Hoover Dam is a concrete arch-gravity dam in the Black Canyon of the Colorado River, on the border between the U.S. states of Nevada and Arizona. It was constructed between 1931 and 1936 during the Great Depression and was dedicated on September 30, 1935, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its construction was the result of a massive effort involving thousands of workers, and cost over one hundred lives. Originally known as Boulder Dam from 1933, it was officially renamed Hoover Dam, for President Herbert Hoover, by a joint resolution of Congress in 1947.
Since about 1900, the Black Canyon and nearby Boulder Canyon had been investigated for their potential to support a dam that would control floods, provide irrigation water and produce hydroelectric power. In 1928, Congress authorized the project. The winning bid to build the dam was submitted by a consortium called Six Companies, Inc., which began construction on the dam in early 1931. Such a large concrete structure had never been built before, and some of the techniques were unproven. The torrid summer weather and lack of facilities near the site also presented difficulties. Nevertheless, Six Companies turned the dam over to the federal government on March 1, 1936, more than two years ahead of schedule.
Hoover Dam impounds Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the United States by volume (when it is full).[6] The dam is located near Boulder City, Nevada, a municipality originally constructed for workers on the construction project, about 30mi (48km) southeast of Las Vegas, Nevada. The dam's generators provide power for public and private utilities in Nevada, Arizona, and California. Hoover Dam is a major tourist attraction; nearly a million people tour the dam each year. The heavily traveled U.S. Route 93 (US93) ran along the dam's crest until October 2010, when the Hoover Dam Bypass opened.
Background
Search for resources
As the United States developed the Southwest, the Colorado River was seen as a potential source of irrigation water. An initial attempt at diverting the river for irrigation purposes occurred in the late 1890s, when land speculator William Beatty built the Alamo Canal just north of the Mexican border; the canal dipped into Mexico before running to a desolate area Beatty named the Imperial Valley.[7] Though water from the Imperial Canal allowed for the widespread settlement of the valley, the canal proved expensive to maintain. After a catastrophic breach that caused the Colorado River to fill the Salton Sea,[8] the Southern Pacific Railroad spent $3million in 1906–07 to stabilize the waterway, an amount it hoped in vain would be reimbursed by the Federal Government. Even after the waterway was stabilized, it proved unsatisfactory because of constant disputes with landowners on the Mexican side of the border.[9]

As the technology of electric power transmission improved, the Lower Colorado was considered for its hydroelectric-power potential. In 1902, the Edison Electric Company of Los Angeles surveyed the river in the hope of building a 40-foot (12m) rock dam which could generate 10,000 horsepower (7,500kW). However, at the time, the limit of transmission of electric power was 80 miles (130km), and there were few customers (mostly mines) within that limit. Edison allowed land options it held on the river to lapse—including an option for what became the site of Hoover Dam.[10]
In the following years, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), known as the Reclamation Service at the time, also considered the Lower Colorado as the site for a dam. Service chief Arthur Powell Davis proposed using dynamite to collapse the walls of Boulder Canyon,[11] 20 miles (32km) north of the eventual dam site, into the river.[12] The river would carry off the smaller pieces of debris, and a dam would be built incorporating the remaining rubble. In 1922, after considering it for several years, the Reclamation Service finally rejected the proposal, citing doubts about the unproven technique and questions as to whether it would in fact save money.[11]

Planning and agreements

In 1922, the Reclamation Service presented a report calling for the development of a dam on the Colorado River for flood control and electric power generation. The report was principally authored by Davis, and was called the Fall-Davis report after Interior Secretary Albert Fall. The Fall-Davis report cited use of the Colorado River as a federal concern because the river's basin covered several states, and the river eventually entered Mexico.[13] Though the Fall-Davis report called for a dam "at or near Boulder Canyon", the Reclamation Service (which was renamed the Bureau of Reclamation the following year) found that canyon unsuitable.[14] One potential site at Boulder Canyon was bisected by a geologic fault; two others were so narrow there was no space for a construction camp at the bottom of the canyon[14] or for a spillway. The Service investigated Black Canyon and found it ideal; a railway could be laid from the railhead in Las Vegas to the top of the dam site.[15] Despite the site change, the dam project was referred to as the "Boulder Canyon Project".[16]
With little guidance on water allocation from the Supreme Court, proponents of the dam feared endless litigation. A Colorado attorney proposed that the seven states which fell within the river's basin (California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming) form an interstate compact, with the approval of Congress. Such compacts were authorized by Article I of the United States Constitution but had never been concluded among more than two states. In 1922, representatives of seven states met with then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover.[17] Initial talks produced no result, but when the Supreme Court handed down the Wyoming v. Colorado decision undermining the claims of the upstream states, they became anxious to reach an agreement. The resulting Colorado River Compact was signed on November 24, 1922.[18]
Legislation to authorize the dam was introduced repeatedly by two California Republicans, Representative Phil Swing and Senator Hiram Johnson, but representatives from other parts of the country considered the project as hugely expensive and one that would mostly benefit California. The 1927 Mississippi flood made Midwestern and Southern congressmen and senators more sympathetic toward the dam project. On March 12, 1928, the failure of the St. Francis Dam, constructed by the city of Los Angeles, caused a disastrous flood that killed up to 600 people. As that dam was a curved-gravity type,[19] similar in design to the arch-gravity as was proposed for the Black Canyon dam, opponents claimed that the Black Canyon dam's safety could not be guaranteed. Congress authorized a board of engineers to review plans for the proposed dam. The Colorado River Board found the project feasible, but warned that should the dam fail, every downstream Colorado River community would be destroyed, and that the river might change course and empty into the Salton Sea. The Board cautioned: "To avoid such possibilities, the proposed dam should be constructed on conservative if not ultra-conservative lines."[20]
On December 21, 1928, President Coolidge signed the bill authorizing the dam.[21] The Boulder Canyon Project Act appropriated $165million for the Hoover Dam along with the downstream Imperial Dam and All-American Canal, a replacement for Beatty's canal entirely on the U.S. side of the border.[22] It also permitted the compact to go into effect when at least six of the seven states approved it. This occurred on March 6, 1929, with Utah's ratification; Arizona did not approve it until 1944.[23]
Design, preparation and contracting

Even before Congress approved the Boulder Canyon Project, the Bureau of Reclamation was considering what kind of dam should be used. Officials eventually decided on a massive concrete arch-gravity dam, the design of which was overseen by the Bureau's chief design engineer John L. Savage. The monolithic dam would be thick at the bottom and thin near the top, and would present a convex face towards the water above the dam. The curving arch of the dam would transmit the water's force into the abutments, in this case the rock walls of the canyon. The wedge-shaped dam would be 660ft (200m) thick at the bottom, narrowing to 45ft (14m) at the top, leaving room for a highway connecting Nevada and Arizona.[24]
On January 10, 1931, the Bureau made the bid documents available to interested parties, at five dollars a copy. The government was to provide the materials; but the contractor was to prepare the site and build the dam. The dam was described in minute detail, covering 100pages of text and 76drawings. A $2million bid bond was to accompany each bid; the winner would have to post a $5million performance bond. The contractor had seven years to build the dam, or penalties would ensue.[25]
The Wattis Brothers, heads of the Utah Construction Company, were interested in bidding on the project, but lacked the money for the performance bond. They lacked sufficient resources even in combination with their longtime partners, Morrison-Knudsen, which employed the nation's leading dam builder, Frank Crowe. They formed a joint venture to bid for the project with Pacific Bridge Company of Portland, Oregon; Henry J. Kaiser & W. A. Bechtel Company of San Francisco; MacDonald & Kahn Ltd. of Los Angeles; and the J.F. Shea Company of Portland, Oregon.[26] The joint venture was called Six Companies, Inc. as Bechtel and Kaiser were considered one company for purposes of Six in the name. The name was descriptive and was an inside joke among the San Franciscans in the bid, where "Six Companies" was also a Chinese benevolent association in the city.[27] There were three valid bids, and Six Companies' bid of $48,890,955 was the lowest, within $24,000 of the confidential government estimate of what the dam would cost to build, and five million dollars less than the next-lowest bid.[28]
The city of Las Vegas had lobbied hard to be the headquarters for the dam construction, closing its many speakeasies when the decision maker, Secretary of the Interior Ray Wilbur, came to town. Instead, Wilbur announced in early 1930 that a model city was to be built in the desert near the dam site. This town became known as Boulder City, Nevada. Construction of a rail line joining Las Vegas and the dam site began in September 1930.[29]
Construction
Labor force

Soon after the dam was authorized, increasing numbers of unemployed people converged on southern Nevada. Las Vegas, then a small city of some 5,000, saw between 10,000 and 20,000 unemployed descend on it.[30] A government camp was established for surveyors and other personnel near the dam site; this soon became surrounded by a squatters' camp. Known as McKeeversville, the camp was home to men hoping for work on the project, together with their families.[31] Another camp, on the flats along the Colorado River, was officially called Williamsville, but was known to its inhabitants as "Ragtown".[32] When construction began, Six Companies hired large numbers of workers, with more than 3,000 on the payroll by 1932[33] and with employment peaking at 5,251 in July 1934.[34] "Mongolian" (Chinese) labor was prevented by the construction contract,[34] while the number of blacks employed by Six Companies never exceeded thirty, mostly lowest-pay-scale laborers in a segregated crew, who were issued separate water buckets.[35]
As part of the contract, Six Companies, Inc. was to build Boulder City to house the workers. The original timetable called for Boulder City to be built before the dam project began, but President Hoover ordered work on the dam to begin in March 1931 rather than in October.[36] The company built bunkhouses, attached to the canyon wall, to house 480single men at what became known as River Camp. Workers with families were left to provide their own accommodations until Boulder City could be completed,[37] and many lived in Ragtown.[38] The site of Hoover Dam endures extremely hot weather, and the summer of 1931 was especially torrid, with the daytime high averaging 119.9°F (48.8°C).[39] Sixteen workers and other riverbank residents died of heat prostration between June 25 and July 26, 1931.[40]

