Itisnotclearwhatismeantby"custom""custom"onlyassomethingnonpetitive,SchickeleandHeadyreferredtoboth"custom"and"pe-tition""custom",,（seefigure4）,Issawiiadmittedthat,inhisanalysis:

Ithasbeenimplicitlyassumedthroughout……thatlandlordsdonotrespondreadilytosucheconomicmotivationsasthepossibilityofincreasingtheirinebyinvestment;iftheydid,thedistinctionbetweenfixedrentsandshare-croppingwould,naturally,,toalargeextent,heldtrueformostunderdevelopedcountriesand,toaslightlylesserextent,itstillholdstrue.[22]

Thiskindofanalysisisquitepopularin"underdevelopment".[23]JohnsonformalizedMarshall'sanalysisingreaterdetail,:

Underacrop-sharelease,ifthelandlord'sshareofthecropsishalf,,however,willconducthislivestockoperations,whereimportantcostsarebornebythelandlordandthereceiptsarenotsharedwithhim,.[24]

Johnsonnoted,however,thathisanalysisisbasedon"circumstancesinwhich……thetenantandthelandlord……eachviewshisinterestseparately,"[25]whichissimilartoMarshall'ssuppositionthatthetenant"isfreetocultivateashechooses."Thissupposition,ofcourse,,Johnson',andhedevotedonesectiontoinvestigatingotherpossibleadjustments.[26]Hefoundthat,"thoughadmittedlyinadequate,theavailableevidenceindicatesthatthecrop-sharecontractyieldsatleastasmuch,ifnotmore,rentperacrethandoesthecashleaseonparablefarms."[27]Inanattempttoreconcilethisapparentconflictbetweentheoryandfact,Johnsonarguedthatwithashort-termleasethetenantisnotreallyfreetocultivateinanywayheseesfit.[28]Thus,theactualintensityoftenantinput"willdependuponwhathethinks'hecangetbywith'."[29]

ItisdifficulttounderstandwhyJohnsondidnotdiscardhistheoreticalanalysisandstartanew-byconsideringthatthecontractingpartiesarefreeonlytoacceptornottoacceptacontract,andthatthey"cangetbywith",whichareimpliedbytheconstraintsofprivatepropertyrights,: