Draft. Please do not quote without the author’s consent. Wealth and Inequality in Ottoman Bursa, 1500-1840 1 Hülya Canbakal Sabancı University New Perspectives in Ottoman Economic History, Yale University November 9 th 10 th , 2012 Abstract This paper is based on the preliminary findings of a larger project on wealth and wealth distribution in seven Ottoman cities in 1500 1840. The project explores, through probate inventories, economic performance in different urban settings and the factors of variation with specific reference to the relationship between capital accumulation, growth and the distribution of wealth. One of the most common paradigms that address the latter being the Kuznets hypothesis, in what follows, I discuss data from Bursa, one of the project cities, in light of what van Zanden calls the ‘super Kuznets curve’, namely, the rising trend of inequality observed in western Europe in the early modern period (van Zanden, 1995). Preliminary analysis points to a similar trend in Bursa. We also identify two secular cycles of population and wealth with accompanying surges of inequality in the 16 th and 18 th centuries. While these findings provide a new axis along which Ottoman history can be located within global early modernity, they also point to the limitations of the Ottoman economic experience which appears trapped in a regime of unsustainable growth until the end of the period examined. In his 1995 article titled “Tracing the beginning of Kuznets Curve,” van Zanden examines the rising trend of inequality that appears to characterize economies in Western Europe from the 15 th century onwards. He identifies in this trend the origins of a ‘super Kuznets curve’ that links early modern growth to 19th century industrialization, during which the distribution of wealth/income in several countries is known to have deteriorated. This rising trend of inequality is reversed in later stages of development, thus generating the well known inverted U shaped curve of wealth/income distribution.
1 Research for this project has been funded by TUBITAK, Turkish Agency for Scientific and Technological Research, 2008 2012. I am grateful to my colleague Alpay Filiztekin for his invaluable guidance and help with the statistics of this project. I also thank Aysel Danaci Yildiz and Ahmet Arslanturk for their diligent work as research associates. Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
The study of price movements and wages in the early modern period too lends support to the idea of a ‘super Kuznets curve’, at least in Europe. Population pressure changes the relative prices of both consumer goods and factors of production to the detriment of low end consumers and wage earners in most of Western Europe. Particularly, two surges of inequality are observed in the 16 th and the 18 th centuries (Allen, 2001; Fischer, 1996; Hoffman, Jacks, Levin & Lindert, 2002; Milanovich, Lindert ve Williamson, 2007). The overlap between these surges and secular cycles –primarily about population, and even K waves –primarily about innovation and production, is quite remarkable. But the scholarship interested in historical cycles, mostly in the fields of historical sociology, political science and international relations, treats inequality only marginally (Goldstone, 1991; Berry, 1991; Modelski & Thompson 1996; Neumann, 1997; Alexander, 2002; Turchin and Nefedov, 2009). On the quantitative history side, from which comes our information on inequality, the attention paid to the question of ‘Divergence’ prioritizes an ultimately linear approach to the early modern period, as is also the case in the Kuznets paradigm. Today though, the re reversal of the Kuznets curve since the 1980s suggests that the smoothing of differences in living standards apace with industrialization, formerly considered to be a linear and unique process, may have more in common with pre modern cycles of growth than the idea of the specificity of capitalist industrialization allows us to think. Hence, a joint or layered focus on medium and long term change in the early modern era may prove rewarding. The findings of the present project on wealth in the Ottoman Empire, on which this paper is based, indicates that a joint temporal perspective is rewarding because it exposes the problem of sustainable growth, incidentally, no less relevant today. The current project examines economic performance in seven Ottoman cities in Anatolia and Macedonia. The relationship between capital accumulation, growth and inequality and the reasons behind regional diversity constitute the core of the investigation, hence the relevance of the above paradigm. In this paper, I focus on Bursa, the largest of the project cities and the one with an uninterrupted data set from 1500 to 1840. Preliminary examination of Bursa data indicates a net increase in inequality from 1500 to 1840. It also reveals two rounds of fluctuations in wealth and inequality, one peaking in the 16 th century, the other one peaking in the 18 th century, or peaking in the