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW or "Wobblies"), though much-reduced from their heyday as militant labor organizers in the early years of the century, hoped to unionize the Six Companies workers by capitalizing on their discontent. They sent eleven organizers,[41] several of whom were arrested by Las Vegas police.[42] On August 7, 1931, the company cut wages for all tunnel workers. Although the workers sent away the organizers, not wanting to be associated with the "Wobblies", they formed a committee to represent them with the company. The committee drew up a list of demands that evening and presented them to Crowe the following morning. He was noncommittal. The workers hoped that Crowe, the general superintendent of the job, would be sympathetic; instead he gave a scathing interview to a newspaper, describing the workers as "malcontents".[43]
On the morning of the 9th, Crowe met with the committee and told them that management refused their demands, was stopping all work, and was laying off the entire work force, except for a few office workers and carpenters. The workers were given until 5p.m. to vacate the premises. Concerned that a violent confrontation was imminent, most workers took their paychecks and left for Las Vegas to await developments.[44] Two days later, the remainder were talked into leaving by law enforcement. On August 13, the company began hiring workers again, and two days later, the strike was called off.[45] While the workers received none of their demands, the company guaranteed there would be no further reductions in wages. Living conditions began to improve as the first residents moved into Boulder City in late 1931.[46]
A second labor action took place in July 1935, as construction on the dam wound down. When a Six Companies manager altered working times to force workers to take lunch on their own time, workers responded with a strike. Emboldened by Crowe's reversal of the lunch decree, workers raised their demands to include a $1-per-day raise. The company agreed to ask the Federal government to supplement the pay, but no money was forthcoming from Washington. The strike ended.[47]
River diversion

Before the dam could be built, the Colorado River needed to be diverted away from the construction site. To accomplish this, four diversion tunnels were driven through the canyon walls, two on the Nevada side and two on the Arizona side. These tunnels were 56ft (17m) in diameter.[48] Their combined length was nearly 16,000ft, or more than 3 miles (5km).[49] The contract required these tunnels to be completed by October 1, 1933, with a $3,000-per-day fine to be assessed for any delay. To meet the deadline, Six Companies had to complete work by early 1933, since only in late fall and winter was the water level in the river low enough to safely divert.[50]
Tunneling began at the lower portals of the Nevada tunnels in May 1931. Shortly afterward, work began on two similar tunnels in the Arizona canyon wall. In March 1932, work began on lining the tunnels with concrete. First the base, or invert, was poured. Gantry cranes, running on rails through the entire length of each tunnel were used to place the concrete. The sidewalls were poured next. Movable sections of steel forms were used for the sidewalls. Finally, using pneumatic guns, the overheads were filled in. The concrete lining is 3 feet (1m) thick, reducing the finished tunnel diameter to 50ft (15m).[49] The river was diverted into the two Arizona tunnels on November 13, 1932; the Nevada tunnels were kept in reserve for high water. This was done by exploding a temporary cofferdam protecting the Arizona tunnels while at the same time dumping rubble into the river until its natural course was blocked.[51]
Following the completion of the dam, the entrances to the two outer diversion tunnels were sealed at the opening and halfway through the tunnels with large concrete plugs. The downstream halves of the tunnels following the inner plugs are now the main bodies of the spillway tunnels.[49] The inner diversion tunnels were plugged at approximately one-third of their length, beyond which they now carry steel pipes connecting the intake towers to the power plant and outlet works.[48] The inner tunnels' outlets are equipped with gates that can be closed to drain the tunnels for maintenance.[48]
Groundworks, rock clearance and grout curtain
To protect the construction site from the Colorado River and to facilitate the river's diversion, two cofferdams were constructed. Work on the upper cofferdam began in September 1932, even though the river had not yet been diverted.[52] The cofferdams were designed to protect against the possibility of the river's flooding a site at which two thousand men might be at work, and their specifications were covered in the bid documents in nearly as much detail as the dam itself. The upper cofferdam was 96ft (29m) high, and 750 feet (230m) thick at its base, thicker than the dam itself. It contained 650,000 cubic yards (500,000m3) of material.[53]

When the cofferdams were in place and the construction site was drained of water, excavation for the dam foundation began. For the dam to rest on solid rock, it was necessary to remove accumulated erosion soils and other loose materials in the riverbed until sound bedrock was reached. Work on the foundation excavations was completed in June 1933. During this excavation, approximately 1,500,000cuyd (1,100,000m3) of material was removed. Since the dam was an arch-gravity type, the side-walls of the canyon would bear the force of the impounded lake. Therefore, the side-walls were excavated too, to reach virgin rock, as weathered rock might provide pathways for water seepage.[52] Shovels for the excavation came from the Marion Power Shovel Company.[54]
The men who removed this rock were called "high scalers". While suspended from the top of the canyon with ropes, the high-scalers climbed down the canyon walls and removed the loose rock with jackhammers and dynamite. Falling objects were the most common cause of death on the dam site; the high scalers' work thus helped ensure worker safety.[55] One high scaler was able to save a life in a more direct manner: when a government inspector lost his grip on a safety line and began tumbling down a slope towards almost certain death, a high scaler was able to intercept him and pull him into the air. The construction site had, even then, become a magnet for tourists; the high scalers were prime attractions and showed off for the watchers. The high scalers received considerable media attention, with one worker dubbed the "Human Pendulum" for swinging co-workers (and, at other times, cases of dynamite) across the canyon.[56] To protect themselves against falling objects, some high scalers took cloth hats and dipped them in tar, allowing them to harden. When workers wearing such headgear were struck hard enough to inflict broken jaws, they sustained no skull damage, Six Companies ordered thousands of what initially were called "hard boiled hats" (later "hard hats") and strongly encouraged their use.[57]
The cleared, underlying rock foundation of the dam site was reinforced with grout, called a grout curtain. Holes were driven into the walls and base of the canyon, as deep as 150 feet (46m) into the rock, and any cavities encountered were to be filled with grout. This was done to stabilize the rock, to prevent water from seeping past the dam through the canyon rock, and to limit "uplift"—upward pressure from water seeping under the dam. The workers were under severe time constraints due to the beginning of the concrete pour, and when they encountered hot springs or cavities too large to readily fill, they moved on without resolving the problem. A total of 58 of the 393 holes were incompletely filled.[58] After the dam was completed and the lake began to fill, large numbers of significant leaks into the dam caused the Bureau of Reclamation to look into the situation. It found that the work had been incompletely done, and was based on less than a full understanding of the canyon's geology. New holes were drilled from inspection galleries inside the dam into the surrounding bedrock.[59] It took nine years (1938–47) under relative secrecy to complete the supplemental grout curtain.[60]
Concrete

The first concrete was poured into the dam on June 6, 1933, 18months ahead of schedule.[61] Since concrete heats and contracts as it cures, the potential for uneven cooling and contraction of the concrete posed a serious problem. Bureau of Reclamation engineers calculated that if the dam were to be built in a single continuous pour, the concrete would take 125 years to cool, and the resulting stresses would cause the dam to crack and crumble. Instead, the ground where the dam would rise was marked with rectangles, and concrete blocks in columns were poured, some as large as 50ft square (15m) and 5 feet (1.5m) high.[62] Each five-foot form contained a series of 1-inch (25mm) steel pipes; cool riverwater would be poured through the pipes, followed by ice-cold water from a refrigeration plant. When an individual block had cured and had stopped contracting, the pipes were filled with grout. Grout was also used to fill the hairline spaces between columns, which were grooved to increase the strength of the joins.[63]
The concrete was delivered in huge steel buckets 7 feet high (2.1m) and almost 7feet in diameter; Crowe was awarded two patents for their design. These buckets, which weighed 20 short tons (18t) when full, were filled at two massive concrete plants on the Nevada side, and were delivered to the site in special railcars. The buckets were then suspended from aerial cableways which were used to deliver the bucket to a specific column. As the required grade of aggregate in the concrete differed depending on placement in the dam (from pea-sized gravel to 9-inch or 23cm stones), it was vital that the bucket be maneuvered to the proper column. When the bottom of the bucket opened up, disgorging 8cuyd (6.1m3) of concrete, a team of men worked it throughout the form. Although there are myths that men were caught in the pour and are entombed in the dam to this day, each bucket deepened the concrete in a form by only an inch, and Six Companies engineers would not have permitted a flaw caused by the presence of a human body.[64]
A total of 3,250,000 cubic yards (2,480,000 cubic metres) of concrete was used in the dam before concrete pouring ceased on May 29, 1935. In addition, 1,110,000cuyd (850,000m3) were used in the power plant and other works. More than 582 miles (937km) of cooling pipes were placed within the concrete. Overall, there is enough concrete in the dam to pave a two-lane highway from San Francisco to New York.[48] Concrete cores were removed from the dam for testing in 1995; they showed that "Hoover Dam's concrete has continued to slowly gain strength" and the dam is composed of a "durable concrete having a compressive strength exceeding the range typically found in normal mass concrete".[65] Hoover Dam concrete is not subject to alkali–silica reaction (ASR), as the Hoover Dam builders happened to use nonreactive aggregate, unlike that at downstream Parker Dam, where ASR has caused measurable deterioration.[65]
Dedication and completion

