise rules
and norms are recorded in the Ordnung, the Amish form of common
law. It is well known, for example, that Amish farmers have generally
rejected the use of tractors and various other machinery in farming
during the twentieth century and have deviated from mainstream

1 See, for example, Hostetler, Amish Society; KraybiU, Riddle; and Yoder, Tradition, for the
history of the Amish.

2 See Gingerich, Mennonites; Schwieder and Schwieder, Peculiar People; Wick, Amish
Mennonites; and Yoder, "My Amish Boyhood," for the history of the Amish in Iowa.

3 These numbers are slightly less than the actual number of farms, because for 1850 and 1860 the
agriculture schedules enumerated only farms with annual produce worth $100 or more. For 1870
and 1880 they enumerated only farms of three or more acres or with an annual produce worth $500
or more.



Amish Productivity, 1850-80 321

farming practices in other ways.4 One might therefore expect Amish
farmers of today to be less productive than their non-Amish neighbors
because of such differences in farming technology.5

The Amish resistance to technological change in farming, however, is
a relatively recent phenomenon. There is little evidence of opposition to
mechanized farming before the twentieth century, particularly during
the period studied in this paper. Amish farmers were some of the first to
adopt, and even invent, new developments in technology.6 Therefore,
the causes of any difference in their productivity must be sought
elsewhere.

Commentaries on the farming practices of the Amish before the
twentieth century have consistently praised them as being among the
best farmers. The distinct and superior farming practices of the Amish
are often attributed to their persecution in Europe and the confiscation
of their land. They were forced to become tenants on marginal land and
are said to have excelled in farming to ensure the survival of their
communities.7 It has also been observed that for the Iowan Amish,
success at farming is a sign of God's blessing and strength of character.8

Such observations represent a common sentiment among students of
the Amish and suggest a positive effect of Amish religious beliefs and
history on economic performance, relative to other farmers.9 The
performance itself, however, has never been systematically studied,
and the superior performance of Amish farmers (during the nineteenth
century) has almost become an unquestioned presumption.

WERE THE AMISH FARMERS MORE PRODUCTIVE?

Agriculture schedules itemize the inputs and outputs of each farm
recorded in the censuses, making it possible to calculate the cost and
revenue of operating farms. We can aggregate the information on the
basis of religious affiliation and use the ratio of revenue to cost as a

4 See, for example, Kraybill, Riddle, pp. 171-83; and Hostetler, Amish Society, pp. 117-46, for
current agricultural practices and farm technology among the Amish. Similarly, the Ordnung
rejects various conveniences such as electricity, television, and cars as "worldly" and sets
standardized patterns in clothing, household appliances, and even grooming.

3 But see, for example, Berry, Unsettling, pp. 213-17, for the superiority of Amish practices in
other respects.

6 Fisher, Farm Life, chap. 4; and Yoder, Tradition, pp. 226-27. Also see Gingerich, Menno-
nites, pp. 210-11; and Yoder, "My Amish Boyhood," pp. 118-19, for the Amish in Iowa. The
Amish do not oppose new technology per se, but for the danger it might present to their
community.

7 See Correll, schweizerische Tdufermennonitentum; and its review by Maurer, "Review," for
the success of Mennonite groups in Europe. See also Kollmorgen, Culture, pp. 16-21.

8 Gingerich, Mennonites, p. 208.
9 See, for example, Hostetler, Amish Society, pp. 89-91; Kraybill, Riddle, pp. 188-89; Stoltzfus,

"Amish Agriculture," pp. 197-99; and the references in Getz, "Economic Organization," pp.
117-18.



322 Co§gel

simple measure of productivity to compare the economic performance
of Amish and other farmers.

The information provided by census schedules on cost and revenue is
less detailed before 1870. On the cost side, the schedules for 1850 and
1860 provide only the values of farms, farming implements and machin-
ery, and livestock. The estimate of total cost is thus restricted to the
user cost of capital only (calculated by multiplying the total value of
these assets by the rate of interest).10 On the revenue side, the schedules
provide only earnings generated from orchard products, market gar-
dens, home manufactures, and animals slaughtered (or sold for slaugh-
ter). We thus need to estimate the revenue from grain production by
using market prices and the reported quantities that each farmer
produced.11

The productivity estimates for 1850 and 1860 thus need to be
interpreted with some caution, because not all inputs and products are
accounted for in the calculation. If the omitted items are not reasonably
proportional to those included, then the estimates will not reflect
relative productivities accurately. Moreover, the size of the samples,
especially for 1850, may be too small to reach any definitive conclu-
sions.