2 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal late 17 th century and staying in a plateau for a century, depending on which inequality measure we look at. Thus, we observe a parallelism between the trends of inequality in Bursa and those in west European economies of the period. This is noteworthy because the first part of the Kuznets hypothesis is the more tenuous one, for there appears to be more diversity in the way early growth affected distribution than did growth in later stages of development. Studies on the industrialization process indicate that several factors, factor endowments, the nature of growth as well as its institutional framework could influence the shape of the distribution curve (Kaelble & Thomas, 1991; Morrisson & Snyder, 2000; Craig & Fisher, 2000; Saito, 2005; Piketty, 2006; Prados de la Escosura, 2007; Milanovich, Lindert & Williamson, 2008). One would not expect less diversity during early modern growth despite the fact that some trends appear common across Eurasia. Recent debates in comparative studies indicate that we are now moving towards a more subtle understanding of diversity within common trends. The Data The project is based on probate inventories of the respective cities. Ottoman probate records provide lists and estimated value or sale price of the realty and personalty owned by the deceased. Personalty includes financial assets (cash and credits) as well as all moveable physical property, and realty includes urban and rural buildings and land. The inventories also list debts owed by the deceased, thus offering a full account of the net worth of the probate population. Therefore, it would be fair to state that Ottoman probate records are superior to some of their counterparts in their comprehensiveness. Yet, like their counterparts, they are biased. Most commonly, they underrepresent women, the younger population, rural population, and possibly, the lower socio occupational classes. Non Muslims too appear to be underrepresented in most of the cities studied in this project, but not all, which reflects the varied legal culture in different localities of the empire. At the same time, using the probate inventories as a proxy for real wealth of the probate and non probate population alike, one has to acknowledge the uncertainties regarding inter vivos transfers, underreporting or misevaluation as well as possible changes over time in patterns of registration. With all these caveats, probate records still stand out as our best tool to study wealth and its distribution in the Ottoman Empire
3 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal before the 19 th century, with the exception of cadastral surveys for the 15 th and 16 th centuries. The discussion in this paper is limited to men with urban residence, that is, a total of 1,301 probates (Table 1). Although the major trends in urban male wealth are not very different from those we observe in connection with urban wealth in general, it is safer at this point to limit the analysis in terms of gender and residence, for these two factors appear to be important in determining wealth. 2 This is a simple way of eliminating some of the biases inherent in the database without having to deal with estate multipliers for probates belonging to different population groups. In the case of Ottoman probates, multipliers have to be established mostly from scratch as demographics of the Ottoman society are much understudied. That task will be undertaken at a later stage in the project. In order to capture medium term economic fluctuations, the data is organized in nine sub periods of 20 years each, with 20 years gap in between. In other words, findings from each sub period stand for 40 year averages. We start at 1500 because, firstly, it is a common benchmark year in early modern studies –although it is clear in the case of Bursa that we need to go further back in time to identify the beginnings of the upward trend that we observe in the 16 th century. 3 Secondly, we have probates from more than one city from 1500 onwards. Our terminus is 1840, roughly the beginning of a new administrative and economic regime effected through reforms and commercial treaties with European powers. Table 1 indicates the chronological structure of the study and the sample size. Unless otherwise stated, all values reflect net wealth (untrimmed) and are deflated according to Pamuk (2000) Istanbul Consumer Price Index (ICPI). For sampling details and price indexes, please refer to the Appendix.
2 Decomposition of inequality in the raw database for all cities indicates that gender can account for up to 44% and residence can account for up to 24% of the total inequality. 3 Bursa was damaged by the Timurid army in 1402 and the subsequent power struggles among the Ottoman princes and the elite. Judging by travel accounts, the damages were repaired and the city had become a major international emporium towards the middle of the 15 th century (Lowry, 2004). 4 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
Table 1. The Database, number of observations Seven Bursa Sample cities Urban men Urban Rural Rural TOTAL women men women 1500 1520 603 183 170 16 13 382 1540 1560 516 107 59 91 33 290 1580 1600 342 88 60 35 14 197 1620 1640 498 134 56 12 5 207 1660 1680 952 179 132 9 3 323 1700 1720 1,164 123 82 19 3 227 1740 1760 2,438 163 128 23 10 324 1780 1800 2,259 172 143 20 5 340 1820 1840 2,262 152 102 38 16 308 TOTAL 11,034 1,301 932 263 102 2,598 The city of Bursa Bursa is located on the south coast of the Sea of Marmara. It was one of the principal cities of Byzantine Mysia at the time of the early Ottoman expansion westward. It served as the first capital of the Ottoman state (1326 1402) and thrived under its new lords. Transfer of the capital to the city of Edirne in the 15 th century, did not reduce Bursa’s economic importance. It flourished on long distance trade in spices, sugar, dyes, soap and perfumes, and most importantly, silk. The city was initially an entrepot for Persian silk which was either directly reexported or locally woven and exported to European as well as domestic markets. In the early 16 th century, reportedly there were more than 1000 looms in the city, all in private hands, and commonly operated by slaves (Đnalcık, 1953 54; Çizakça, 1980). Despite many fluctuations in its fortunes during the period covered in this study, Bursa remained one of the most important centers of commerce and manufacture in the Ottoman Empire, and it still is such a center. It was also one of the most populated cities with a population that varied between c. 30,000 75,000 from the late 15 th century to the middle of the 19 th century, by which time several cities of comparable size had emerged. Wealth in Bursa