With most work finished on the dam itself (the powerhouse remained uncompleted), a formal dedication ceremony was arranged for September 30, 1935, to coincide with a western tour being made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The morning of the dedication, it was moved forward three hours from 2p.m. Pacific time to 11a.m.; this was done because Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes had reserved a radio slot for the President for 2p.m. but officials did not realize until the day of the ceremony that the slot was for 2p.m. Eastern Time.[66] Despite the change in the ceremony time, and temperatures of 102°F (39°C), 10,000people were present for the President's speech, in which he avoided mentioning the name of former President Hoover,[67] who was not invited to the ceremony.[68] To mark the occasion, a three-cent stamp was issued by the United States Post Office Department—bearing the name "Boulder Dam", the official name of the dam between 1933 and 1947.[69] After the ceremony, Roosevelt made the first visit by any American president to Las Vegas.[67]
Most work had been completed by the dedication, and Six Companies negotiated with the government through late 1935 and early 1936 to settle all claims and arrange for the formal transfer of the dam to the Federal Government. The parties came to an agreement and on March 1, 1936, Secretary Ickes formally accepted the dam on behalf of the government. Six Companies was not required to complete work on one item, a concrete plug for one of the bypass tunnels, as the tunnel had to be used to take in irrigation water until the powerhouse went into operation.[70]
Construction deaths

There were 112deaths reported as associated with the construction of the dam.[72] The first was J. G. Tierney, a surveyor who drowned on December 20, 1922, while looking for an ideal spot for the dam.[72] The last death on the project's official fatality list occurred on December 20, 1935, when an "electrician's helper", Patrick Tierney, the son of J. G. Tierney, fell from an intake tower. Included in the fatality list are three workers, one in 1932 and two in 1933, who committed suicide onsite.[73][74][75] Ninety-six of the deaths occurred during construction at the site.[72] Of the 112fatalities, 91 were Six Companies employees, three were BOR employees, and one was a visitor to the site, with the remainder employees of various contractors not part of Six Companies.[76]
Not included in the official number of fatalities were deaths that were recorded as pneumonia. Workers alleged that this diagnosis was a cover for death from carbon monoxide poisoning (brought on by the use of gasoline-fueled vehicles in the diversion tunnels), and a classification used by Six Companies to avoid paying compensation claims.[77] The site's diversion tunnels frequently reached 140°F (60°C), enveloped in thick plumes of vehicle exhaust gases.[78] A total of 42workers were recorded as having died from pneumonia and were not included in the above total; none were listed as having died from carbon monoxide poisoning. No deaths of non-workers from pneumonia were recorded in Boulder City during the construction period.[77]
Architectural style
The initial plans for the facade of the dam, the power plant, the outlet tunnels and ornaments clashed with the modern look of an arch dam. The Bureau of Reclamation, more concerned with the dam's functionality, adorned it with a Gothic-inspired balustrade and eagle statues. This initial design was criticized by many as being too plain and unremarkable for a project of such immense scale, so Los Angeles-based architect Gordon B. Kaufmann, then the supervising architect to the Bureau of Reclamation, was brought in to redesign the exteriors.[79] Kaufmann greatly streamlined the design and applied an elegant Art Deco style to the entire project. He designed sculptured turrets rising seamlessly from the dam face and clock faces on the intake towers set for the time in Nevada and Arizona— both states are in different time zones, but since Arizona does not observe Daylight Saving Time, the clocks display the same time for more than half the year.[80]

At Kaufmann's request, Denver artist Allen Tupper True[79] was hired to handle the design and decoration of the walls and floors of the new dam. True's design scheme incorporated motifs of the Navajo and Pueblo tribes of the region.[81] Although some initially were opposed to these designs, True was given the go-ahead and was officially appointed consulting artist.[82] With the assistance of the National Laboratory of Anthropology, True researched authentic decorative motifs from Indian sand paintings, textiles, baskets and ceramics.[83] The images and colors are based on Native American visions of rain, lightning, water, clouds, and local animals— lizards, serpents, birds— and on the Southwestern landscape of stepped mesas.[81] In these works, which are integrated into the walkways and interior halls of the dam, True also reflected on the machinery of the operation, making the symbolic patterns appear both ancient and modern.[84]
With the agreement of Kaufmann and the engineers, True also devised for the pipes and machinery an innovative color-coding which was implemented throughout all BOR projects.[85] True's consulting artist job lasted through 1942; it was extended so he could complete design work for the Parker, Shasta and Grand Coulee dams and power plants. True's work on the Hoover Dam was humorously referred to in a poem published in The New Yorker, part of which read, "lose the spark, and justify the dream; but also worthy of remark will be the color scheme".[86]
Complementing Kaufmann and True's work, the Norwegian-born, naturalized American sculptor Oskar J.W. Hansen designed many of the sculptures on and around the dam. His works include the monument of dedication plaza, a plaque to memorialize the workers killed and the bas-reliefs on the elevator towers. In his words, Hansen wanted his work to express "the immutable calm of intellectual resolution, and the enormous power of trained physical strength, equally enthroned in placid triumph of scientific accomplishment", because "[t]he building of Hoover Dam belongs to the sagas of the daring."[71] Hansen's dedication plaza, on the Nevada abutment, contains a sculpture of two winged figures flanking a flagpole.

Surrounding the base of the monument is a terrazzo floor embedded with a "star map". The map depicts the Northern Hemisphere sky at the moment of President Roosevelt's dedication of the dam. This is intended to help future astronomers, if necessary, calculate the exact date of dedication.[71][87] The 30-foot-high (9.1m) bronze figures, dubbed "Winged Figures of the Republic", were each formed in a continuous pour. To put such large bronzes into place without marring the highly polished bronze surface, they were placed on ice and guided into position as the ice melted.[88] Hansen's bas-relief on the Nevada elevator tower depicts the benefits of the dam: flood control, navigation, irrigation, water storage, and power. The bas-relief on the Arizona elevator depicts, in his words, "the visages of those Indian tribes who have inhabited mountains and plains from ages distant."[71]
Operation
Power plant and water demands

Excavation for the powerhouse was carried out simultaneously with the excavation for the dam foundation and abutments. The excavation of this U-shaped structure located at the downstream toe of the dam was completed in late 1933 with the first concrete placed in November 1933. Filling of Lake Mead began February 1, 1935, even before the last of the concrete was poured that May.[89] The powerhouse was one of the projects uncompleted at the time of the formal dedication on September 30, 1935; a crew of 500men remained to finish it and other structures.[90] To make the powerhouse roof bombproof, it was constructed of layers of concrete, rock, and steel with a total thickness of about 3.5 feet (1.1m), topped with layers of sand and tar.[91]
In the latter half of 1936, water levels in Lake Mead were high enough to permit power generation, and the first three Allis Chalmers built Francis turbine-generators, all on the Nevada side, began operating. In March 1937, one more Nevada generator went online and the first Arizona generator by August. By September 1939, four more generators were operating, and the dam's power plant became the largest hydroelectricity facility in the world. The final generator was not placed in service until 1961, bringing the maximum generating capacity to 1,345 megawatts at the time.[89][92] Original plans called for 16large generators, eight on each side of the river, but two smaller generators were installed instead of one large one on the Arizona side for a total of 17. The smaller generators were used to serve smaller communities at a time when the output of each generator was dedicated to a single municipality, before the dam's total power output was placed on the grid and made arbitrarily distributable.[3]
Before water from Lake Mead reaches the turbines, it enters the intake towers and then four gradually narrowing penstocks which funnel the water down towards the powerhouse. The intakes provide a maximum hydraulic head (water pressure) of 590ft (180m) as the water reaches a speed of about 85mph (140km/h). The entire flow of the Colorado River passes through the turbines. The spillways and outlet works (jet-flow gates) are rarely used.[3] The jet-flow gates, located in concrete structures 180 feet (55m) above the river and also at the outlets of the inner diversion tunnels at river level, may be used to divert water around the dam in emergency or flood conditions, but have never done so, and in practice are used only to drain water from the penstocks for maintenance.[93] Following an uprating project from 1986 to 1993, the total gross power rating for the plant, including two 2.4 megawatt Pelton turbine-generators that power Hoover Dam's own operations is a maximum capacity of 2080 megawatts.[3] The annual generation of Hoover Dam varies. The maximum net generation was 10.348 TWh in 1984, and the minimum since 1940 was 2.648 TWh in 1956.[3] The average power generated was 4.2 TWh/year for 1947–2008.[3] In 2015, the dam generated 3.6 TWh.[94]
The amount of electricity generated by Hoover Dam has been decreasing along with the falling water level in Lake Mead due to the prolonged drought in the 2010s and high demand for the Colorado River's water. Lake Mead fell to a new record low elevation of 1,071.61 feet (326.63m) on July 1, 2016 before beginning to rebound slowly.[95] Under its original design, the dam will no longer be able to generate power once the water level falls below 1,050 feet (320m), which could occur as early as 2017. To lower the minimum power pool elevation from 1,050 to 950 feet (320 to 290m), five wide-head turbines, designed to work efficiently with less flow, were installed.[96] Due to the low water levels, by 2014 it was providing power only during periods of peak demand.[97]
Control of water was the primary concern in the building of the dam. Power generation has allowed the dam project to be self-sustaining: proceeds from the sale of power repaid the 50-year construction loan, and those revenues also finance the multimillion-dollar yearly maintenance budget. Power is generated in step with and only with the release of water in response to downstream water demands.[98]
Lake Mead and downstream releases from the dam also provide water for both municipal and irrigation uses. Water released from the Hoover Dam eventually reaches several canals. The Colorado River Aqueduct and Central Arizona Project branch off Lake Havasu while the All-American Canal is supplied by the Imperial Dam. In total, water from the Lake Mead serves 18 million people in Arizona, Nevada and California and supplies the irrigation of over 1,000,000 acres (400,000ha) of land.[98][99]
In 2018, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) proposed a $3 billion pumped hydro storage project - a "battery" of sorts - that would use wind and solar power to recirculate water back up to Lake Mead from a pumping station 20 miles downriver.[100][101][102]
Power distribution
Electricity from the dam's powerhouse was originally sold pursuant to a fifty-year contract, authorized by Congress in 1934, which ran from 1937 to 1987. In 1984, Congress passed a new statute which set power allocations to southern California, Arizona, and Nevada from the dam from 1987 to 2017.[103][104] The powerhouse was run under the original authorization by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Southern California Edison; in 1987, the Bureau of Reclamation assumed control.[105] In 2011, Congress enacted legislation extending the current contracts until 2067, after setting aside 5% of Hoover Dam's power for sale to Native American tribes, electric cooperatives, and other entities. The new arrangement began on October 1, 2017.[103]
The Bureau of Reclamation reports that the energy generated under the contracts ending in 2017 was allocated as follows:[3]

