Keith Benson

American Economic History

12.13.2007
Professor Guy Pascale

Response to “The ‘Wizard of Oz’ as a Monetary Allegory”

“The ‘Wizard of Oz’ as a Monetary Allegory”, a celebrated work by career

economic historian at Rutgers University Hugh Rockoff, seeks to offer in-depth analysis

of the classic fairytale in a historical and economic metaphoric framework. Dr. Rockoff is

a renowned authority on wartime price controls, and “free banking”. In addition to his

fulltime professorship duties, Rockoff is also a research associate for the National Bureau

of Economic Research. And while Rockoff’s essay and credentials are impressive and

convincing in their own right, there is contemporary disagreement, debating whether the

iconic story/movie was meant to serve a didactic purpose. Rockoff writes, “The book was

not only a child’s tale but a sophisticated commentary on the political and economic

debates of the Populist Era.” (Hansen 255) Bradley Hansen, professor of economics at

Mary Washington College, in his article “The Fable of the Allegory: The Wizard of Oz in

Economics”, roundly disputes Rockoff’s assertions concerning the “Wizard of Oz’”

message; if there was one at all. In efforts to find consensus between both opposing

articles, relevant historical and economic information can be gained. While there may be

no definitive answer as whether Rockoff or his detractors are correct, what can be assured

is between both ends of this argumentative spectrum, lies an important and overlooked

subject in American economic history.

In order to creditably move forward in the examination of the validity of Ruckoff

or Hansen’s thesis, it is first necessary to understand the context in which the story the

Wonderful World of Oz was created. Rockoff suggests L. Frank Baum, author of the
Wizard of Oz, wrote the story in 1899 in response to pressing contemporary economic

issues of the time. “The Wizard of Oz conceived over several years, was written mostly

in 1899 as a cautionary tale, recounting the ‘first battle’ of 1896.” (Ruckoff 745)

During the 1890’s the country was embroiled in economic disarray caused largely

by the “Panic of 1893” and even more relevant, the uncertainty concerning bimetallism

and gold as the singular standard by which the US Dollar was measured. Largely, this

struggle and its resolution was the allegorical and metaphoric lens through which Rockoff

perceived the Wizard of Oz.

Though Rockoff was largely responsible for projecting this interpretation of the

popular children’s story, he was not the first. In 1964, a history teacher, Henry Littlefield,

in efforts to illuminate the relevance of the debate over gold vs. bimetallism, looked for

possible links between this historical occurrences and the popular story. Prior to the

1960’s there had been no record of any academic, or popular perceptions that the Wizard

of Oz was meant to teach anything at all. “Although it is true that many people have

come to the conclusion that the Wonderful Wizard of Oz was an allegory of the Populist

movement, no one appears to have come to the conclusion before Littlefield did, 64 years

after the book was published.” (Hansen 257) Only following Littlefield and Rockoff’s

later interpretation of the story, has its perception as a teaching tool gained traction with

economists and historians seeking to verify this theory.

Ruckoff, in the “Wizard of Oz as a Monetary Allegory”, first seeks to bolster his

stance that the tale has a hidden and higher meaning by communicating his belief that L.

Frank Baum was a democratic, Populist sympathizer. Ruckoff explains that due to

Baum’s mother-in-law being a leading woman’s suffragist, and Baum himself working
for a newspaper in Aberdeen, South Dakota, he likely was a Populist. Rockoff explains

that “Baum and his family moved from New York City to Aberdeen, South Dakota,

where he viewed at close hand the frontier life that gave rise to the Populist movement.”

(Ruckoff 740) Further, Ruckoff quotes L. Frank Baum’s son’s biography about his father

which asserts that Baum himself held torches for pro-silver activist and presidential

candidate William Jennings Bryan during his midnight political rallies. This would be

significant toward understanding Baum’s possible motive for drafting the Wizard of Oz

as an epic metaphor sympathetic to the Populist/pro-silver movement.

Conversely, Hansen, in efforts to refute Ruckoff’s assertion that Baum was a

populist sympathizer, carefully explains Baum may have been much more capitalist and

Republican than Ruckoff led on. Hansen explains that Baum routinely, during his stint at

the Saturday Pioneer and Western Frontier endorsed Republican candidates, and causes.