5 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
According to probate inventories, nominal mean net wealth held by the male residents of the city increased about 40 fold from the beginning of the 16 th century to the first half of the 19 th century. However, this meant no real increase. Due to several episodes of devaluation in the period studied, average male probate owner in 1820 40 was significantly poorer than in 1500 20 (Figure 2). Real mean wealth dropped from 110,000 akçes in 1500 20 to 60,000 akçes in 1820 40, i.e. slightly over half of its former value. We roughly observe the same ratios of change in trimmed wealth as well. Figure 1. Net wealth, urban males, untrimmed (ICPI, 1740 1760=1)
Nevertheless, economic change in Bursa between these two sub periods was anything but linear or unidirectional. We observe two waves of change in wealth. First we observe an upward trend in the 16 th century which probably starts in the 15 th century. It levels until 1640, then, takes a downturn in the second half of the century. The second wave starts at the beginning of the 18 th century and peaks in mid century. This period appears particularly prosperous with a mean male estate 160% larger than in 1500 20, which implies a growth rate of ‰2.4 for 1500 1800. From 1780 1800 on, mean wealth takes an accelerating downturn. 4 Due to uncertainties regarding the accuracy of probate records as well as the fact that the estimations here are not based on a sample that represents the whole population, 4 Gross wealth follows a similar trajectory with the exception of 1620 40 where we see a further rise in mean wealth. 6 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal we cannot take our figures at their face value as an indicator of general economic growth (or contraction). However, they appear reliable as an indicator of general trends since they are largely in agreement with other sources of information, including Pamuk (2007), which estimates a total of 26% or ‰0.7 annual per capita growth for 1500 1820. Having said this, we should also note that preliminary analysis of the data does not say much about the nature of likely economic growth. For example, the composition of the probates does not suggest any increase in the share of capital stock in times of growth or vice versa (Table 2). Further, the share of capital goods in total wealth is rather low –although, in view of the fact that probates generally have a high share of financial assets, low visibility of physical capital investments may also be due to liquidation of productive property in late life. Table 2. Share of capital goods in urban male probates Capital goods Capital goods + cash 1500 1520 0.12 0.26 1540 1560 0.12 0.20 1580 1600 0.13 0.21 1620 1640 0.14 0.27 1660 1680 0.09 0.25 1700 1720 0.13 0.23 1740 1760 0.08 0.24 1780 1800 0.07 0.28 1820 1840 0.10 0.26 Undoubtedly, organizational innovation too can increase the output without additional investment in physical capital. We have some evidence regarding the relevance of increased organizational efficiency in agriculture, for example, in Manisa and Manastir (Bitola), two other project cities. Preliminary examination of the data from these two cities indicates increases in mean wealth in the 18th century, during which time the two districts are known to have benefited from the spread of commercial agriculture and reorganization of labor and management. Unfortunately, we need to wait for new monographic studies on Bursa for comparable information.
7 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
Inequality measures The inequality measures examined for this paper are percentile ratios, the generalized entropy class (GE(0), GE(1), GE(2)) 5 and Gini. All measures indicate a high level of inequality. Except for the very first sub period and 1620 40 for which we observe a Gini coefficient of 0.75 and 0.71 respectively, Gini in Bursa stays mostly in the high 0.80s (Figure 2). This is higher than inequality in any Ottoman city so far studied (Establet, Pascual & Raymond, 1994; Canbakal, 2009; Co gel & Ergene, 2012). Notably, the trimmed sample Gini scores are nearly the same as in the untrimmed sample in peak periods. The sub period of 1660 80 calls for special attention because it is the only period when wealth and Gini move distinctly in opposite direction. As noted earlier, there is no inevitable positive link between rising wealth and inequality but our data does indicate a correlation if mildly. 6 We should also note the large difference between rural and urban inequality. For example, according to Co gel (2008), which is based on cadastral surveys, Gini in the rural periphery of Bursa was 0.51 in 1573. According to our findings, urban Gini was somewhere between 0.83 0.86. As for long term change in inequality, the overall trend is slightly upward (Figure 2 3). The Gini coefficient for net wealth rises from 0.71 to 0.81 between 1500 20 and 1820 40. Percentile ratios and GE(0) and GE(1) indicate minimal net change over three and a half centuries, but GE(2) rises from 3.59 to 5.56. More striking is the fluctuations observed in the course of these three and a half centuries. All measures indicate a peak in the middle or second half of the sixteenth century (1540 1600) and all but Gini indicate a peak in the beginning or middle of the eighteenth century (1700 1760). The second peak in the Gini index comes in 1660 80 and stays in a plateau until the end of the 18 th century. It is also clear that the greater part of the observed inequality is related to differences between the upper end and the lower end as well as differences within the top percentiles.