Tourists gather around one of the generators in the Nevada wing of the powerhouse to hear its operation explained, September 1940
A worker stands by the 30ft (9.1m) diameter Nevada penstock before its junction with another penstock that delivers water to a turbine

Spillways

The dam is protected against over-topping by two spillways. The spillway entrances are located behind each dam abutment, running roughly parallel to the canyon walls. The spillway entrance arrangement forms a classic side-flow weir with each spillway containing four 100-foot-long (30m) and 16-foot-wide (4.9m) steel-drum gates. Each gate weighs 5,000,000 pounds (2,300,000 kilograms) and can be operated manually or automatically. Gates are raised and lowered depending on water levels in the reservoir and flood conditions. The gates could not entirely prevent water from entering the spillways but could maintain an extra 16ft (4.9m) of lake level.[106]
Water flowing over the spillways falls dramatically into 600-foot-long (180m), 50-foot-wide (15m) spillway tunnels before connecting to the outer diversion tunnels, and reentering the main river channel below the dam. This complex spillway entrance arrangement combined with the approximate 700-foot (210m) elevation drop from the top of the reservoir to the river below was a difficult engineering problem and posed numerous design challenges. Each spillway's capacity of 200,000cuft/s (5,700m3/s) was empirically verified in post-construction tests in 1941.[106]
The large spillway tunnels have only been used twice, for testing in 1941 and because of flooding in 1983. Both times, when inspecting the tunnels after the spillways were used, engineers found major damage to the concrete linings and underlying rock.[107] The 1941 damage was attributed to a slight misalignment of the tunnel invert (or base), which caused cavitation, a phenomenon in fast-flowing liquids in which vapor bubbles collapse with explosive force. In response to this finding, the tunnels were patched with special heavy-duty concrete and the surface of the concrete was polished mirror-smooth.[108] The spillways were modified in 1947 by adding flip buckets, which both slow the water and decrease the spillway's effective capacity, in an attempt to eliminate conditions thought to have contributed to the 1941 damage. The 1983 damage, also due to cavitation, led to the installation of aerators in the spillways.[107] Tests at Grand Coulee Dam showed that the technique worked, in principle.[108]
Roadway and tourism

There are two lanes for automobile traffic across the top of the dam, which formerly served as the Colorado River crossing for U.S. Route 93.[109] In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, authorities expressed security concerns and the Hoover Dam Bypass project was expedited. Pending the completion of the bypass, restricted traffic was permitted over Hoover Dam. Some types of vehicles were inspected prior to crossing the dam while semi-trailer trucks, buses carrying luggage, and enclosed-box trucks over 40ft (12m) long were not allowed on the dam at all, and were diverted to U.S. Route 95 or Nevada State Routes 163/68.[110] The four-lane Hoover Dam Bypass opened on October 19, 2010.[111] It includes a composite steel and concrete arch bridge, the Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge, 1,500ft (460m) downstream from the dam.
With the opening of the bypass, through traffic is no longer allowed across Hoover Dam; dam visitors are allowed to use the existing roadway to approach from the Nevada side and cross to parking lots and other facilities on the Arizona side.[112]
Hoover Dam opened for tours in 1937 after its completion, but following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, it was closed to the public when the United States entered World War II, during which only authorized traffic, in convoys, was permitted. After the war, it reopened September 2, 1945, and by 1953, annual attendance had risen to 448,081. The dam closed on November 25, 1963, and March 31, 1969, days of mourning in remembrance of Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower. In 1995, a new visitors' center was built, and the following year, visits exceeded one million for the first time. The dam closed again to the public on September 11, 2001; modified tours were resumed in December and a new "Discovery Tour" was added the following year.[105] Today, nearly a million people per year take the tours of the dam offered by the Bureau of Reclamation.[113] Increased security concerns by the government have led to most of the interior structure being inaccessible to tourists. As a result, few of True's decorations can now be seen by visitors.[114]
Environmental impact

The changes in water flow and use caused by Hoover Dam's construction and operation have had a large impact on the Colorado River Delta.[115] The construction of the dam has been implicated in causing the decline of this estuarine ecosystem.[115] For six years after the construction of the dam, while Lake Mead filled, virtually no water reached the mouth of the river.[116] The delta's estuary, which once had a freshwater-saltwater mixing zone stretching 40 miles (64km) south of the river's mouth, was turned into an inverse estuary where the level of salinity was higher close to the river's mouth.[117]
The Colorado River had experienced natural flooding before the construction of the Hoover Dam. The dam eliminated the natural flooding, threatening many species adapted to the flooding, including both plants and animals.[118] The construction of the dam devastated the populations of native fish in the river downstream from the dam.[119] Four species of fish native to the Colorado River, the Bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, Humpback chub, and Razorback sucker, are listed as endangered.[120][121]
Naming controversy

During the years of lobbying leading up to the passage of legislation authorizing the dam in 1928, the press generally referred to the dam as "Boulder Dam" or as "Boulder Canyon Dam", even though the proposed site had shifted to Black Canyon.[16] The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (BCPA) never mentioned a proposed name or title for the dam. The BCPA merely allows the government to "construct, operate, and maintain a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Black Canyon or Boulder Canyon".[122]
When Secretary Wilbur spoke at the ceremony starting the building of the railway between Las Vegas and the dam site on September 17, 1930, he named the dam "Hoover Dam", citing a tradition of naming dams after Presidents, though none had been so honored during their terms of office. Wilbur justified his choice on the ground that Hoover was "the great engineer whose vision and persistence... has done so much to make [the dam] possible".[123] One writer complained in response that "the Great Engineer had quickly drained, ditched, and dammed the country."[123]
After Hoover's election defeat in 1932 and the accession of the Roosevelt administration, Secretary Ickes ordered on May 13, 1933, that the dam be referred to as "Boulder Dam". Ickes stated that Wilbur had been imprudent in naming the dam after a sitting president, that Congress had never ratified his choice, and that it had long been referred to as Boulder Dam.[123] Unknown to the general public, Attorney General Homer Cummings informed Ickes that Congress had indeed used the name "Hoover Dam" in five different bills appropriating money for construction of the dam.[124] The official status this conferred to the name "Hoover Dam" had been noted on the floor of the House of Representatives by Congressman Edward T. Taylor of Colorado on December 12, 1930,[125] but was likewise ignored by Ickes.
When Ickes spoke at the dedication ceremony on September 30, 1935, he was determined, as he recorded in his diary, "to try to nail down for good and all the name Boulder Dam."[69] At one point in the speech, he spoke the words "Boulder Dam" five times within thirty seconds.[126] Further, he suggested that if the dam were to be named after any one person, it should be for California Senator Hiram Johnson, a lead sponsor of the authorizing legislation.[69] Roosevelt also referred to the dam as Boulder Dam,[90] and the Republican-leaning Los Angeles Times, which at the time of Ickes' name change had run an editorial cartoon showing Ickes ineffectively chipping away at an enormous sign "HOOVER DAM," reran it showing Roosevelt reinforcing Ickes, but having no greater success.[127]
In the following years, the name "Boulder Dam" failed to fully take hold, with many Americans using both names interchangeably and mapmakers divided as to which name should be printed. Memories of the Great Depression faded, and Hoover to some extent rehabilitated himself through good works during and after World War II.[128] In 1947, a bill passed both Houses of Congress unanimously restoring the name "Hoover Dam."[129] Ickes, who was by then a private citizen, opposed the change, stating, "I didn't know Hoover was that small a man to take credit for something he had nothing to do with."[128]
Recognition
Hoover Dam was recognized as a National Civil Engineering Landmark in 1984.[130] It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1981, and was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1985, cited for its engineering innovations.[5]

See also

Glen Canyon Dam
Hoover Dam Police
List of dams in the Colorado River system
List of largest hydroelectric power stations
List of largest hydroelectric power stations in the United States
List of National Historic Landmarks in Arizona
List of National Historic Landmarks in Nevada
Ralph Luther Criswell, lobbyist on behalf of the dam
Water in California

Bibliography

Other sources
Arrigo, Anthony F. (2014). Imaging Hoover Dam: The Making of a Cultural Icon. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press.

