Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:06:05.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fiscal Importance of the Land Tax During the Ch'ing Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Yeh-Chien Wang
Get access

Abstract

As happened in Tokugawa Japan and British India, China under die Ching witnessed a relative decline in fiscal importance of die land tax although its absolute amount increased substantially. Between 1753 and 1908 China's annual land tax revenue grew from 74 million to 102 million taels but its percentage contribution in die total tax revenue decreased from 73.5 to 35 percent. The reasons for its relatively lessened importance in die Ch'ing tax structure are the creation of new taxes such as die maritime customs and die likin, die lack of income- and price-elasticity in die land tax system, the defects of die fiscal administration, and a strong tradition against land tax increase. Since the same period saw a rise in general prices by 150 percent, obviously die Manchu government had not even raised enough taxes from land to offset price inflations, leaving a 40 percent increase in land acreage and a moderate improvement in land yields totally untouched. Hence, die land tax burden was not, as some asserted, oppressive in die last decades of the Ching dynasty.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , August 1971 , pp. 829 - 842
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Totman, Conrad D., Politics in the Tokugawa Bakufu, 1600–1843 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp. 77–88.Google Scholar

2 Nanavati, Manilal B. and Anjaria, J. J., The Indian Rural Problem (Bombay: Indian Society of Agricultural Economy, 1965), p. 419.Google Scholar

3 A rough indication can be found in Beal, Edwin G. Jr., The Origin of Likin, 1853–1864 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), pp. 3 and 5Google Scholar. According to the author's calculation, the percentage of total revenue supplied by the land tax decreased from 86.5% in 1651 to 77.2% in 1849, and to 36.9% in 1894. Neverdieless, as the author himself admitted, the data from which the above figures are derived are very incomplete. For the sake of constructing a more realistic picture, it is imperative to gather all data available and to examine them vigorously.

4 Yü-chʻüan, Wang, “The Rise of Land Tax and the Fall of Dynasties in Chinese History,” Pacific Affairs, 9.2 (June 1936), pp. 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Note that another item known as ying-yü (surplus) usually appears in the annual returns of the salt tax and the native customs. The surplus resulted from either natural increase in tax revenue in times of economic prosperity or from converting hitherto concealed surcharges into part of the basic tax, or from both. From the mid-18th century onwards the amount of ying-yü was also fixed by the imperial government and treated simply as an additional quota. In my classification of Chʻing tax revenue, ying-yü is therefore included in the basic tax.

6 See my article, “Chʻing Yung-cheng shih-chʻi ti tsʻai-cheng kai-ke” (Financial reforms during the Yung-cheng period, 1723–35), Chung-yang yen-chiu-yüan li-shih yü-yen yen-chiu-so chi-kʻan (The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica), Vol. 32 (1961), pp. 47–75Google Scholar; Takeo, Abe, “Kōsen teikai no kenkyū” (A study on the management of hao-hsien), Tōyōshi kenkyū (The Journal of Oriental Researches), 16.4 (March 1958), pp. 108–262.Google Scholar

7 For the maritime customs, see Yang Tuan-liu et al., comp. Statistics of China's Foreign Trade During the Last Sixty-five Years, Institute of Social Sciences, Academca Sinica, 1931; For likin, see Lo Yü-tung, Chung-kuo li-chin shih (The history of likin in China) (Shanghai: the Commercial Press, 1936).

8 Cf. Ta-Chʻing hui-tien (Collected statutes of the Chʻing dynasty, hereafter cited as HT), 1731, 29.1b; HT, 1764, 10.7–8; Chʻing-Chʻao wen-hsien tʻung-kʻao (Encyclopedia of historical records of the Chʻing dynasty, hereafter cited as WHTK) (Shanghai: the Commercial Press, 1936), p. 4946.

9 See Wen-chih, Li, comp., Chung-kuo chin-tai nung-yeh-shih tzu-liao (Materials on agricultural history of modern China), First Collection (1840–1911) (Peking, 1957), pp. 60–61Google Scholar; Kan-su tʻung-chih (General gazetteer of Kansu), 1736 preface, 13.1–17; Ta-Chʻing i-tʻung-chih (The comprehensive geography of the Chʻing Empire), 1745 preface, 157.15b–16; HT, 1764, 10.2b–8; Yun-nan tʻung-chih, 1835, 57–33–34. 58.2b, 8–21.

10 Depending on areas the grain prices in 1753 are estimated to be ranging from one tael per shih in Manchuria and the northwestern provinces to 1.7 taels per shih in the southeastern coast. See my Ph.D. thesis “China's Land Taxation in the Late Chʻing,” Harvard University, 1969, pp. 212–216.

11 For the rates of hao-hsien, see Ta-Chʻing huitien shih-li (Precedents of the collected statutes of the Chʻing dynasty), 1818 preface, 139.9–15. In Yunnan, however, another surcharge known as kung-chien (literally, “public matters”) was authorized by the imperial government before the authorization of hao-hsien. In 1736, the kung-chien and hao-hsien combined amounted to 113,558 taels, or about 54% of the ti-ting quota. See Yun-nan tʻung-chih, 1835, 58.1–2.