5 GE(0) is the mean log deviation, GE(1) is the Theil index, and GE(2) is half the squared coefficient of variation. Each of these measures is sensitive to differences in different parts of the distribution. The higher the parameter, the more sensitive the measure is to differences among higher wealth/income groups. 6 Also, it should be noted that the new model of pre industrial inequality proposed in Milanovic, Lindert & Williamson (2007) implies that growth inevitably expands the ‘inequality possibility frontier’ where subsistence income/wealth remains the same. 8 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
At the same time, largest fluctuations occur at the top end (Figure 4). As is common in pre industrial wealth structures, Pen’s parade has a very long tail. Figure 2. Gini coefficient, net wealth
Figure 3. Generalized Entropy Index (2), net wealth
9 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
Figure 4. Percentile ratios, gross wealth
Let us now turn to the available literature on Ottoman and Bursan economic history and see how these findings fit in. Bursa Wealth Data and the Ottoman Context The 16 th century in Ottoman history is known to be a time of economic as well as demographic growth. Bursa was no exception in this regard and our findings are as expected. Mean wealth increased 75% and population increased 130% from 30,000 to 70,000 in less than a century (Figure 5). As we have already seen, this bright picture was not so bright for the majority because inequality too increased (GE2, from 3.59 to 5.46; Gini, from 0.75 to 0.83). This observation is in line with Özmucur & Pamuk (2002), which finds a decline in real wages in the 16 th century. Both observations call for a bottom up revised understanding of this ‘magnificent’ century.
10 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
Figure 5. Population estimates for Bursa 7
Towards the end of the century and in the early decades of the next, Ottoman central regions and Anatolia further to the east experienced what Goldstone (1991) characterizes as ‘state breakdown’ occurring in the ‘disintegrative phase of the secular cycle’ in Turchin and Nefedov’s terminology (2009). This was a period of high inflation and both elite and popular level political instability. Bursa had its share of this multifarious crisis. Adverse circumstance in the countryside triggered immigration. Between 1520 and 1573, village population in the district doubled as agricultural productivity declined as much as 50% (Co gel, 2007).8 The building of neighborhood gates in 1577 suggests that the pressure of immigration was thought to threaten urban security (Inalcik, 1992, 447) While received knowledge plays down the social aspect of the Celali rebellions 9 (with the pioneering exception of Akdağ), population pressure in 7 Sixteenth century estimates are based on cadastral and other tax surveys. Seventeenth century estimates are based on tax house figures and highly speculative. Eighteenth century estimate are based on travel accounts. 1830 figure is from the first census of the city, and the 1892 figure is from the yearbook. Ergenç (2006); Gerber (1988); Lowry (2004); Çizakça (1995); Panzac (1983). Also Inalcik Bursa EI2, 1334 35. 8 The role of climatic conditions in this decline is not clear. While the impact of the Little Ice Age on Ottoman lands is increasingly recognized, its chronology and regional variation is not yet known well (White, 2012). There is also evidence of extreme weather in Bursa in 1614, but we do not know how far back adverse conditions can be traced (Orbay, 2011). 9 Celali revolts affected Anatolia and northern Syria in the 16 th and 17 th centuries. Each episode had a slightly different agenda and social profile of rebels, starting with the socio religious revolts 11 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
Bursa region must partly account for peasants’ flight and cooperation with the rebels. Undoubtedly, others fled the insecurity that rebel groups created in the countryside. The city of Bursa itself was attacked by rebels Sa’id i Arab and Kalenderoğlu in 1607 1609 and possibly, before that, by Karayazıcı in 1598 1601. According to travelogues, Kalenderoğlu’s forces based themselves in Bursa for a while and then, burned and destroyed half of the city (Evliya Çelebi, 1999, 10; Ergenç, 2006, 104; Lowry, 2004, 96 97). This overlapped with a crisis in Bursa’s leading sector, the silk industry. Ottoman state’s every encounter with the Safavids put the Persian supply of raw silk in jeopardy. While in the 1580s, the price of raw silk increased much faster than that of silk cloth due to scarcity, several weavers were pushed out of business and silk cloth production declined. This situation continued until 1628 (Çizakça, 1980, 144). This episode of crisis is reflected in wealth data as a sharp decline in 1620 40 in the annual rate of growth, from ‰6 (in 1500 1600) to nearly zero. By now we notice the parallel movement of wealth and population which is estimated to have dropped by two thirds. 