Cite uses deprecated parameter |subscription= (help)
Cite uses deprecated parameter |subscription= (help)

Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) No.NV-27, "", 45photos, 228data pages, 8photo caption pages
 at Structurae
The short film  is available for free download at the Internet Archive
The short film  is available for free download at the Internet Archive
The short film  is available for free download at the Internet Archive
The short film  is available for free download at the Internet Archive
 – An American Experience Documentary


Part of a series onEconomics

Index
Outline
Category

HistoryBranchesClassification
History of economics
Schools of economics

Mainstream economics
Heterodox economics
Economic methodology

Economic theory
Political economy

Microeconomics
Macroeconomics

International economics

Applied economics

Mathematical economics
Econometrics

JEL classification codes
ConceptsTheoryTechniques
Economic systems
Economic growth
Market
National accounting
Experimental economics
Computational economics

Game theory
Operations research

By application
Agricultural
Behavioral
Business
Cultural
Demographic
Development
Digitization
Ecological
Education
Engineering
Environmental
Evolutionary
Expeditionary
Economic geography
Financial
Health
Economic history
Industrial organization
Information
Institutional
Knowledge
Labour
Law
Managerial
Monetary
Natural resource
Organizational
Personnel
Economic planning
Economic policy
Public economics
Public/Social choice
Regional
Rural
Service
Socioeconomics
Economic sociology
Economic statistics
Urban
Welfare
Welfare economics

Notable economists
François Quesnay
Adam Smith
David Ricardo
Thomas Robert Malthus
John Stuart Mill
Karl Marx
William Stanley Jevons
Léon Walras
Alfred Marshall
Irving Fisher
John Maynard Keynes
Arthur Cecil Pigou
John Hicks
Wassily Leontief
Paul Samuelson
more

Lists
Economists
Publications(journals)
Glossary
Glossary of economics
 Businessportal
 Moneyportalvt
The Fei–Ranis model of economic growth is a dualism model in developmental economics or welfare economics that has been developed by John C. H. Fei and Gustav Ranis and can be understood as an extension of the Lewis model. It is also known as the Surplus Labor model. It recognizes the presence of a dual economy comprising both the modern and the primitive sector and takes the economic situation of unemployment and underemployment of resources into account, unlike many other growth models that consider underdeveloped countries to be homogenous in nature.[1] According to this theory, the primitive sector consists of the existing agricultural sector in the economy, and the modern sector is the rapidly emerging but small industrial sector.[2] Both the sectors co-exist in the economy, wherein lies the crux of the development problem. Development can be brought about only by a complete shift in the focal point of progress from the agricultural to the industrial economy, such that there is augmentation of industrial output. This is done by transfer of labor from the agricultural sector to the industrial one, showing that underdeveloped countries do not suffer from constraints of labor supply. At the same time, growth in the agricultural sector must not be negligible and its output should be sufficient to support the whole economy with food and raw materials. Like in the Harrod–Domar model,  saving and investment become the driving forces when it comes to economic development of underdeveloped countries.[1]
Basics of the model

One of the biggest drawbacks of the Lewis model was the undermining of the role of agriculture in boosting the growth of the industrial sector. In addition to that, he did not acknowledge that the increase in productivity of labor should take place prior to the labor shift between the two sectors. However, these two ideas were taken into account in the Fei–Ranis dual economy model of three growth stages.[3] They further argue that the model lacks in the proper application of concentrated analysis to the change that takes place with agricultural development[4]
In Phase 1 of the Fei–Ranis model, the elasticity of the agricultural labor work-force is infinite and as a result, suffers from disguised unemployment. Also, the marginal product of labor is zero. This phase is similar to the Lewis model.In Phase 2 of the model, the agricultural sector sees a rise in productivity and this leads to increased industrial growth such that a base for the next phase is prepared. In Phase 2, agricultural surplus may exist as the increasing average product (AP), higher than the marginal product (MP) and not equal to the subsistence level of wages.[5]
Using the help of the figure on the left, we see that

Phase 1

:
A
L
(

from figure

)
=
M
P
=
0

 and

A
B
(

from figure

)
=
A
P

{\displaystyle {\text{Phase 1}}:AL({\text{from figure}})=MP=0{\text{ and }}AB({\text{from figure}})=AP\,}

According to Fei and Ranis, AD amount of labor (see figure) can be shifted from the agricultural sector without any fall in output. Hence, it represents surplus labor.

Phase2

:
A
P
>
M
P

{\displaystyle {\text{Phase2}}:AP>MP\,}

After AD, MP begins to rise, and industrial labor rises from zero to a value equal to AD. AP of agricultural labor is shown by BYZ and we see that this curve falls downward after AD. This fall in AP can be attributed to the fact that as agricultural laborers shift to the industrial sector, the real wage of industrial laborers decreases due to shortage of food supply, since less laborers are now working in the food sector. The decrease in the real wage level decreases the level of profits, and the size of surplus that could have been re-invested for more industrialization. However, as long as surplus exists, growth rate can still be increased without a fall in the rate of industrialization. This re-investment of surplus can be graphically visualized as the shifting of MP curve outwards. In Phase2 the level of disguised unemployment is given by AK.[3] This allows the agricultural sector to give up a part of its labor-force until

M
P
=

Real wages

=
A
B
=

Constant institutional wages (CIW)

{\displaystyle MP={\text{Real wages}}=AB={\text{Constant institutional wages (CIW)}}\,}

Phase 3 begins from the point of commercialization which is at K in the Figure. This is the point where the economy becomes completely commercialized in the absence of disguised unemployment. The supply curve of labor in Phase 3 is steeper and both the sectors start bidding equally for labor.

Phase3

:

MP

>

CIW

{\displaystyle {\text{Phase3}}:{\text{MP}}>{\text{CIW}}\,}

The amount of labor that is shifted and the time that this shifting takes depends upon:
The growth of surplus generated within the agricultural sector, and the growth of industrial capital stock dependent on the growth of industrial profits;
The nature of the industry's technical progress and its associated bias;
Growth rate of population.[3]
So, the three fundamental ideas used in this model are:
Agricultural growth and industrial growth are both equally important;
Agricultural growth and industrial growth are balanced;
Only if the rate at which labor is shifted from the agricultural to the industrial sector is greater than the rate of growth of population will the economy be able to lift itself up from the Malthusian population trap.[3]
This shifting of labor can take place by the landlords' investment activities and by the government's fiscal measures. However, the cost of shifting labor in terms of both private and social cost may be high, for example transportation cost or the cost of carrying out construction of buildings. In addition to that, per capita agricultural consumption can increase, or there can exist a wide gap between the wages of the urban and the rural people. These three occurrences- high cost, high consumption and high gap in wages, are called as leakages, and leakages prevent the creation of agricultural surplus. In fact, surplus generation might be prevented due to a backward-sloping supply curve of labor as well, which happens when high income-levels are not consumed. This would mean that the productivity of laborers with rise in income will not rise. However, the case of backward-sloping curves is mostly unpractical.[3]
Connectivity between sectors
Fei and Ranis emphasized strongly on the industry-agriculture interdependency and said that a robust connectivity between the two would encourage and speedup development. If agricultural laborers look for industrial employment, and industrialists  employ more workers by use of larger capital good stock and labor-intensive technology, this connectivity can work between the industrial and agricultural sector. Also, if the surplus owner invests in that section of industrial sector that is close to soil and is in known surroundings, he will most probably choose that productivity out of which future savings can be channelized. They took the example of Japan's dualistic economy in the 19th century and said that connectivity between the two sectors of Japan was heightened due the presence of a decentralized rural industry which was often linked to urban production. According to them, economic progress is achieved in dualistic economies of underdeveloped countries through the work of a small number of entrepreneurs who have access to land and decision-making powers and use industrial capital and consumer goods for agricultural practices.
Agricultural sector

In (A), land is measured on the vertical axis, and labor on the horizontal axis. Ou and Ov represent two ridge lines, and the production contour lines are depicted by M, M1 and M2. The area enclosed by the ridge lines defines the region of factor substitutability, or the region where factors can easily be substituted. Let us understand the repercussions of this. If te amount of labor is the total labor in the agricultural sector, the intersection of the ridge line Ov with the production curve M1 at point s renders M1 perfectly horizontal below Ov. The horizontal behavior of the production line implies that outside the region of factor substitutability, output stops and labor becomes redundant once land is fixed and labor is increased.[6]
If Ot is the total land in the agricultural sector, ts amount of labor can be employed without it becoming redundant, and es represents the redundant agricultural labor force. This led Fei and Ranis to develop the concept of Labor Utilization Ratio, which they define as the units of labor that can be productively employed (without redundancy) per unit of land. In the left-side figure, labor utilization ratio

R
=

t
s

O
t

{\displaystyle R={\frac {ts}{Ot}}}

which is graphically equal to the inverted slope of the ridge line Ov.
Fei and Ranis also built the concept of  endowment ratio, which is a measure of the relative availability of the two factors of production. In the figure, if Ot represents agricultural land and tE represents agricultural labor, then the endowment ratio is given by

S
=

t
E

O
t

{\displaystyle S={\frac {tE}{Ot}}}

which is equal to the inverted slope of OE.
The actual point of endowment is given by E.
Finally, Fei and Ranis developed the concept of non-redundancy coefficient T which is measured by

