First,thoughsomeclassicaleconomistsdiscussedthedivisionofland,theydidnotanalyzeitinageneralequilibriumframework(seesectionAofthischapter).SinceMarshall,thepossibilityofthelandlordsallocatinghistotalholdingstoseveraltenantshasbeenignored(seesectionBofthischapter).Whilethisisvalidinanalyzinganexcisetax,undershare,,however,,withatax,,thetax-equivalentanalysisfailstoofferanyexplicittreatmentofthetermsinasharecontractwhichtheparticipatingpartiesmustmutuallyagreetoabidebywhenthecontractisformed.
Wecannotanalyzethewayapersoncttoatena,:Itdoesnotmatterwhetherthelandownerstipulatesthatthetenantistoinvestmoreinlandandchargesalowerrentalpercentageorwhetherthelandownerinvestsinlandhimselfandchargesthetenantahigherrentalpercentage;theinvestmentwillbemadeifitleadstoahigherrentalannuity.
Yet,itwouldbemisleadingtosaythatallearlieranalystsofsharecroppingweredeceivedbythetax-equivalentappr,someexpresseddoubt,,asurveyoftheliteratureonthesubjectrevealsthatattimeseventheirerrorsaremostinterestingandtheirinsightsaresometimesmostpro-found.[2]
www.youxs.org
Notingthatsharecroppers”havebeensolongindisuseinEng-landthatatpresentIknownoEnglishnameforthem,”AdamSmithwroteofthemetayers(sharecroppers)inFrance,whichhebelievedweresuccessorsof”theslavecultivatorsofancienttimes.”[3]Oftheproductivenatureofthemetayagesystem,Smithwrote:
Itcouldnever,however,betheinterest[ofthemetayers]tolayout,inthefurtherimprovementoftheland,anypartofthelittlestockwhichtheymighthavesavedfromtheirownshareoftheproduce,becausethelord,wholaidoutnothing,,whichisbutatenthoftheproduce,,therefore,whichamountedtoone-half,musthavebeenaneffectualbartoit.[4]
AlthoughtheanalogytoataxwhichSmithdrewmighthaveledsucceedingwritersastray,theco;rather,inonefullchapterheattemptedtotracethedevelopmentoflandtenurearrangementswitheconomicinterpretations.[5]
AccordingtoSmithsview,the”slave”cultivatorsprecedingthemetayerswereevenlessproductive,because”apersonwhocanacquirenoproperty,canhavenootherinterestbuttoeatasmuch,andtolaboraslittleaspossible.”[6]Thusformoreproductivelandusethemetayerssucceededthe”slaves.”Sinceinhisviewthemetayagesystemwasalsodefective,Smithclaimedthat”byveryslowdegrees,”themetayersweresucceededby”farmers……,whocultivatedthelandwiththeirownstock,
payingarentcertaintothelandlord.”[7]AlthoughSmithfavoredfixed-rentcontracts(farmers)oversharecropping,hewasnonethelessconcernedwiththe”insecurity”ofthefarmersbecauseofexpirationofthelease:”Thepossessionevenofsuchfarmers,however,waslongextremelyprecarious,andstillissoinmanypartsofEurope.”[8]Headvocated”thelawwhichsecuresthelongestleasesagainstsuccessorsofeverykind,”butsuchalawwas,tohisknowledge,”peculiartoGreatBritain.”[9]InSmithsview,therefore,theBritishleasingarrangement-afreeholdwithafixedrentandaleaseforlife-wasmorehighlydevelopedthanthoseinotherpartsofEurope.[10]
Althoughthemeaningofeconomicefficiencywasnotclarifieduntilmuchlater,Smithsideaofanalyzingthedevelopmentoflandtenuresystemsongroundsofmoregainfulresourceuseiscertainlyanimportantone;however,,theremayexistseveralformsofcontractualarrangementswhichimplythesameresourceuse.(Whydifferentcontractsarechosenwillbediscussedinthenextchapter.)Whenthesepropertylawsarealtered,mentistotracethealterationsinpropertylaws;andnot,asSmithdid,tointerpret(oradvocate)thechangeinlawsbytracingwhatmightappeartobedefectiveleasingarrangements.