10 Considering this heavy demographic toll, one might expect to see an even heavier drop in wealth in this sub period –even if we took into account a lag for the capitalization of lowered income around the turn of the century. It is possible that our Istanbul based price deflator has a role here. The difficulties of the turn of the century crisis may not have been felt in Istanbul the way it was experienced in the provinces. In Istanbul, the state took special care to provision the market and keep food prices under control. Thus, the price index may have remained relatively low, giving us higher wealth figures than expected.11 Be that as it may, towards the end of our 20 year period, the devastation of the crisis must have been waning because Evliya Çelebi and other of the Kizilbash in the early 16 th century. Later episodes involved alienated fief holders, students, peasant youth. One major episode was suppressed by 1610, to be followed later in the century by large rebel armies led by provincial governors and other dignitaries. 10 According to a report by the French ambassador in Istanbul, the rebels “plundered one part of the city and killed more than two hundred or three hundred thousand people living there.” (Lowry, 2004, 97) As exaggerated as this estimate is, it reflects the extent of destruction perceived from outside. 11 Despite its other shortcomings, Bursa House Price Index (BHPI) may be more useful here than Istanbul Consumer Price Index. In fact, BHPI indicates a severe contraction in wealth in 1620 40, which may be due to high inflation in house prices (and rents) after the destruction of a large part of the city by the Celalis. 12 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal travellers who visited the city around 1640 do not paint a gloomy picture (Lowry, 2004, 90). The latter half of the 17 th century is generally thought to be a time of recovery for those parts of the empire that are known to have been affected by the late 16 th early 17 th century crisis. Pamuk (2007b) even found net growth in the 17 th century. In Bursa too, we are told, a new period of recovery set on in the latter part of the century (Çizakca, 1980, 148). Population rose but economic recovery is not yet reflected in 1660 80 data, which, on the contrary, indicates further decline (20%). We might be looking at the repercussions of the Cretan War (1645 69), plague (1675) as well as the activities of another generation of rebel leaders, Abaza Hasan Pasha and Sari Kenan Pasha in and around Bursa in 1658 (Lowry, 2004, 99; Uzunçar ılı, 1983, 387 88). Alternatively, again, there was a lag before increased income turned into wealth, or some other factor was at work. If, following the footsteps of earlier historiography, we must find a ‘Golden Age’ in Ottoman history before the 19 th century reform era, it has to be the 18 th century, wealth data tell us. That certainly is the case for Bursa (as well as for Manisa and Kayseri among the project cities). The development of sericulture in the region and slackening of the European demand for raw silk from Ottoman lands in the 18 th century, coupled with increased domestic demand for textiles due to population recovery in Ottoman lands, gave a boost to local cloth production in Bursa (Genç, 1975, 1984; Đnalcık 1979 80; Lowry, 2004). Accordingly, we observe that in less than a century, mean wealth increased by 85% (or at a rate of ‰6.7 per annum from 1660 80 to 1740 60). As Bursa prospered and according to guestimates population nearly reached its 16 th century level, inequality peaked according to most measures. The last three decades of the 18 th century, starting with the war with Russia in 1768, were a time of troubles for the Ottomans, like most of the rest of the world. It was also a time of natural disasters, famine, epidemics, rebellion and especially belligerent interstate relations, i.e. another ‘disintegrative phase’, to use Nefedov and Turchin’s terminology. As far as Ottoman history is concerned, the main focus of attention in the study of this period has been the political crisis of the center and not much else. As seen above, Bursa findings (as well as preliminary findings from Trabzon, Diyarbakir and
13 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
Antep, three of the project cities) signal the arrival of hard times for ordinary people in the provinces. We know that Bursa had its share of natural disasters in this period. It was hit by an earthquake in 1766, plague in 1778 and 1784 86, by a locust invasion, thus, scarcity, and a fire in 1796. The latter two may be due to extreme weather (Pansac, 1985, 608 609; Kılıç, 2002, 718 30; Lowry, 2004, 103). It should be noted that the potential damage of bad weather and other disasters depends on several factors, most important one being the ratio of key resources to population. An already low ratio would magnify its impact. In the same vein, the availability of excess population in the countryside that could move in after the urban population suffered from an epidemic, implied that within a short period, inequality would rise back to its former levels (Alfani, 2010). Inequality readings by different measures for Bursa in this period are diverse and call for a more detailed examination. Unfortunately, we do not have separate estimates of population for Bursa for this particular sub period. Mean wealth declined by 20%, but it was still twice the level of 1500. Mean wealth dropped even