T
=

t
s

t
e

{\displaystyle T={\frac {ts}{te}}}

These three concepts helped them in formulating a relationship between T, R and S. If::

T
=

t
s

t
e

,

{\displaystyle T={\frac {ts}{te}},}

then

T
=

t
s

/

O
t

t
e

/

O
t

=

R
S

,

 or

T
=

R
S

{\displaystyle T={\frac {ts/Ot}{te/Ot}}={\frac {R}{S}},{\text{ or }}T={\frac {R}{S}}\,}

This mathematical relation proves that the non-redundancy coefficient is directly proportional to labor utilization ratio and is inversely proportional to the endowment ratio.
(B) displays the total physical productivity of labor (TPPL) curve. The curve increases at a decreasing rate, as more units of labor are added to a fixed amount of land. At point N, the curve shapes horizontally and this point N conforms to the point G in (C, which shows the marginal productivity of labor (MPPL) curve, and with point s on the ridge line Ov in (A).
Industrial sector

Like in the agricultural sector, Fei and Ranis assume constant returns to scale in the industrial sector. However, the main factors of production are capital and labor. In the graph (A) right hand side, the production functions have been plotted taking labor on the horizontal axis and capital on the vertical axis. The expansion path of the industrial sector is given by the line OAoA1A2. As capital increases from Ko to K1 to K2 and labor increases from Lo to L1 and L2, the industrial output represented by the production contour Ao, A1 and A3 increases accordingly.
According to this model, the prime labor supply source of the industrial sector is the agricultural sector, due to redundancy in the agricultural labor force. (B) shows the labor supply curve for the industrial sector S. PP2 represents the straight line part of the curve and is a measure of the redundant agricultural labor force on a graph with industrial labor force on the horizontal axis and output/real wage on the vertical axis. Due to the redundant agricultural labor force, the real wages remain constant but once the curve starts sloping upwards from point P2, the upward sloping indicates that additional labor would be supplied only with a corresponding rise in the real wages level.
MPPL curves corresponding to their respective capital and labor levels have been drawn as Mo, M1, M2 and M3. When capital stock rises from Ko to K1, the marginal physical productivity of labor rises from Mo to M1. When capital stock is Ko, the MPPL curve cuts the labor supply curve at equilibrium point Po. At this point, the total real wage income is Wo and is represented by the shaded area POLoPo. λ is the equilibrium profit and is represented by the shaded area qPPo. Since the laborers have extremely low income-levels, they barely save from that income and hence industrial profits (πo) become the prime source of investment funds in the industrial sector.

K

t

=

K

o

+

S

o

+

Π

o

{\displaystyle K_{t}=K_{o}+S_{o}+\Pi _{o}\,}

Here, Kt gives the total supply of investment funds (given that rural savings are represented by So)
Total industrial activity rises due to increase in the total supply of investment funds, leading to increased industrial employment.
Agricultural surplus
Agricultural surplus in general terms can be understood as the produce from agriculture which exceeds the needs of the society for which it is being produced, and may be exported or stored for future use.
Generation of agricultural surplus

To understand the formation of agricultural surplus,we must refer to graph (B) of the agricultural sector. The figure on the left is a reproduced version of a section of the previous graph, with certain additions to better explain the concept of agricultural surplus.
We first derive the average physical productivity of the total agricultural labor force (APPL). Fei and Ranis hypothesize that it is equal to the real wage and this hypothesis is known as the constant institutional wage hypothesis. It is also equal in value to the ratio of total agricultural output to the total agricultural population.  Using this relation, we can obtain APPL = MP/OP. This is graphically equal to the slope of line OM, and is represented by  the line WW in (C).
Observe point Y, somewhere to the left of P on the graph. If a section of the redundant agricultural labor force (PQ) is removed from the total agricultural labor force (OP) and absorbed into the industrial sector, then the labor force remaining in the industrial sector is represented by the point Y. Now, the output produced by the remaining labor force is represented by YZ and the real income of this labor force is given by XY. The difference of the two terms yields the total agricultural surplus of the economy. It is important to understand that this surplus is produced by the reallocation of labor such that it is absorbed by the industrial sector. This can be seen as deployment of hidden rural savings for the expansion of the industrial sector. Hence, we can understand the contribution of the agricultural sector to the expansion of industrial sector by this allocation of redundant labor force and the agricultural surplus that results from it.
Agricultural surplus as wage fund

Agricultural surplus plays a major role as a wage fund. Its importance can be better explained with the help of the graph on the right, which is an integration of the industrial sector graph with an inverted agricultural sector graph, such that the origin of the agricultural sector falls on the upper-right corner. This inversion of the origin changes the way the graph is now perceived. While the labor force values are read from the left of 0, the output values are read vertically downwards from O. The sole reason for this inversion is for the sake of convenience. The point of commercialization as explained before (See Section on Basics of the model) is observed at point R, where the tangent to the line ORX runs parallel to OX.
Before a section of the redundant labor force is absorbed into the industrial sector, the entire labor OA is present in the agricultural sector. Once AG amount of labor force (say) is absorbed, it represented by OG' in the industrial sector, and the labor remaining in the agricultural sector is then OG. But how is the quantity of labor absorbed into the industrial sector determined? (A) shows the supply curve of labor SS' and several demand curves for labor df, d'f' and d"f". When the demand for labor is df, the intersection of the demand-supply curves gives the equilibrium employment point G'. Hence OG represents the amount of labor absorbed into the industrial sector. In that case, the labor remaining in the agricultural sector is OG. This OG amount of labor produces an output of GF, out of which GJ amount of labor is consumed by the agricultural sector and JF is the agricultural surplus for that level of employment. Simultaneously, the unproductive labor force from the agricultural sector turns productive once it is absorbed by the industrial sector, and produces an output of OG'Pd as shown in the graph, earning a total wage income of OG'PS.
The agricultural surplus JF created is needed for consumption by the same workers who left for the industrial sector. Hence, agriculture successfully provides not only the manpower for production activities elsewhere, but also the wage fund required for the process.
Significance of agriculture in the Fei–Ranis model
The Lewis model is criticised on the grounds that it neglects agriculture. Fei–Ranis model goes a step beyond and states that agriculture has a very major role to play in the expansion of the industrial sector. In fact, it says that the rate of growth of the industrial sector depends on the amount of total agricultural surplus and on the amount of profits that are earned in the industrial sector. So, larger the amount of surplus and the amount of surplus put into productive investment and larger the amount of industrial profits earned, the larger will be the rate of growth of the industrial economy. As the model focuses on the shifting of the focal point of progress from the agricultural to the industrial sector, Fei and Ranis believe that the ideal shifting takes place when the investment funds from surplus and industrial profits are sufficiently large so as to purchase industrial capital goods like plants and machinery. These capital goods are needed for the creation of employment opportunities. Hence, the condition put by Fei and Ranis for a successful transformation is that
Rate of increase of capital stock & rate of employment opportunities > Rate of population growth
The indispensability of labor reallocation
As an underdeveloped country goes through its development process, labor is reallocated from the agricultural to the industrial sector. More the rate of reallocation, faster is the growth of that economy. The economic rationale behind this idea of labor reallocation is that of faster economic development. The essence of labor reallocation lies in Engel's Law, which states that the proportion of income being spent on food decreases with increase in the income-level of an individual, even if there is a rise in the actual expenditure on food. For example, if 90 per cent of the entire population of the concerned economy is involved in agriculture, that leaves just 10 per cent of the population in the industrial sector. As the productivity of agriculture increases, it becomes possible for just 35 per cent of population to maintain a satisfactory food supply for the rest of the population. As a result, the industrial sector now has 65 per cent of the population under it. This is extremely desirable for the economy, as the growth of industrial goods is subject to the rate of per capita income, while the growth of agricultural goods is subject only to the rate of population growth, and so a bigger labor supply to the industrial sector would be welcome under the given conditions. In fact, this labor reallocation becomes necessary with time since consumers begin to want more of industrial goods than agricultural goods in relative terms.
However, Fei and Ranis were quick to mention that the necessity of labor reallocation must be linked more to the need to produce more capital investment goods as opposed to the thought of industrial consumer goods following the discourse of Engel's Law. This is because the assumption that the demand for industrial goods is high seems unrealistic, since the real wage in the agricultural sector is extremely low and that hinders the demand for industrial goods. In addition to that, low and mostly constant wage rates will render the wage rates in the industrial sector low and constant. This implies that demand for industrial goods will not rise at a rate as suggested by the use of Engel's Law.
Since the growth process will observes a slow-paced increase in the consumer purchasing power, the dualistic economies follow the path of natural austerity, which is characterized by more demand and hence importance of capital good industries as compared to consumer good ones. However, investment in capital goods comes with a long gestation period, which drives the private entrepreneurs away. This suggests that in order to enable growth, the government must step in and play a major role, especially in the initial few stages of growth. Additionally, the government also works on the social and economic overheads by the construction of roads, railways, bridges, educational institutions, health care facilities and so on.
Growth without development

In the Fei-Ranis model, it is possible that as technological progress takes place and there is a shift to labor-saving production techniques, growth of the economy takes place with increase in profits but no economic development takes place. This can be explained well with the help of graph in this section.
The graph displays two MPL lines plotted with real wage and MPL on the vertical axis and employment of labor on the horizontal axis. OW denotes the subsistence wage level, which is the minimum wage level at which a worker (and his family) would survive. The line WW' running parallel to the X-axis is considered to be infinitely elastics since supply of labor is assumed to be unlimited at the subsistence-wage level. The square area OWEN represents the wage bill and DWE represents the surplus or the profits collected. This surplus or profit can increase if the MPL curve changes.[3]
If the MPL curve changes from MPL1 to MPL2 due to a change in production technique, such that it becomes labor-saving or capital-intensive, then the surplus or profit collected would increase. This increase can be seen by comparing DWE with D1WE since D1WE since is greater in area compared to DWE. However, there is no new point of equilibrium and as E continues to be the point of equilibrium,there is no increase in the level of labor employment, or in wages for that matter. Hence, labor employment continues as ON and wages as OW. The only change that accompanies the change in production technique is the one in surplus or profits.[3]
This makes for a good example of a process of growth without development, since growth takes place with increase in profits but development is at a standstill since employment and wages of laborers remain the same.