12 For example, the rate of hao-hsien in Kiangsu was fixed in 1728 at 10% of the ti-ting quota and later reduced to 5–7% for the southern part of the province, but the surcharge actually collected over and above the quota amounted to 15–18%. In Hung-tung hsien of Shansi local officials collected 25% or even 35% more than the quota in the middle of the 18th century while the rate of hao-hsien stood at 13%. In Tan hsien of Shantung local officials collected for each taels of land tax quota 11% more as collection and delivery expenses plus 75 cash as fee for melting silver into ingots in addition to 14% as hao-hsien. See Wu-chiang-hsien chih (Gazetteer of Wu-chiang District), 1747 preface, 13.11b-13; Chu-pʻi yü-chih (Vermillion-endorsed edicts, hereafter cited as CPYC), 1738 preface, I.1.81b; Hung-tung-hsien chih, 1917, 9.16b; Tan-hsien chih, 1929, 3.7b–8.

13 Ta-Chʻing hui-tien tse-li (Precedents of the collected statutes of the Chʻing dynasty, hereafter cited as HTTL), 1764, 41.31–35.

14 Hu-pei tʻung-chih (General gazetteer of Hupei), Chia-chʻing edition, 24A.9b; Tung-hua lu (The Tung-hua records), comp. by Wang Hsien-chʻien, 1884, Yung-cheng, 5.16b. For more evidence, see CPYC, I.2, 2b; Ho Chang-ling, comp., Huang-chʻao ching-shih wen-pien (Collected works on statecraft in the Chʻing dynasty), 1886, 49.32–33.

15 Huang-chʻao cheng-tien lei-tsuan (A classified compendium of the administrative statutes of the Chʻing dynasty), comp. by Hsi Yü-fu et al., 1903 preface, 83.1 and 6; HT, 1764, 16.1–2; HTTL, 1764, 48.34b; CPYC, I.4.72.

16 Wolf, John B., The Emergence of the Great Powers, 1685–1715, New York, Harper, 1951, p. 185Google Scholar; Shaw, Stanford J., The Financial Administrative Organization and Development of Ottoman Egypt, 1517–1789, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1962, p. 75.Google Scholar

17 HT, 1764, 17.11b. Note that there was no customs station in Kansu; the tea tax was therefore included in the category of the miscellaneous taxes.

18 CPYC, IV.4.92b–93.

19 HTTL, 1764, 50.3.

20 Shina keizai zensho (Encyclopedia of the Chinese economy, hereafter cited as SKZ), compiled by Tōa Dōbunkai, (Tokyo, 1908), Vol. I, pp. 470–539, 938–975; Morse, H. B., The Trade and Administration of China, London, Longmans, 1908, pp. 85–110Google Scholar; Wagel, S. R., Finance in China, Shanghai, North-China Daily News and Herald, 1914, pp. 340–341, 372–390Google Scholar; Williams, E. T., “Taxation in China,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 26.3 (May 1912), pp. 482–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 See my thesis, p. 117 and Appendix B.

22 Yang Tuan-liu et al., p. 123.

23 See SKZ, Vol. I, pp. 501–502; Tung-hua hsü-lu (The Tung-hua records, continued), comp. by Chu Shou-pʻeng, Shanghai, 1909, Kuang-hsü, 206.12.

24 Yen-cheng tsʻung-kʻan (The journal of salt administration) (Peking, 1921), p. 129.

25 See Winston, A. P., “Chinese Finance under the Republic,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 30.4 (August 1916), pp. 738–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 For example, in the 1900's the annual salt revenue amounted to 12–13 million taels in Liang-huai and around 6–7 million taels in Szechwan. See Chʻing-chʻao hsü wen-hsien tʻung-kʻao (Encyclopedia of historical records of the Chʻing dynasty, continued, cited as HWHTK hereafter) (Shanghai: the Commercial Press, 1936), pp. 7934 & 7947.

27 Based on a single evidence, H. B. Morse put the unreported amount as much as 162% of the reported revenue. Also, a Japanese source gave without explanation an estimate of the unreported revenue as high as 100–200% of the reported revenue. See Morse, pp. 108–110; SKZ, Vol. I, p. 509.

28 Inspectorate General of Customs, Working of Likin Collectorates: Kiu-kiang, Soochow, and Hang-chow (Shanghai, 1907), p. 166.

29 Lo Yü-tung, p. 464; TCSMS (Fukien), Revenue (cited as R hereafter)—Likin, 29–30, 50; TCSMS (Shensi), R—Likin, 75–110.

30 Lo Yü-tung, p. 469.

31 Cheng-chih kuan-pao (Political gazette), reprinted by Wen-hai chʻu-pan she (Taipei, 1965), Vol. 15, p. 203.

32 Liu Yo-yün, Kuang-hsü kʻuai-chi piao (Tables of government revenue & expenditure in the Kuang-hsü period), 1901, 1.1–2; also see Table 2 in this essay.

