The Third Pillar: How Markets and the State Leave the Community Behind

by Raghuram G. Rajan

As economic historians Stanley Engerman and Ken Sokoloff argue, in frontier areas of the United States, land was plentiful, the existing population was few in number, and there was a great need to attract more settlers.32 Perhaps this was why none of the states that entered the Union after the initial thirteen had a property requirement for voters – would-be settlers usually came without property. Moreover, as states competed for people, even the original thirteen were forced to weaken their voting requirements so as to not lose people. If attracting people was so important, though, why did states continue to exclude women and minorities? One can only speculate here. Perhaps states felt that going against the prejudices of the time would attract fewer, not more of the favoured settler, white men. Perhaps they thought women would follow with their husbands or fathers and few single women would migrate anyway. Perhaps they did not believe there were sufficient free blacks to attract. Nevertheless, even though the extension of the franchise was far from universal, and did not seem to rise above the prejudices of the time, the founders of new states were willing to extend the franchise, even without an agitation by the excluded.

Us states were competing for people