The census information for 1870 and 1880 is more detailed, allowing
for a more reliable comparison. For example, in both years farmers
reported the "estimated value of all farm productions (sold, consumed,
or on hand)."1 2 Furthermore, information about cost included the
wages paid (for both 1870 and 1880), the cost of building and repairing
fences (for 1880 only), and the cost of fertilizers purchased (for 1880
only).

In addition to the revenue-cost ratio, we can use the average revenue
of land as another proxy for productivity. This measure (calculated by
dividing the total revenue of each farmer by the acres of improved land
he owned) would indicate the productivity of land. Although this
measure may fail to reflect the productivity of the overall farming
operations accurately in the presence of other variable inputs, the two
productivity proxies nevertheless appear consistent in this case.

10 Federal Government Bond yield for 1850 and Railroad Bond yields for 1860-80 are used to
calculate the cost of capital, as reported in Homer and Sylla, History, pp. 287-88. Productivity
comparisons, reported in Table 1, are robust to other estimates (for example, local mortgage rates
reported by Bogue, From Prairie, p. 178), because the same rate applies to all farmers.

11 There are reliable estimates of agricultural prices for Iowa beginning in 1851. See Strand,
Prices. Prices for 1850 are estimated using the price indices for Cincinnati, reported by Cole,
Wholesale Commodity Prices, p. 186; and Berry, Western Prices, pp. 572-73.

12 One might object to using the estimates provided by the farmers, because of possible errors or
bias in reporting. Reported estimates, however, closely reflect market values, as we can infer from
the high correlation between farmers' estimates and those calculated from market prices and the
quantities reported by each farmer. The simple correlation coefficients between the two estimates
of cost and revenue range between .75 and .96 across censuses, with no systematic differences
between the Amish and other farmers.



Amish Productivity, 1850-80 323

TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE PRODUCTIVITY, AMISH AND NON-AMISH FARMERS,
1850-1880

Revenue-Cost Ratio
Amish
Other

Average Revenue of Land ($/Acre)
Amish
Other

Sample Size
Amish
Other

1850

3.98
5.45

(1.10)

6.67
6.13

(0.31)

3
45

1860

4.13
5.29

(1.89)

12.26
12.45
(0.18)

28
108

1870

3.28
4.48

(4.14)

14.36
16.39
(1.82)

73
203

1880

2.67
3.09

(2.42)

9.18
17.78
(1.96)

94
237

Notes: See the text for an explanation of the calculation of cost and revenue. The r-statistics are
in parentheses and test for the difference between the two means. At the 5 percent level, Amish
farmers had significantly lower revenue-cost ratios during 1860-80 and lower average revenue of
land during 1870-80.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Schedules, 1850-1880. Also see notes 10 and 11.

As Table 1 demonstrates, comparison of productivities reveals a
consistent differential in favor of non-Amish farmers. The revenue-cost
ratios for 1870 and 1880 are lower than those for 1850 and 1860, due
primarily to the difference in the items included in cost. The decline in
the ratios for 1880 reflects the additional items included in cost and the
fall in agricultural prices during the census year. Despite such fluctua-
tions in the absolute levels of revenue-cost ratios, the relative difference
in productivity between Amish and non-Amish farmers persisted,
challenging the conventional view about the superior productivity of
Amish farmers.

Note that the productivity proxies used above may be biased because
they omit labor inputs not reported in the schedules, such as the unpaid
labor input of family members and friends. The productivity differential
may thus simply be the result of a difference in the ratio of unpaid labor
to other inputs between the two groups of farmers. In our case,
however, the direction of the bias actually reinforces the conclusion of
Table 1. On Amish farms, the labor input of family members was
probably higher, because the average family size was significantly
higher.13 Amish farmers might also have had greater access to non-
household labor within the religious network because of their well-
known cooperation in farming operations.