more sharply (74%) from 1780 1800 to 1820 40, that is within 40 years. Early 19 th century is not one of the better studied periods in Ottoman history, possibly because it has been considered transitional, a period in which the old regime seemed bankrupt and hopeless and the new regime was not born yet. Therefore, it is not easy to contexualize this drastic downswing in Bursa. Pamuk (2006) estimates 0.5% annual increase in per capita GDP in 1820 70 for ‘Turkey’. The figure is obtained by backward extrapolation and may need reconsideration especially for the earlier decades of the period. In any case, it is clear that extra caution is called for regarding the data we have from this period and the price deflator we use. We can think of adverse developments that can be associated with the contraction of estates in 1820 40. At least half of the city was destroyed by a massive fire in 1801. It is known that the city suffered from plague and cholera in 1814 and the 1830s. In fact, in the 1830s, the whole empire succumbed to the decease. These may well explain the population decline observed in the survey of 1831 (Lowry, 2004, 98 100; Panzac, 1985, 127). Political situation was not more auspicious. The liberalization of raw material exports after 1826, weakening of the guilds and distruption of the integrity of the domestic market due to territorial losses were developments that could potentially impair
14 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal the manufacturing sector, particularly the textiles (Quataert, 1997). Another important development in this regard was the introduction in 1835 of mechanized silk reeling by foreign investors in response to a new wave of European demand for raw silk. This shift may have put some hand reelers out of business (Çizakca, 1980, 151). What followed was a typical story of assymmetrical integration into the world market, accompanied later in the 19 th century by the flow of cheap European finished products into the city. Until republican times, Bursa’s growth was based on the production of raw silk for export while weaving was marginalized. Two general observations emerge from this survey. First, there was a positive, if moderate, link between wealth, inequality and population throughout the period examined. The correlation between population and inequality is 0.56 with Gini and 0.64 with GE(2). It is slightly weaker between wealth and inequality, but still positive (with Gini: 0.36; with GE(2): 0.40). The impact of population change on food prices and rents as well as wages has been pointed out in other studies (Alfani, 2010; Johnson, n/d; Lindert, 1978; Lindert & Williamson, 1983). Natural increase in urban population or immigration, irrespective of their reasons , could exert pressure on consumer prices and wages of unskilled labor. Thus, pre industrial urbanization generated circumstances similar to the early stages of industrialization, characterized by a (Kuznetsian) labor shift from the ‘traditional’ (agricultural/rural) sector to the ‘modern’ (industrial/urban), where, presumably, labor productivity, skills and incomes were higher. Secondly, sharp downswings in wealth and population observed after periods of high rate growth suggest that the city may have reached the limits of sustainability in two centuries or so, about the length of a standard secular cycle observed in Europe (Turchin and Nefedov, 2009, 15 17). I shall venture the hypothesis that if we went back to the early 15 th century, another two hundred years from the first major crisis we observe in our data series, we would find another slump. We already know about the domestic and interstate level political crisis of the early 15 th century and the physical damage it caused in the region (See note 2).
15 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
To identify the dynamic relationship between wealth, inequality and population as well as other variables, these observations have to be tested by further statistical analysis and detailed qualitative examination of the data. Conclusion Our preliminary findings indicate that the welfare of Bursans fluctuated dramatically in the three and a half centuries examined. While in the early 19 th century real wealth declined to half of its value in 1500, there were two episodes between these two dates during which mean wealth increased at a remarkable rate. Distribution of wealth too fluctuated accordingly, with two surges in inequality in the 16 th century and, more conspicuously, late 17 th century onwards. At the same time, there was a net increase in inequality from 1500 20 to 1820 40, which largely parallels changes in the distribution of wealth in western Europe. Thus, we can argue that the origins of the ‘super Kuznets curve’ of early modernity can be located in Ottoman lands too, at least, in the city of Bursa. We also observe that wealth, inequality and population followed roughly parallel trajectories that point to the presence of two secular cycles within a long term trend that might be mildly upward –though not reflected in our 1820 40 data. Sharp downswings that characterize the B phase of the cycles suggest that the threshold of sustainable growth had not yet been reached by 1840, the terminus of this study.
