Plantations versus the people: Explaining the diversity of land policies within the tropical British Empire

IF 0.2 Q3 Social Sciences
D. Byerlee
{"title":"Plantations versus the people: Explaining the diversity of land policies within the tropical British Empire","authors":"D. Byerlee","doi":"10.1386/PJSS.16.2.163_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Property rights regimes governing the expansion of agricultural commodity exports in the tropics have varied widely between and within colonial empires. This article illustrates this diversity within the British Empire from about 1850 to 1920. In British West Africa, indigenous customary rights were  recognized and land concessions to plantations excluded. By contrast, colonial governments alienated large land tracts for plantations in Malaya, the Indian Hills and Ceylon that often conflicted with indigenous rights and shifting farming systems in upland forested areas. These differences among colonial policies on land and forest rights in turn led to quite different agrarian structures and strongly influenced the location of export production – differences that have persisted until today. The article explores a range of explanations for policy divergence with respect to land rights, including the initial conditions of population density and pre-existing industries, strategic concerns of the metropolitan power, growing civil society agitation on human rights in Africa, the role of individual champions of human rights and shifting paradigms within the empire with respect to the role of plantations.","PeriodicalId":51963,"journal":{"name":"Portuguese Journal of Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Portuguese Journal of Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/PJSS.16.2.163_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Property rights regimes governing the expansion of agricultural commodity exports in the tropics have varied widely between and within colonial empires. This article illustrates this diversity within the British Empire from about 1850 to 1920. In British West Africa, indigenous customary rights were  recognized and land concessions to plantations excluded. By contrast, colonial governments alienated large land tracts for plantations in Malaya, the Indian Hills and Ceylon that often conflicted with indigenous rights and shifting farming systems in upland forested areas. These differences among colonial policies on land and forest rights in turn led to quite different agrarian structures and strongly influenced the location of export production – differences that have persisted until today. The article explores a range of explanations for policy divergence with respect to land rights, including the initial conditions of population density and pre-existing industries, strategic concerns of the metropolitan power, growing civil society agitation on human rights in Africa, the role of individual champions of human rights and shifting paradigms within the empire with respect to the role of plantations.
种植园与人民:解释热带大英帝国土地政策的多样性
管理热带地区农产品出口扩张的产权制度在殖民帝国之间和殖民帝国内部差异很大。本文阐述了1850年至1920年间大英帝国内部的这种多样性。在英属西非,土著人的习惯权利得到承认,对种植园的土地特许权被排除在外。相比之下,殖民政府在马来亚、印度山和锡兰为种植园开垦了大片土地,这些土地往往与土著权利和高地森林地区不断变化的农业制度相冲突。殖民地土地和森林权利政策之间的这些差异反过来导致了截然不同的农业结构,并强烈影响了出口生产的地点——这种差异一直持续到今天。这篇文章探讨了对土地权政策分歧的一系列解释,包括人口密度和已有产业的初始条件、大都市大国的战略关切、非洲民间社会对人权的日益高涨、,个人人权捍卫者的角色,以及帝国内部关于种植园角色的范式转变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Portuguese Journal of Social Science is a peer-reviewed cross-disciplinary journal focusing on research about Portuguese society by scholars of any nationality. However, the journal takes a broad view and accepts articles that are not exclusively devoted to the Portuguese case. We particularly welcome comparative studies. While the journal concentrates on research articles it operates a flexible policy in respect of other types of submission, including book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信