13 See note 18.



324 Co§gel

4.55*
(2.67)
-0.54
(0.17)
-0.04
(1.79)
0.05
(1.03)
-1.08*
(2.06)
-0.72
(0.57)
0.77*
(3.10)
-0.39
(0.95)
-0.00072*
(5.00)
0.0001
(0.96)
126
.30

3.71*
(4.13)
-0.01
(0.07)
-0.03*
(2.58)
0.02
(0.88)
0.10
(0.39)
-0.88
(1.28)
0.44*
(4.74)
-0.24
(1.18)
-0.00036*
(8.73)
0.00014
(1.62)
266
.32

4.21*
(9.84)
-0.84
(0.86)
0.002
(0.26)
-0.0007
(0.05)
-0.21
(1-13)
-0.07
(0.16)
-0.05
(1.54)
0.05
(0.81)
-0.0001*
(3.97)
0.00004
(0.76)
321
.14

TABLE 2

DETERMINANTS OF PRODUCTIVITY, AMISH AND NON-AMISH,
NATIVE AND FOREIGN-BORN FARMERS, 1860-1880

Variable 1860 1870 1880

Constant

Amisha

Age

Amish x Age

Nativity1"

Amish x Nativity

Number of Products

Amish x Number of Products

Total Value of Farming Assets0

Amish x Value of Farming Assets

Degrees of Freedom
R2

* = significant at the 5 percent level.
a Dummy variable assigns 1 to Amish and 0 to non-Amish farmers.
b Dummy variable assigns 1 to native-born and 0 to foreign-born farmers.
c This represents the sum of the values of farm, implements and machinery, and livestock.
Notes: The revenue-cost ratio is used as the productivity proxy. Figures in parentheses are
/-statistics.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Schedules, 1860-1880.

EXPLANATIONS OF PRODUCTIVITY DIFFERENTIAL

To understand why Amish farmers were less productive, we must first
identify the determinants of productivity. I tested for the effect on
productivity of age, nativity, number of products, and the total value of
farming assets, using a dummy variable to test for the difference
between Amish and non-Amish farmers in the way each variable
affected their productivity. Table 2 reports the results.

The degree of standardization of our sample can be established by
examining the differences in the composition of the Amish and non-
Amish groups that might have contributed to the differential in produc-
tivity. The differential might have resulted, for instance, from a gap in
the farming experience between the two groups. Although census
records do not provide information on longevity in farming, we can use
age as a proxy for experience. Non-Amish farmers were indeed older on
average by about three years in 1870 and 1880 (though the average age
was approximately equal in 1860). But the difference in age does not



Amish Productivity, 1850-80 325

seem to explain the productivity differential; Table 2 reveals either an
insignificant (for 1860 and 1880) or a negative (for 1870) relationship
between age and productivity.

It would seem that the nativity of farmers might also have affected
their productivity. For example, if new immigrants followed traditional
methods in farming, their practices and performance might have differed
from those of native-born farmers, and significant disparities in the
proportion of new immigrants in the two groups could have contributed
to the difference in their average productivities. The evidence from our
sample, however, does not support this conclusion. Although the
coefficient of nativity is statistically significant for 1860, the difference in
the proportion of foreign-born farmers between the two groups was too
small (36 percent for the Amish and 32 percent for other farmers) to
account for the productivity differential. Moreover, although the differ-
ence in the proportion of foreign-born farmers was substantial in 1870
and 1880 (19 percent and 15 percent for the Amish and 39 percent and
38 percent for other farmers), the coefficient of nativity is insignificant in
both years, suggesting that nativity had little or no effect on the relative
productivities of the Amish and other farmers.

Population characteristics such as age and nativity appear to be
insufficient explanations for the productivity differential. To understand
why Amish farmers were less productive, the relationship between
religious beliefs and farming practices must be examined in more detail.
Amish farmers might have pursued a distinct objective in selecting
farming products, which could have reduced their productivity. For
example, they might have been highly averse to the risks their commu-
nity would have faced by exposure to outside markets and sought to
ensure their own self-sufficiency by producing a diverse selection of
products. As John Hostetler has observed, rather than specialize in
certain products, "Amish farmers today, as in earlier periods, prefer
general farming or a diversity of crops."14

We can check the applicability of this observation to the period
considered in this article by comparing the number of items produced by
the Amish with those produced by other farmers. Among the products
listed in the agriculture schedules, Amish farmers produced an average
of 6.7 different items in 1850, 6.7 in 1860, 9.6 in 1870, and 13.2 in 1880.
By contrast, other farmers produced an average of 6.1, 6.5, 8.5, and 10.5
items.15 The comparison thus shows greater diversity in the product
choices of the Amish farmers, especially after 1870.

14 Hostetler, Amish Society, p. 122. But see Stoltzfus, "Amish Agriculture," pp. 199-201, for
recent changes in practices.

15 Between 1860 and 1880, each new census required the reporting of additional products, which
accounts for part of the increase in the average number of items produced by the farmers. The
f-statistics for the test of the difference in the averages are 0.65 for 1850, 0.77 for 1860, 5.51 for
1870, and 6.32 for 1880. The average number of items produced by the Amish farmers was thus
significantly higher for 1870 and 1880 at conventional levels.