16 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
APPENDIX 1. The sample . There are 16,257 probate inventories in the court registers of Bursa from the targeted sub periods. We have combined stratified and random sampling in selecting the inventories to be included in the sample. (1) To make sure different size probates are represented in our sample proportionately, we classified the inventories in the registers (all probates) into three categories: small, medium, large, determined on the basis of the number of items each contains. (2) We determined the overall sample size for each period, targeting 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval. (3) Then, we determined, for each period, the number of probates in different categories that we needed in order to maintain the proportion we found in the registers. (4) We sampled each category randomly. (5) Trimming grossly changes the proportionate representation of the size categories in the sample. For example, ‘large probates’ make up about 2% of the total in three sub periods and trimming cuts it down by half. Therefore, the sample used in this paper is untrimmed. 2. Price Index . (a) All values have been converted to akçe using the conversion rates in Pamuk (2000a) and the inventories themselves. Occasionally, the two rates diverge in which case I have preferred the one given in the inventory. (b) Values have been deflated according to Pamuk’s (2000b) Istanbul Consumer Price Index (ICPI). There is no local consumer price index for Bursa. A relatively short list of consumer prices from Bursa from the last quarter of the 17 th century onwards can be found in Pamuk (2000b). These run closely parallel to Istanbul prices. The only continuous local price series currently available for the three and a half centuries studied is that of house prices, which I have constructed using the probate inventories. Sixteenth century inflation rates in this series and ICPI are comparable but the two sets diverge in the 17 th and 18 th centuries with house prices increasing at a two to three times higher rate. 12 The two sets converge again in the early 19 th century. Since the house owning
12 Özmucur & Pamuk (2002, 303) also guestimate that the rents doubled in relation to the general index from the 16 th to the early 20 th century. 17 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal probate population was on the average less than 40%, we have to assume that a considerable part of Bursans had to pay rents, which has to be ideally factored into the consumer price index. For now, we just have to assume that for most of the population in Bursa, the index was actually higher than it appears in the 17 th and 18 th centuries. Consequently, mean wealth figures for these two centuries would slightly decline if the price index was adjusted for rents. (c) I take 1740 60 as base period because I have data from all seven of the project cities from that date onwards.
18 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
BIBLIOGRAPHY Akdağ, Mustafa, Türk Halkının Dirlik ve Düzenlik Kavgası "Celâli Đsyanları" (Ankara: Barı Yayın Evi,1999). Alexander, Michael A., The Kondratiev Cycle, A Generational Interpretation (San Jose and New York: Writers Club Press: 2002) Alfani, G. “Wealth Inequalities and Population Dynamics in Northern Italy during the Early Modern Period”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History , 40/4 (2010), 513 549. Berry, Brian J., Long wave Rhythms in Economic Development and Political Behavior (Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1991). Canbakal, H., “Comparative Reflections on the Distribution of Wealth in Ayntab (17 th 18 th Centuries),” Oriens 37 (2009), 237 252. Co gel, Metin, “Estimating Rural Incomes and Inequality in the Ottoman Empire,” International Journal of Middle East Studies , 40/3 (August 2008), 374 375. , “Agricultural Productivity in the Early Ottoman Empire,” Research in Economic History 24 (2007), 161–187. Co gel, Metin M. & Boğac Ergene, "Inequality of Wealth in the Ottoman Empire: War, Weather, and Long term Trends in Eighteenth Century Kastamonu," Journal of Economic History , 2012(2): 308 31. Çizakça, Murat, “A Short History of the Bursa Silk Industry (1500 1900),” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 23/1/2 (Apr., 1980), 142 –152. , “Cash Waqfs of Bursa, 1555 1823,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 38/3 (1995), 313–354. Elbers, C. Lanjouw, P. Mistiaen, J. A. Özler, B., “Reinterpreting between group inequality,” Journal of Economic Inequality (2008) 6:231–245. Ergenç, Özer, 16. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2006) Ergene, Bogac¸ A. – Berker, Ali, “Wealth and Inequality in 18th Century Kastamonu: Estimations for the Muslim Majority,” International Journal of Middle East Studies , 40 (2008), 23–46. Establet, C., Pascual, J. P., Raymond, A., "La mesure de l’inégalité dans la société ottomane: utilisation de l’indice de Gini pour le Caire et Damas vers 1700," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 37 (1994). Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi 2. Kitap, Z. Kur un, S. A. Kahraman, Y. Dağlı, eds. (Istanbul: YKY, 1999)
