Economic Implications of the Buddhist Ideal of Kingship

Abstract

Early Burmese agriculture in the dry zone south of Pagan depended on artificial irrigation,¹ which may have presupposed traditions of considerable state control over agricultural economy and central planning on “the hydraulic pattern.”² “The king’s claim to the personal service of all the people” was perpetuated in taxation (which “was not a levy on property or income as such” but rather compensation for this universal service claim).³ Through such taxation in kind and services (money economy not being much developed while Burma — aside from Arakan and unlike India — had no coins⁴ until 1861), the state apparently exercised great influence on production.⁵ The Burmese monarchy controlled foreign trade and maintained monopolies of the main natural products of the empire: teak, petrol-oil, precious stones, silver and amber (before 1867 also cotton), monopolies that were delegated or farmed out to private merchants. If they were classified as “Rich Men,” a part of their property was periodically taken by the King.⁶ Such institutions fitted traditional notions about the obligations of the ideal Buddhist king: to give seeds and feed to those who cultivate agricultural lands and keep cattle, to supply funds to those who engage in trade, to supply wages and upkeep to those who serve the ruler.⁷