326 Co§gel

The important question in the present context is whether the Amish
preference for diversity was costly. Although product diversity might
have helped to insure controlled interaction with the outside world, the
Amish might have paid a premium for it in lost income. The regression
results of Table 2, however, show either a positive (for 1860 and 1870)
or an insignificant (for 1880) relationship between the number of
products and productivity. This finding suggests that the product
choices of Amish farmers did not cause them to be less productive.

Systematic differences in the use of farming inputs between the
Amish and non-Amish farmers might have caused the differential in
productivity. Although the Amish did not oppose technological change
before the twentieth century, they might have had other restraints on
the use of farming inputs based on their religious beliefs. For example,
as Melvin Gingerich reports, Amish farmers in Iowa "object[ed] to
mules because they believefd] it contrary to the plan of nature that two
species of animals should be crossed."16 Accordingly, census records
show no mules and asses on Amish farms during the period 1850 to 1880.
It is difficult to assess, however, how much of the differential in
productivity can be attributed to such variations in the composition of
livestock holdings or other inputs.

More important is the difference in the level of all inputs. As Table 2
shows, the coefficient of the total value of farming assets is consistently
significant and negative, demonstrating a negative relationship between
farm size and productivity. Moreover, as Table 3 shows, the amount of
land as well as the values of farms, farm implements and machinery, and
livestock were all significantly greater on average for Amish farms.
Given the differential in productivities, comparison of inputs therefore
suggests that Amish farmers overinvested in their farming operations,
exceeding the optimal size. The question that remains is why the Amish
invested so heavily in farms, machinery and implements, and livestock,
when additional investment actually reduced the efficiency of their
operations.

THE BEQUEST MOTIVE

The Amish were primarily concerned with preserving their religion
and maintaining a stable community. Because of their belief that they
should separate from the world, they minimized contact with outsiders
and did not actively seek to recruit members, except from their own
families. Therefore, although they did not face persecution in Iowa,
they recognized that their religious traditions could survive only if their
children chose to stay in the community and retain the Amish religion.
Therein lies the clue to understanding the effect of religious culture on

16 Gingerich, Mennonites, p. 209.



Amish Productivity, 1850-80 327

TABLE 3
AVERAGE SIZE OF LAND AND VALUES OF FARMING ASSETS, AMISH

AND NON-AMISH, 1850-1880

Asset by Group

Land" (Acres)
Amish
Other

Value of Farm ($)
Amish
Other

Value of Machinery and Implements ($)
Amish
Other

Value of Livestock ($)
Amish
Other

Total Value of Assets" ($)
Amish
Other

1850

227
189

(0.59)

847
853

75
93

340
255

1262
1201

(0.16)

1860

207
193

(0.40)

2621
2300

101
84

452
433

3174
2817

(0.85)

1870

173
140

(2.48)

5579
3790

298
238

1080
899

6957
4927
(4.20)

1880

159
133

(1.97)

5542
4255

224
151

1157
847

6923
5253

(3.19)
a This represents the sum of improved and unimproved land.
b This represents the sum of the values of farm, implements and machinery, and livestock.
Notes: The /-statistics are shown in parentheses and test for the significance of the difference
between two averages. The average size of land and the total value of the assets of Amish farmers
was significantly higher in 1870 and 1880 at conventional levels.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Schedules, 1850-1880.

the investment practices of the Amish. Because the preservation of their
religion depended on children, they encouraged large families and
invested in the future of their religious community.

The Amish have always preferred large families.17 They interpret the
Biblical passage "go forth and multiply" literally, and advocate large
families by encouraging early marriages and opposing birth control. The
Amish farms in our sample thus housed consistently greater numbers of
people than non-Amish farms, by an average of about one person per
farm. The average household size for Amish farms was 8.6 in 1850, 7.3
in 1860, 6.6 in 1870, and 6.4 in 1880. By contrast, non-Amish farms
housed on average 5.4, 6.0, 5.6, and 5.3 people during the same years.18

Large families, however, also presented the Amish with a problem','
17 See Ericksen et al., "Fertility Patterns," for recent trends.
18 Household size is calculated from the population schedules, and includes members of

extended family such as stepchildren and parents, but excludes those boarding on farm for
work-related reasons, such as farm laborers and domestic servants. The r-statistics for the test of
the difference between the two averages are 1.79 for 1850, 2.36 for 1860, 2.98 for 1870, and 3.46 for
1880. The average size of the Amish household was significantly higher in all years at the 5 percent
level.