33 Wright, Stanley F., The Collection and Disposal of the Maritime and Native Customs Revenue Since the Revolution of 1911 (Shanghai, 1927), p. 41.Google Scholar

34 For example, the property deeds tax in Szechwan alone was estimated to be around 2.8 million taels in 1910. See Hsin-tu-hsien chih (Gazetteer of Hsin-tu District), 1929, 2.8. For the figure of the 1903 report, see SKZ, Vol. I, pp. 528–530.Google Scholar

35 For the land tax revenue of the three provinces, see my thesis, p. 117. The amounts of the miscellaneous taxes are calculated from the following sources: TCSMS (Kwangtung), R—4.22–66, R—7.4–80; TCSMS (Kwangsi), National Taxes, Chap. 15, pp. 57–58, Provincial Taxes, Chap. 10; TCSMS (Kweichow), R—1.2–6, R—2.1–55.

36 Perkins, Dwight H., Agricultural Development in China, 1368–1967 (Chicago, Aldine, 1969), pp. 16–17, 216.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., pp. 17–23, 32–33.

38 Given 1750 as the base year, the price index stood at 150 at the end of the 18th century, fell to 55 in 1850, then after drastic fluctuation during the Taiping Rebellion returned to 100 in 1875, and rose to 250 in 1910. See my thesis, pp. 167–177. But note that I concluded in my thesis a doubling of prices from 1750 (100) to 1910 (200). The index should be revised upward to 250 at the latter date, for the Nankai index number of prices which is undoubtedly of better quality than other price series shows a two-and-a-half-fold increase in prices between 1875 and 1910. See Nankai Institute of Economics, Nankai Weekly Statistical Service, 5.15 (April 11, 1932), Tientsin, Nankai University, p. 70.

39 Nung Yeh, “Chung-kuo shih-chiu shih-chi hou-pan nung-yeh sheng-chʻan ti shang-pʻin-hua” (The commercialization of agricultural production in China during the last half of the 19th century), Ching-chi yen-chiu (Economic Research) (Peking, 1956), No. 3, pp. 120–140, No. 4, 129–137.

40 For a detailed description of these three types of land tax system, see Wald, Haskell P., Taxation of Agricultural Land in Underdeveloped Economies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 See my thesis, Tables 5.4 and 5.7.

42 For official land data for various dates of the dynasty, see Li Wen-chih, p. 60.

43 For some examples, see my paper, “The Impact of the Taiping Rebellion on Population in Southern Kiangsu,” Papers on China, Vol. 19 (1965), Cambridge, Harvard East Asian Research Center, pp. 120–158.

44 Ho, Ping-ti, Studies on the Population of China, 1368–1953 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Chʻü, Tʻung-tsu, Local Government in China under the Chʻing (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), pp. 132–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 WHTK, p. 5025; Also cf. Huang, Han-liang, The Land Tax in China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1918), p. 89.Google Scholar

47 See Ta-ling, Hsü, Chʻing-tai chüan-na chih-tu (The system of purchasing offices by contributions during the Chʻing period) (Peking: Yenching University, 1950)Google Scholar; Saeki, Tomi, Shindai ensei no kenkyū (Studies of the salt administration under the Chʻing) (Kyoto: Kyoto University, 1956), pp. 263–267.Google Scholar

48 Hsia Nai, “Taʻi-pʻing tʻien-kuo chʻien-hou Chʻang-chiang ko-sheng chih tʻien-fu wen-tʻi” (The land tax problem in the Yangtze provinces before and after the Taiping Rebellion), Tsing-hua hsüeh-pao (The Tsing-hua Journal), 10.2 (April 1935), pp. 409–474; TCSMS (Kwangtung), R—the Land Tax (cited as L hereafter), A.12; TCSMS (Hupei), p. 6; TCSMS (Anhwei) R—L, 5; TCSMS (Kiangsi), R—L, 2; Hsiang-tʻan-hsien chih (Gazetteer of Hsiang-tʻan District), 1889, 6.14.

49 The central and provincial governments had at their command all other important taxes, namely the maritime and native customs, the salt tax, and the likin, in addition to a good part of the land tax.

50 See Tung-ming-hsien chih (Gazetteer of Tungming District), 1933 preface, 7.25; Chung-hsiu Chen-yüan-hsien chih (Revised gazetteer of Chen-yüan District), 1935, 7.10b; TCSMS (Szechwan) p. 4.

51 Cheng-hsien chih (Gazetteer of Cheng District), 1934, 4.35.

52 For example, Masaya, Sasaki, “Kampō ninen Yin-ken no kōryō bōdō” (The riot against land taxation in Yin hsien in 1852), Kindai Chūkoku kenkyū (Studies in modern China), Vol. 5 (1963), Tokyo, pp. 185–299Google Scholar; HWHTK, pp. 7511–7512; TCSMS (Honan), R—L, 78; TCSMS (Fengtien), L, 6.

53 On the other hand, the increasing importance of indirect taxes in the Chʻing tax structure indicates a greater inequity in the allocation of tax burden in the last half century of the dynasty than in its earlier days. However, a study on the incidence of the Chʻing taxation has not yet been made; therefore no satisfactory answer can be given to such question as to what extent the inequitableness of taxation affected the fate of the dynasty.