[3]
Reactions to the model

Fei–Ranis model of economic growth has been criticized on multiple grounds, although if the model is accepted, then it will have a significant theoretical and policy implications on the underdeveloped countries' efforts towards development and on the persisting controversial statements regarding the balanced vs. unbalanced growth debate.[7]
It has been asserted that Fei and Ranis did not have a clear understanding of the sluggish economic situation prevailing in the developing countries. If they had thoroughly scrutinized the existing nature and causes of it, they would have found that the existing agricultural backwardness was due to the institutional structure, primarily the system of feudalism that prevailed.[8]
Fei and Ranis say, "It has been argued that money is not a simple substitute for physical capital in an aggregate production function. There are reasons to believe that the relationship between money and physical capital could be complementary to one another at some stage of economic development, to the extent that credit policies could play an important part in easing bottlenecks on the growth of agriculture and industry." This indicates that in the process of development they neglect the role of money and prices. They fail to differ between wage labor and household labor, which is a significant distinction for evaluating prices of dualistic development in an underdeveloped economy.[8]
Fei and Ranis assume that MPPL is zero during the early phases of economic development, which has been criticized by Harry T.Oshima and some others on the grounds that MPPL of labor is zero only if the agricultural population is very large, and if it is very large, some of that labor will shift to cities in search of jobs. In the short run, this section of labor that has shifted to the cities remains unemployed, but over the long run it is either absorbed by the informal sector, or it returns to the villages and attempts to bring more marginal land into cultivation. They have also neglected seasonal unemployment, which occurs due to seasonal change in labor demand and is not permanent.[8]
To understand this better, we refer to the graph in this section, which shows Food on the vertical axis and Leisure on the horizontal axis. OS represents the subsistence level of food consumption, or the minimum level of food consumed by agricultural labor that is necessary for their survival. I0 and I1 between the two commodities of food and leisure (of the agriculturists). The origin falls on G, such that OG represents maximum labor and labor input would be measured from the right to the left.
The transformation curve SAG falls from A, which indicates that more leisure is being used to same units of land. At A, the marginal transformation between food and leisure and MPL = 0 and the indifference curve I0 is also tangent to the transformation curve at this point. This is the point of leisure satiation.
Consider a case where a laborer shifts from the agricultural to the industrial sector. In that case, the land left behind would be divided between the remaining laborers and as a result, the transformation curve would shift from SAG to RTG. Like at point A, MPL at point T would be 0 and APL would continue to be the same as that at A (assuming constant returns to scale). If we consider MPL = 0 as the point where agriculturalists live on the subsistence level, then the curve RTG must be flat at point T in order to maintain the same level of output. However, that would imply leisure satiation or leisure as an inferior good, which are two extreme cases. It can be surmised then that under normal cases, the output would decline with shift of labor to industrial sector, although the per capita output would remain the same. This is because, a fall in the per capita output would mean fall in consumption in a way that it would be lesser than the subsistence level, and the level of labor input per head would either rise or fall.
Berry and Soligo in their 1968 paper have criticized this model for its MPL=0 assumption, and for the assumption that the transfer of labor from the agricultural sector leaves the output in that sector unchanged in Phase 1. They show that the output changes, and may fall under various land tenure systems, unless the following situations arise:[3]
1. Leisure falls under the inferior good category
2. Leisure satiation is present.
3. There is perfect substitutability between food and leisure, and the marginal rate of substitution is constant for all real income levels.
Now if MPL>0 then leisure satiation option becomes invalid, and if MPL=0 then the option of food and leisure as perfect substitutes becomes invalid. Therefore, the only remaining viable option is leisure as an inferior good.
While mentioning the important role of high agricultural productivity and the creation of surplus for economic development, they have failed to mention the need for capital as well. Although it is important to create surplus, it is equally important to maintain it through technical progress, which is possible through capital accumulation, but the Fei-Ranis model considers only labor and output as factors of production.[3]
The question of whether MPL = 0 is that of an empirical one. The underdeveloped countries mostly exhibit seasonality in food production, which suggests that especially during favorable climatic conditions, say that of harvesting or sowing, MPL would definitely be greater than zero.[3]
Fei and Ranis assume a close model and hence there is no presence of foreign trade in the economy, which is very unrealistic as food or raw materials can not be imported. If we take the example of Japan again, the country imported cheap farm products from other countries and this made better the country's terms of trade.[8] Later they relaxed the assumption and said that the presence of a foreign sector was allowed as long as it was a "facilitator" and not the main driving force.[7]
The reluctant expansionary growth in the industrial sector of underdeveloped countries can be attributed to the lagging growth in the productivity of subsistence agriculture. This suggests that increase in surplus becomes more important a determinant as compared to re-investment of surplus, an idea that was utilized by  Jorgenson in his 1961 model that centered around the necessity of surplus generation and surplus persistence.[3]
Stagnation has not been taken into consideration, and no distinction is made between labor through family and labor through wages. There is also no explanation of the process of self-sustained growth, or of the investment function. There is complete negligence of terms of trade between agriculture and industry, foreign exchange, money and price.[3]


A petty kingdom is a kingdom described as minor or "petty" by contrast to an empire or unified kingdom that either preceded or succeeded it (e.g. the numerous kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England unified into the Kingdom of England in the 10th century, or the numerous Gaelic kingdoms of Ireland as the Kingdom of Ireland in the 16th century). Alternatively, a petty kingdom would be a minor kingdom in the immediate vicinity of larger kingdoms, such as the medieval Kingdom of Mann and the Isles relative to the kingdoms of Scotland or England or the Viking kingdoms of Scandinavia.
In the context of the Dark Ages or the prehistoric Iron Age such minor kingdoms are also known as tribal kingdoms. In the parallel Southeast Asian political model, petty kingdoms were known as Mueang.
By the European High Middle Ages, many post-Roman Early Middle Ages petty kingdoms had evolved into principalities, grand duchies, or duchies. By the European Early Modern era, many of these principalities had been mediatized into larger monarchies, but the ruling families were not considered morganatic for marriage considerations, and ranked equal to royal families in society. The various small states of the Holy Roman Empire are generally not considered to be petty kingdoms since they were at least nominally subject to the Holy Roman Emperor and not fully independent.
Anatolia

Beyliks were small Turkish principalities (or petty kingdoms) governed by Beys, which were founded across Anatolia at the end of the 11th century in a first period, and more extensively during the decline of the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum during the second half of the 13th century.
The Ottoman Empire quickly collected itself under Mehmed I and his son Murad II re-incorporated most of these beyliks into Ottoman territory in a space of around 25 years. The final blow for the Karamanids was struck by Mehmed II who conquered their lands and re-assured a homogeneous rule in Anatolia. The further steps towards a single rule by the Ottomans were taken by Selim I who conquered territories of Ramadanids and Dulkadirids in 1515 during his campaign against the Mamluks, and his son Süleyman the Magnificent who more or less completely united the present territories of Turkey (and much more) in his 1534 campaign. Many of the former Anatolian beyliks became the basis for administrative subdivisions in the Ottoman Empire.
England

Before the Kingdom of England was established as a united entity, there were various kingdoms in the area—of which the main seven were known as the heptarchy. These were Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria (which also extended into present-day Scotland and originally formed from the earlier kingdoms of Deira and Bernicia), East Anglia (formed from the union of the early kingdoms of Suffolk and Norfolk), Sussex, Kent, and Essex. Other small Anglo-Saxon kingdoms existed at various points, including Hwicce, Lindsey (which survived as the Parts of Lindsey, Lincolnshire) and the Wihtwara (Isle of Wight). These are commonly referred to as "petty kingdoms".[1]
During the 9th and 10th centuries the Norse also established the Kingdom of Jórvík centred around York, and the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw (aka Danish Mercia). They also controlled the Kingdom of East Anglia during this period.
Prior to the arrival of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (the later Anglo-Saxons) what is now England was ruled by numerous Brittonic kings, which are discussed under Wales below.
Iberian peninsula
The taifa were the various Islamic petty kingdoms that existed in Iberia after the collapse of the Caliphate of Cordoba in 1031.
There were various Christian petty kingdoms as well on the peninsula that, in the middle ages, consolidated into the modern states of Spain and Portugal.  Over time, these consolidated into two "Crowns" that were themselves unified in the late 15th and early 16th centuries to the unified Kingdom of Spain
These include:
Crown of Castile
Kingdom of Castile
Kingdom of Galicia
Kingdom of León
Kingdom of Navarre (a portion remained independent north of the Pyrenees before merging with France.)
Several other territories outside of Iberia, mostly in the Americas and central Atlantic Ocean
Crown of Aragon
Kingdom of Aragon
Principality of Catalonia
Kingdom of Valencia
Kingdom of Majorca
Several other territories outside of Iberia, mostly in other parts of the Mediterranean
The Kingdom of Portugal remained independent throughout most of the period of consolidation, except for a period of 60 years (1580-1640) when it was part of the Iberian Union.
Ireland