19 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
Fischer, D. H., The Great Wave, Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Genç, Mehmet, "Osmanlı Maliyesinde Malikane Sistemi," Türkiye Đktisat Tarihi Semineri , ed. by O. Okyar (Ankara: Hacettepe University). Gerber, Haim, Economy and Society in an Ottoman City: Bursa, 1600 1700 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1988). Goldstone, J.A., Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991). Hoffman, Philip T. & Jacks, David S. & Levin, Patricia A. & Lindert, Peter H., "Real Inequality In Europe Since 1500," The Journal of Economic History , 62/2 (2002), 322 355. Đnalcik, Halil, “15. asır Türkiye Iktisadi ve Ictimai Tarihi Kaynaklan,” Đktisat Fakültesi Mecmuasi (1953 54), 51 67. , “Bursa,” Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: DVY, 1992), vol.6, 443 47. Johnson, H.B., “Malthus Confirmed? Being Some Reflections on The Changing Distribution of Wealth and Income in Portugal [1309 1789],” Unpublished, undated working paper, http://people.virginia.edu/~hbj8n/malthus.pdf. Kaelble, H. & M. Thomas, “Introduction,” Income Distribution in Historical Perspective , Y. S. Brenner, H. Kaelble, M. Thomas, eds., Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 1 56. Kılıç, Orhan, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Meydana Gelen Kıtlıklar“, Türkler , c. 10, (2002), 718 730. Lindert, Peter H., Fertility and Scarcity in America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978). , “Unequal English Wealth since 1670,” The Journal of Political Economy 94 (1986). , “Toward a comparative History of Income and Wealth Inequality,” in Y. S. Brenner, H. Kaelble, M. Thomas, eds., Income Distribution in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 212 31. Lindert, P. & Williamson, J., “English Workers’ Living Standards During the Industrial Revolution: A New Look,” Economic History Review (February 1983), 1 15. Lowry, Heath, Seyyahların Gözüyle Bursa (Istanbul: Eren, 2004). Milanovic, Branko, P. H. Lindert, & J. G. Williamson, “Measuring Ancient Inequality”. NBER Working Paper 13550, revised (2007); http://www.nber.org/papers/w13550 .
20 Wealth in Bursa, Canbakal
Modelski, G. & William R. Thompson, Leading Sectors and World Powers, the Coevolution of Global Politics and Economics (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1996). Neumann, M., The Rise and Fall of the Wealth of Nations (Cheltenham,UK: Edward Elgar, 1997). Orbay, Kayhan, Bursa’da Sultan II. Murad Vakfı’nın Mali Tarihi (1608 1641)," Đ.Ü. Đktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası , 61, (2011), 293 322. Özmucur, S. Pamuk, ., “Real Wages and Standards of Living in the Ottoman Empire, 1489 1914,” The Journal of Economic History 62/2 (2002). Pamuk, evket, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000a). , Đstanbul ve Diğer Kentlerde 500 Yıllık Fiyatlar ve Ücretler, 1469–1998 (Ankara: DĐE, 2000b) , “Estimating Economic Growth in the Middle East since 1820,” The Journal of Economic History , Vol. 66, No. 3 (Sep., 2006), pp. 809 828. , “Estimating GDP per capita for the Ottoman Empire in a European Comparative Framework, 1500 1820.” Paper at Seventh Conference of the European Historical Economics Society, Lund, Đsveç, 29 Haziran 1 Temmuz 2007. Panzac, Daniel, La peste dans l'empire Ottoman (1700 1850) (Louvain: Peeters, 1985). Quataert, D., “The Age of Reforms, 1812 1914,” in Halil Đnalcık with Donald Quataert, eds., An economic and social history of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1997, c1994), vol.2. Saito, O. “Pre Modern Economic Growth Revisited: Japan and the West,” London School of Economics, Working Papers of the Global Economic History, 16/05, June 2005. Turchin P. & Nefedov, S. A., Secular Cycles (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009). Uzunçar ılı, Đ.H., Osmanlı Tarihi (Ankara: TTK, 1983), vol.III/1. van Zanden, J., “Tracing the beginning of Kuznets Curve: Western Europe during the Early Modern Period,” Economic History Review XLVIII (1995), 1 23. White, S., The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
21