328 Co§gel

TABLE 4

THE BEQUEST MOTIVE: WEALTH" REGRESSED ON FAMILY SIZE

Variable

Constant

Family Size (common slope)

Dummy1" x Family Size (differential
effect for the Amish)

Degrees of Freedom
R2

1860

1281.6
(3.05)
257.6
(3.99)
10.4
(0.2)
133
.12

1870

2487.9
(4.78)
445.7
(5.08)
206.1
(3.03)

273
.17

1880

2763.3
(5.18)
463.3
(4.99)
189.0
(2.49)

328
.13

a This represents the total value of the farm, machinery and implements, and livestock.
b Dummy variable assigns 1 to Amish and 0 to other farmers.
Notes: Figures in parentheses are /-statistics. All coefficients, except for the differential effect for
I860, are significant at conventional levels.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Schedules, 1860-1880.

because children could stay in the community only if they were able to
support their own families after they got married. As Eugene Ericksen,
Julia Ericksen, and John Hostetler have found, "[w]hen families are
able to set their children up in farming, the children are likely to remain
Amish."1 9 In the absence of established institutions for credit, the
ultimate responsibility rested on the parents to secure farms for their
children. As Gingerich observes for the Amish in Iowa, "[m]any a
father has had an ambition to acquire enough land in a solid block so that
each son could be given a farm."20 Large families thus required Amish
parents to invest heavily in farming inputs (with the expectation that
they would be passed down to future generations), suggesting the
presence of a bequest motive as an explanation of their investment
patterns.

A common procedure to test for the presence of the bequest motive
is through the relationship between wealth (total value of farming assets)
and family size.21 If the motive was present, we would expect farmers
with larger families to hold more wealth. As Table 4 shows, the
coefficient of family size is positive and significant for all farmers,
confirming the presence of the bequest motive in the overall sample.
More important, however, is whether the motive was significantly
different for Amish farmers, an expectation that can be tested by using
a dummy variable that differentiates Amish from non-Amish farmers.
As Table 4 shows, the coefficient of the differential effect (Dummy x
Family Size) is positive and significant for 1870 and 1880, confirming the
presence of a higher bequest motive for Amish farmers.

How successful was the bequest motive? Comparison of the agricul-
ture and population schedules for two consecutive censuses reveals the

19 E r i c k s e n , E r i c k s e n , and H o s t e t l e r , " C u l t i v a t i o n , " p p . 64-65.
20 Gingerich, Mennonites, p . 237.
21 S e e , for e x a m p l e , H u r d , " R e s e a r c h , " p p . 6 1 7 - 2 1 , for a review of tests for the bequest m o t i v e .



Amish Productivity, 1850-80 329

TABLE 5
SUCCESS OF THE BEQUEST MOTIVE

(Number of Fanners)

Status in Census Records

Total recorded in first census
Recorded in both censuses
Farm taken over in second census8

Not recorded in second census
New farmer in second census (X)
Child in first census1" (Y)
Percentage of children among new

fanners (Y/X)

1860 and 1870
Censuses

Amish

28
16
7
5

57
16
28

Other

108
54
4

50
149
10
7

1870 and 1880
Censuses

Amish

73
54
9

10
40
21
53

Other

203
111

5
87

126
15
12

" Farmer died or retired between censuses; farm taken over by child or spouse.
b Farmer was recorded as child of farmer parents in the population schedules of the first census and
separately as a new farmer in the agriculture schedules of the second census.
Notes: In addition to population schedules, genealogical studies were used to determine family
connections for the Amish in a few uncertain cases. Similar information is not available for other
farmers; thus, the number of farmers reported as "Child in first census" may be slightly lower than
actual, if the census schedules are incomplete.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Schedules, 1860-1880; and Gingerich, Cemetery
Directory.

changes in farm ownership that occurred over the decade, making it
possible to test the success of the Amish in maintaining their religious
community. As Table 5 shows, among the new farmers recorded in 1870
and 1880, a higher percentage of Amish than non-Amish had farmer
parents living in the area a decade ago. Similarly, a lower percentage of
Amish farmers left the area during the period 1860 to 1880. These results
testify to the stability of the Amish community and to the success of
Amish parents in affecting the decisions of their children to remain
Amish and continue farming in the same location.