The earliest known kingdoms or tribes in Ireland are referred to in Ptolemy's Geography, written in the 2nd century. He names the Vennicni, Rhobogdi, Erdini, Magnatae, Autini, Gangani, Vellabori, Darini, Voluntii (identified as the Ulaid nation or Uluti tribe), Eblani, Cauci, Menapii, Coriondi and Brigantes tribes and kingdoms.
Irish medieval pseudohistory gives a seemingly idealized division of kingdoms. The island is traditionally divided into five provinces or "fifths" (Old Irish cóiceda, Modern Irish cúige), four of which survive today: Ulaid (Ulster, modern Irish Ulaidh) in the north, Cóiced Ol nEchmacht (Connacht) in the west, Mumha (Munster, modern Irish an Mhumhain) in the south west, and Laigin (Leinster, modern Irish Laighin) in the south east. The fifth kingdom, Mide (whose name has survived in the modern counties of Meath and Westmeath, modern Irish an Mhí and an Iarmhí) in the centre/east, ceased to exist in the Middle Ages.
At various points in history there existed a High King of Ireland, who ruled over the other kings as suzerain, much like the British High Kings and Anglo-Saxon Bretwalda. There also existed Kings of Tara who did not rule all of Ireland but were recognised as holding positions of authority over the other kings. These two titles were not mutually exclusive and were often held by the same individual.
Each of the kings of these kingdoms (titled rí ruirech or 'king of over-kings') was himself an over-king of several regional kings (titled rí buiden or rí tuath), who in turn ruled over several túatha, whose rulers held the title rí benn or ri tuaithe. The territories and hierarchy of all of these constantly shifted as old dynasties died and new ones formed, and as lower kings took higher positions. Many of these túatha survived as later Irish baronies.
Several of the regional kings were at various points independent of their provincial over-king and indeed rivalled them in power and territory. Bréifne was originally part of Connacht but much of it lay in what is today Ulster. It later split into East and West Bréifne. Airgíalla (Oriel) and Cenél nEógain (also known as the Northern Uí Néill, in contrast to the Southern Uí Néill who ruled Mide;  In Fochla or In Tuaiscert, both meaning "the North"; Ailech; and Tyrone/Tír Eoghain) were nominally part of Ulaid. Osraige (Ossory) was originally part of Mumha, but lay between Mumha and Laigin and was controlled by both at various points. Dál Riata was also an Irish (sub-)kingdom, which mostly lay in modern Argyll and Bute in Scotland but originated in and initially extended into north-eastern Ireland and was (nominally) subject to Ulaid. In the 12th century Munster was split into two smaller over-kingdoms: Deasmhumhain (Desmond, literally South Munster) and Tuadhmhumhain (Thomond, literally North Munster).
In addition to the Irish petty kingdoms, there was a Norse presence on the island from the 9th century. They conquered Dublin, where they established the Kingdom of Dublin (Old Norse: Dyflin, Old Irish: Duibhlinn), which at various points was closely tied with the Norse Kingdom of Jórvík which was centred on modern York, England. The Norse also controlled several other coastal settlements, including Wexford, Waterford, Cork and Limerick.
Nepal
Before the unification of Nepal by the Shah Dynasty there were dozens of petty kingdoms. The Karnali region was called the Baise Rajya (Nepali: बाइसे राज्य, i.e. 22 Kingdoms, and the Gandaki region to the east was called Chaubisi rajya (Nepali: चौबिसी राज्य), i.e. 24 Kingdoms.
Norway

In the early Viking Age, there were several different petty kingdoms in Norway. Spurred by the unification of several of these kingdoms under Halfdan the Black and his son Harald Fairhair, the country unified around the year 872. Some of the kingdoms were:

Agder
Grenland
Hadeland
Hardanger
Hedmark
Hålogaland
Land
Namdalen
Nordmøre
Oppland
Orkdal
Rogaland
Romsdal
Sogn
Solør
Sunnmøre
Telemark
Toten
Trøndelag
Vestfold
Vingulmark
Voss

Serbia

Medieval Serbia comprised, at various time periods, smaller kingdoms of Rascia, Zeta (Dioclea, corresponding to portions of contemporary Montenegro), Syrmia and the duchy of Hum (roughly corresponding to present-day Herzegovina and some of its surroundings).
Scotland
There were many petty kingdoms in Scotland before its unification. They can be grouped by language:
Brittonic/Cumbric (see Hen Ogledd):
Gododdin
Strathclyde
Rheged (also extended into modern England)
Pictish:
Fortriu
Pictavia
Cait
Ce, situated in modern Mar and Buchan
Circinn, perhaps situated in modern Angus and the Mearns[2]
Fib, the modern Fife, known to this day as 'the Kingdom of Fife'
Fidach, location unknown
Fotla, modern Atholl (Ath-Fotla)[3]
Anglian/Anglo-Saxon:
Bernicia (also extended into modern England; conquered the former Gododdin territory)
Northumbria (formed from the union of Bernicia with the more southerly Deira; later controlled territory further west upon the incorporation of Rheged)
Gaelic:
Dál Riata (mostly modern Argyll and Bute but originated in and initially extended into Ireland)
Old Norse/Norse-Gaelic; see also Scandinavian Scotland
Kingdom of the Isles (Old Norse: Suðreyjar; also the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles)
the Northern Isles (Old Norse: Norðreyjar) and Caithness were also Norse-ruled but were generally subject to Norway and/or Scotland (see Earldom of Orkney).
Sweden

According to the Norse sagas, and modern history, Sweden was divided into more-or-less independent units in some areas corresponding to the folklands and the modern traditional provinces. According to the sagas, the folklands and provinces of eastern Svealand were united under the Swedish king at Gamla Uppsala. Moreover, the domains of this king could also include parts of Götaland and even southern Norway. This probably reflects the volatile politics of Iron Age Scandinavia. The province of Småland once consisted of several petty kingdoms; indeed, the name Småland means small lands/countries.
Wales
Rarely has the country of Wales formed one cohesive kingdom. For the greater part of its history, Wales evolved into four kingdoms, or principalities, following the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century. Mountainous geography, forested glens, river valleys, and upland moors contributed to a strong sense of localism and autonomy, though the Welsh people shared a deeply felt sentiment of nationality, as reflected in Welsh law codified in the 10th century. According to historian Professor John Davies, there are four geographic regions more or less equal in terms of resources and population, from which four principalities emerged: Ynys Môn for Gwynedd, the Severn river valley for Powys, the Vale for Glamorgan and the lands up to the Wye (Morgannwg), and the Ystrad Tywi (Valley of the Tywi) for Deheubarth. Rhodri the Great inherited Gwynedd from his father and Powys through his mother, and married Angharad of Seisyllwg (Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire) and ruling there by right of his wife. Rhodri exerted great influence in the rest of Wales as well, and after his death his realms were divided amongst his sons. Nevertheless, the House of Aberffraw of Gwynedd, as the senior line descendants of Rhodri the Great, claimed overlordship over the whole of Wales, though they would encounter resistance by junior dynasts of Dinefwr. It would not be until the 1216 Council of Aberdyfi that the Aberffraw line under Llywelyn the Great would be able to secure their position as Prince of the Welsh.
Gwynedd 5th century–1282 (conquest by Edward I of England)
See also History of Gwynedd during the High Middle Ages
See also Culture of Gwynedd during the High Middle Ages
Meirionydd
Rhos
Edeyrnion
Deheubarth 920-1116 (merged with Gwynedd to form the de facto Principality of Wales)
Seisyllwg, a petty kingdom from 680–920, comprising Ceredigion and Ystrad Tywi. In 871, Princess Angharad inherited Seisyllwg, and her husband Rhodri of Gwynedd-Powys administered it by right of his wife on her behalf, and incorporated it into his kingdom. Later, Angharad and Rhodri gave Seisyllwg to their second son Cadell ap Rhodri to rule as a vassal and appendage of Gwynedd. Cadell founded the Dinefwr dynasty of Deheubarth.
Ceredigion
Ystrad Tywi
Dyfed, a petty kingdom between c. 410–920, merged into Deheubarth through inheritance.
Powys
Brycheiniog
Gwrtheyrnion
Buellt
Pengwern
Elfael
Maelienydd
Morgannwg
Glywysing
Gwent
Ergyng
Dumnonia (Located in modern South West England)
Hen Ogledd
There existed other Brittonic petty kingdoms outside of modern Wales and the North West of England. These are collectively known as Hen Ogledd or 'the Old North'. With the exception of Ystrad Clut, which became part of Scotland in around the 11th century, most of these had been absorbed into Anglo-Saxon kingdoms by the 8th century.
Rheged, located mainly in modern Northern England.
Elmet
Gododdin, located in modern Scotland.
Ystrad Clut or Strathclyde, located mainly in modern South West Scotland but extending into Cumbria.
Deira. Anglo-Saxon kingdom in modern Yorkshire believed to be of Brittonic origin
Bryneich, located in modern North East England. Later became the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia.

See also
Chiefdom
Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa
Kleinstaaterei
Lehnsmann, for an account of what it was like to be a petty ruler
Mueang
Princely state