Establishing Property Rights in Qing's China: From Wasteland to Cultivation - Essay Sample

Introduction

The establishment of property rights in China begun in the Qing's era when every citizen, including the officials and the government, needed to know who had property rights, how they could be established and managed. During this time, massive pieces of productive land had been abandoned during the tragedies in the mid-seventeenth century. In the eighteenth century, people from densely populated parts of China to the suburbs started cultivating the wasteland. Agriculture led to the growth of the economy and change in the use of hills and water margins to permanent settlements. The changes were followed by environmental destruction and transformation. The changes in the land made property rights an urgent issue. Lack of an agreement could hinder the recovery or deter people from reclaiming the land due to the high investments required to develop the new area. Moreover, such inconvenience threatened to fill up courts with proceedings that are distasteful to Chinese officials or lead to other problems as different plaintiffs thrashed to impose conflicting rights. In spite of all the benefits brought by having clear property rights, the use of contracts that indicated that the land was registered with the government decreased during the era. In 1713, the financial motivations given to officials who monitored land reclamation was withdrawn, while regeneration was still ongoing due to population growth, interregional relocation, and economic growth. Small plots mostly located far from district officials had freed from taxation and eventually registration. The cavity created by these developments was filled by a mix of taxes, documents, use of sponsors and brokers, or the presence of any ritual enactment such as a grave. The paper presents an explanation of the establishment of property rights during the reclamation period in China. The reclamation of neglected agricultural land played an essential role in the development of property rights in China.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Qing policy of land reclamation started during the period when the wilderness was opened up for agriculture for the first time. The lands were availed for restoration, which led to the ownership rights characterized by payment of taxes. The policy considered land as an official land and later put it up for tenancy, which was characterized by payment of rent. It also had the power to prohibit use of land in areas left for settlement, such as the mountain districts where no good use happened, and no taxes or rents were collected. The reclamation of land led to ownership rights, which had prevailed, while the more borderline property was retained as official land. Due to social order, land that was taken over from Ming Dynasty was forbidden. Such areas were illegally reclaimed, and when they reached a certain point, the state uplifted their prohibition on these lands.

However, abandoned land was the only form of farmland that required to be reclaimed during the Qing dynasty. There was the urgency of reclaiming productive agricultural lands that had been abandoned and deteriorated to wilderness. The main reason for the abandonment of large tracts of land was the destruction that accompanied the dynast transition in the 17th century. The damage continued all through the dynasty on a small scale in response to the environmental destruction . There was an excellent deal for filling in the land in areas that had long-settled interiors, on the hills, along water region and other bordering surroundings. The reclamation of the real and abandoned wasteland was argumentative due to its ability to change the agriculture ecology, from where the community and the state's revenue were generated. Although reclamation had provided a solution for land abandonment and depopulation, various concerns on social control and increased awareness of ecological damage from encroachment of waterways and deforestation led to an active futile to inhibit land reclamation in several regions. Therefore, Qing's policy of recovery played an essential role in the establishment of property rights in China.

The Taiping Rebellion of 1850 to 1864 ushered in a period where renewed efforts on reclamation, resettlement, and reestablishment of the tax base in areas that were affected by the war. The attempts of land reclamation were delayed by the neglect of the early plans for a national land survey. However, the reign feared that the surveys would burden the community by creating corruption opportunities. Moreover, the reluctance to isolate the landlords who had an essential acquiescence in the Manchu rule also led to neglect of the plans to have a national survey. This indicates that it was unclear on how much land was already reclaimed and entered into taxation records, and how much area was available for reclamation. The Manchu dynasty acknowledged the recovery of the previous high-water mark of the agricultural land as the primary goal. Thus, a permanent tax quota program was set, and severe pressure from the central government to extend the size of the cultivated land figured once the tax allocation had been reinstated.

Local officials moderated the pressure of the central government to acquire the correct size of the land due to their conflicting interests. However, the dynast was successful in increasing land reclamation and extending the tax base. More so, evaluations were founded on tax collection, and the success enabled by the existence of unrecorded land provided income to the locals. The community resisted the increment of tax quota, and an official who advocated for lower taxes was seen as a hero. Since it was challenging to accomplish tax-lowering, it was also hard to see the new reclamation. There lacked a systematic survey undertaken before availing land for improvement at the local level. This led to problems such as ownership of the same ground by two individuals, and when uncultivated land was assumed to be wilderness belonged to someone else. It was also unclear which district had the authority over the property, especially when the disputant had a better claim. These problems caused by reclamation of land demanded clear property rights, which were later refined.

During the reclamation of the wastelands, the powers that be divided the abandoned land into two categories; wilderness that was officially owned, and those that were not. When the original owner of the wasteland had not left the area, an order was established that they could cultivate their land using their resources to recover cultivated land, and they were issued short term tax exemptions. Additionally, they needed loans and aid to offer seeds, tools, oxen, and temporary continuation until the land yielded for the first time. The requirements were met by a three years loan that was issued by the province from the funds collected through taxation. If the owner of the abandoned land was not present and there was the need to reclaim that land for cultivation, land was exempted from taxation records and recognized as wilderness. Such land was now availed to the residents and refugees for agriculture. Thus, the registered owner was obliged to cultivate the land, and this was ensured by provision of loans and grants, which led to agricultural growth and eventually economic improvement through taxation and local revenues . Thus, the authority assured that land was reclaimed and ownership rights issued.

Usually, no payment was required to acquire property rights. People who wished to take on the responsibility of cultivation were given the right to cultivate the land for a certain period to restore their productivity. Later on, the property was registered for taxation, and in return, the title of the property was issued in form of an approved certificate with an official stamp . This certificate and tax payment receipts acted as proofs of ownership of the land and secured the title for the future generation. However, if the property that was formerly registered as ownerless due to abandonment was reclaimed by another person, in good faith, and the original owner claims it back, tax payment was used to solve the case. If the cultivator had paid tax for a long time, they had the right over the land, and it could not be entirely given back to the original owner. Therefore, it was divided into two if the owner had gone for about 30years. If the old owner had gone for fewer years, they were given back full ownership of the land by refunding the tax paid by the new owner. Thus, disputes on the property had a suit to follow to ensure that land conflicts were minimal.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the development of property rights in China started from the period of the Qing dynasty, who first opened land for reclamation. Since the area had gone to waste during this period, reclaiming the wilderness for cultivation was the only way to improve the economic stability of the state and increase the productivity of wasted land. Qing ensured that land was reclaimed by giving incentives such as non-payment of tax until the acreage was productive, which means that the cultivator could pay taxes and get registered for full ownership of the land. Tax receipts acted as proof of ownership, and they could be used for entire claim of the formerly wasted land. Property rights were marked by issuing of title certificates to the owners of the land. Therefore, land reclamation led to the establishment of property rights in China.

Bibliography

Clark C. Gibson, Margaret A. McKean, and Elinor, Ostrom. 2004. "Explaining Deforestation: The Role of Local Institutions." Palo, CAL: Stanford University Press. P. 6-9.

Jikun Huang, Keijiro Otsuka, and Scott Rozelle. 2004. "Agriculture in China's Development Past Disappointments, Recent Successes, and Future Challenges." Palo, CAL: Stanford University Press. P. 12.

Liu, Dachang. 2004. "Tenure and Management of Non-State Forests in China since 1950." Palo, CAL: Stanford University Press. P.18.

Madeleine, Zelin. 2004. "A Critique of the Rights of Properties in Prewar China." Palo, CAL: Stanford University Press. P.18.

Margaret A. McKean. 2004. "Common Property: What Is It, What Is It Good For, and What Makes It Work?" Palo, CAL: Stanford University Press. P.23.

Osborne, Anne. 2004. "Property, Taxes, and State Protection of Rights." Palo, CAL: Stanford University Press, P. 12.