Land, Property Rights, and “Sultanism:”
The Neglected Similarities between Premodern English and Ottoman Land Law
Abstract
Although Ottoman studies have revolutionized our understanding of the political, legal, and social underpinnings of this sophisticated and long-lasting entity, undermining essentialist portrayals of it as “sultanic” and “inferior” to Western polities, one striking similarity with the quintessential “constitutional” regime of the West, England, remains unnoted: the system of land tenures. It is not disputed that “the Sultan owned all the land,” although the actual legal status of land was more nuanced. What is not recognized is that “the English king owned all the land” as well; in fact, the Queen still does, and it is only for a century or so that this has been more of a formality.
This article articulates the commonalities (and differences) of the two property rights regimes, by comparing the status of military fiefs and peasant rights, showing that the English system was closer to the Ottoman one than realized and where it differed, it was more patrimonial. It then reassesses the similarities between English uses and Ottoman vakıfs, highlighting their neglected common origin in a similar land regime that allowed tenure only, placed strict limits on inheritance and imposed fiscal obligations. It argues that where in England uses had fewer negative economic externalities, it is because the state could better intervene and assert fiscal and regulatory capacity. The article concludes by comparing Ottoman expropriations of land (common illustrations of its interventionist character) with the biggest state reclamation of lands in English history, the Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII. The comparison informs not only the understanding of English and Ottoman systems of land tenure, but also scholarship on property rights and their relation to political regimes, especially in neo-institutionalism, which ascribes to property rights key causal powers for economic and political change.
The Neglected Similarities between Premodern English and Ottoman Land Law
Abstract
Although Ottoman studies have revolutionized our understanding of the political, legal, and social underpinnings of this sophisticated and long-lasting entity, undermining essentialist portrayals of it as “sultanic” and “inferior” to Western polities, one striking similarity with the quintessential “constitutional” regime of the West, England, remains unnoted: the system of land tenures. It is not disputed that “the Sultan owned all the land,” although the actual legal status of land was more nuanced. What is not recognized is that “the English king owned all the land” as well; in fact, the Queen still does, and it is only for a century or so that this has been more of a formality.
This article articulates the commonalities (and differences) of the two property rights regimes, by comparing the status of military fiefs and peasant rights, showing that the English system was closer to the Ottoman one than realized and where it differed, it was more patrimonial. It then reassesses the similarities between English uses and Ottoman vakıfs, highlighting their neglected common origin in a similar land regime that allowed tenure only, placed strict limits on inheritance and imposed fiscal obligations. It argues that where in England uses had fewer negative economic externalities, it is because the state could better intervene and assert fiscal and regulatory capacity. The article concludes by comparing Ottoman expropriations of land (common illustrations of its interventionist character) with the biggest state reclamation of lands in English history, the Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII. The comparison informs not only the understanding of English and Ottoman systems of land tenure, but also scholarship on property rights and their relation to political regimes, especially in neo-institutionalism, which ascribes to property rights key causal powers for economic and political change.