The bequest motive of the Amish farmers thus clarifies their invest-
ment patterns during the period 1850 and 1880. The Amish sought and
successfully achieved the survival of their religious community by
investing heavily in land and other inputs in farming. By this means,
they secured farms for their children's future, even though the produc-
tivity of their own farms lagged behind those of other settlers. They
sacrificed current income in order to raise their bequests and invested
heavily in the next generation.

CONCLUSION

The experience of Amish fanners who lived near the present town of
Kalona, Iowa, during the period 1850 to 1880 demonstrates how
religious culture can affect economic practices and performance. The
Amish were primarily concerned with the survival of their religion and



330 Co§gel

the stability of their communities. Their farming practices accordingly
differed from those of their non-Amish neighbors, particularly in the
selection of inputs: they held larger assets in farming in order to
safeguard the future of their religious community. Such differences in
farming practices resulted in lower levels of productivity, contrary to
widely held presumptions about the relative performance of Amish
farmers during the nineteenth century.

It would be presumptuous to generalize about the relationship be-
tween religion and economic performance from the experience of this
one community. Amish practices in farming have evolved over time,
and other religious groups assuredly have entirely different beliefs and
practices. The case of the Amish in Iowa does show, however, that the
shared beliefs and objectives of a religious community can produce
distinct patterns of economic behavior and affect their productivity.

REFERENCES

Berry, Thomas S., Western Prices Before 1861 (Cambridge, MA, 1943).
Berry, Wendell, The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture (New York, 1977).
Bogue, Allan G., From Prairie to Corn Belt (Chicago, 1963).
Cole, Arthur H., Wholesale Commodity Prices in the United States: 1700-1861

(Cambridge, MA, 1938).
Correll, Ernst, Das schweizerische Tdufermennonitentum (Tubingen, Germany, 1925).
Ericksen, Eugene P., Julia A. Ericksen, and John A. Hostetler, "The Cultivation of the

Soil as a Moral Directive: Population Growth, Family Ties, and the Maintenance of
Community Among the Old Order Amish," Rural Sociology, 45 (Spring 1980), pp.
49-68.

Ericksen, Eugene P., et al., "Fertility Patterns and Trends Among the Old Order
Amish," Population Studies, 33 (July 1979), pp. 255-76.

Fisher, Gideon, Farm Life and Its Changes (Gordonville, PA, 1978).
Getz, Jane C , "The Economic Organization and Practices of the Old Order Amish of

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania," Mennonite Quarterly Review, 10 (Jan. 1946),
pp. 53-30; (Apr. 1946), pp. 98-127. ,

Gingerich, Mary A., Cemetery Directory of Amish and Mennonites in Iowa, Johnson,
and Washington Counties of Iowa (Kalona, IA, 1972).

Gingerich, Melvin, The Mennonites in Iowa (Iowa City, IA, 1939).
Homer, Sidney, and Richard Sylla, A History of Interest Rates (1st edn., 1963; 3rd edn.,

New Brunswick, 1991).
Hostetler, John A., Amish Society (1st edn., 1963; 3rd edn., Baltimore, 1980).
Hurd, Michael, "Research on the Elderly: Economic Status, Retirement, and Con-

sumption and Saving," Journal of Economic Literature, 28 (June 1990), pp.
565-637.

Kollmorgen, Walter M., Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community. Rural Life
Studies No. 4 (Washington, DC, 1942).

Kraybill, Donald B., The Riddle of Amish Culture (Baltimore, 1989).
Maurer, H. M., "Review of Correll, Das schweizerische Tdufermennonitentum,"

American Journal of Sociology, 31 (Mar. 1926), pp. 677-80.



Amish Productivity, 1850-80 331

Schwieder, Elmer, and Dorothy Schwieder, A Peculiar People: Iowa's Old Order
Amish (Ames, IA, 1975).

Stoltzfus, Victor, "Amish Agriculture: Adaptive Strategies for Economic Survival of
Community Life," Rural Sociology, 38 (Summer 1973), pp. 196-206.

Strand, Norman V., Prices of Farm Products in Iowa, Iowa State College of Agriculture
and Mechanic Arts, Research Bulletin No. 303 (Ames, IA, 1942).

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Federal Census Schedules, National Archives and Records
Service, Agriculture and Population Schedules (microfilm, Washington, DC, 1850-
1880).

Wick, Barthinius L., The Amish Mennonites (Iowa City, IA, 1894).
Yoder, Paton, Tradition and Transition (Scottdale, PA, 1991).
Yoder, Sanford C , "My Amish Boyhood," The Palimsest, 30 (Mar. 1958), pp. 109-44.