Moreover, Hansen describes that Baum's exposure to frontier living, and relation to

women suffragists would not necessarily be consistent with Populism or its ideals,

especially bimetallism. While Hansen does credit Baum for being very pro-women’s

rights, as Ruckoff concedes, Baum if truly seeking to use the Wizard of Oz to exemplify

his bimetallist leanings, does a poor job exhibiting them.

Also, and perhaps, the most referred to pieces of evidence within the Wizard of

Oz people believing it serves an allegorical purpose point to is the characters and colors,

and how they parallel with some major political actors and references from that time. As

has been noted by both Rockoff and Littlefield years earlier, the shoes worn by Dorothy

in the written version of the tale were silver – not ruby red as shown in the movie. The

yellow brick road leading to the land of Oz, really according to Rockoff, represented gold
leading all the way to Washington where the decision to use gold as the only standard had

been finalized by President McKinley in 1896. The letters “O” and “z”, in “Oz” was

supposedly adapted from the abbreviation for an ounce; the unit used to weigh gold.

Dorothy was supposed to represent the American public; young and naïve. The

Scarecrow was to symbolize the western frontier farmer; the Tin Woodsman symbolized

the eastern industrial worker lacking individuality. Finally, the Cowardly Lion, Rockoff

suggests, embodied William Jennings Bryan, who following his “Cross of Gold” speech

never pursued bimetallism with the same fervor in which he delivered the famous speech.

Refuting the claims of Littlefield and Ruckoff, Hansen explains away the singling

out of these colors and characters. Hansen explains the presence of colors was a recurring

theme throughout the story. “Each part of Oz had its own color. Blue was he color of the

Munchkins, yellow was the color of the Winkies, and Red the color of the Quadlings. The

colors in the book changed as the characters moved throughout Oz.” (Hansen 261)

Hansen further explains that Baum, since childhood possessed a fascination with

scarecrows, and actually had built his own tin man long before the Wizard of Oz was

written.

Within the muck and mire of academic debate of whether or not the Wizard of Oz

was meant to be an allegory, was the significance of the debate between bimetallism and

gold as the singular monetary standard. It is my position that like the Civil War, where the

struggle between the agrarian South and the industrialist North (among a host of other

causes) led to armed conflict, the similar theme recurred in the 1870’s up until the early

1900’s; this time putting the frontier/agrarian west against the industrialist/capitalist east.
 As a backdrop, it is important to understand that following a wave of

industrialism that swept the eastern region, specifically the Northeast, tariffs seeking to

benefit and aid industrialism was simultaneously enacted. What was gained by

industrialist capitalists from beneficial tariffs were to reduce foreign competition of

manufactured goods; allowing domestic manufacturers to raise prices. In response,

foreign nations placed tariffs on American exports, especially American wheat and grains.

As a result, foreign sale of wheat dropped precipitously, leaving only the American

consumer to purchase the wheat and grains produced by the western farmer. Supply of

wheat increased dramatically as the price dropped simultaneously.

While the farmers may have possessed a “life raft” from their struggle in the form

of inflation ironically, which would have raised prices for their crops, the Treasury Dept.

seeking to reduce the money supply forced deflation by no longer acknowledging the

bimetal standard, which consisted of both silver and gold, in favor of gold only. The

American western farmer was caught in a double economic bind of low prices for their

crops, and a period of deflation - along with a host of weather issues at the time. It was

out of this malaise where William Jennings Bryan, a Nebraska legislator, gained

popularity and the Free Silver movement was born. And it was believed, resulting from

the tumultuous times farmers were experiencing, at least through Littlefield and

Rockoff’s interpretation, L. Frank Baum sought to depict and offer the grand solution for

the plight of the American western farmer – a return to silver as a monetary standard,

through his story.

While both Rockoff and Hansen offer convincing arguments whether the Wizard

of Oz was contrived to be an allegory for the Free Silver/Populist movement, seems

overall, unimportant. The historical and economic happenings of that era truly are

important; and if the “Wizard of Oz” helps explicate those struggles of the late 1800’s,

even if unintended, served a valuable purpose.

 Works Cited

Rockoff, Hugh. “The ‘Wizard of Oz’ as a Monetary Allegory”.

Journal of Political Economy. 1990, vol. 98, no. 4

Hansen, Bradley. “The Fable of the Allegory: The Wizard of Oz in Economics”.

Journal of Economic Education. Summer 2002. pps.254-271