ABSTRACT

In this article, we examine compulsory labour on road construction in the world and in the Ottoman Empire with a specific emphasis on the implementation of Amele-i Mükellefe in the Ottoman Empire in a comparative way. The compulsory labour had been implemented in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Roman Empire and China during ancient ages. It was also a widespread phenomenon in Aztec and Inca societies and Europe since the Middle Ages. There can be seen some similar practices in the European colonies in Asia, America and Africa. It also had been implemented in North America in modern times. The case of Amele-i Mükellefe in Ottoman Empire, the compulsory working of civilians on the road construction, started in 1862 and ended in 1952 in modern Turkey. This paper spesifically focuses on the Ottoman Period. Because, the Amele-i Mükellefe was mainly institutionalized in this period, and inadequacy in detailed and comparative analyzes in the Ottoman labour and fiscal history literature. The article deals with the changes that occured over time, the major problems like corruption, and the legal arrangements that had been made to improve the implementation. In addition, the implementations in the world are compared with the Amele-i Mükellefe by taking into consideration criteria such as aim, rationale, development, implementation units and results. The most important source of legitimation of compulsory labour was the benefit principle for Ottoman central administration. The same principle applies for some European states, which are contemporary of the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, the effect of the welfare differences between the eastern and western provinces of the Ottoman Empire on the implementation of Amele-i Mükellefe is discussed. In this context, it is revealed that Ottomans, contrary to the European states, did not consider income distribution in compulsory labour. However, European states continued their compulsory labor practices in their colonies until the middle of the 20th century, without regard to income distribution. In addition to physical working, commutation money under the name of “tarik bedeli” rate of commutation had been offered as an alternative within the scope of the Amele-i Mükellefe implementation in some periods. In this study, the Amele-i Mükellefe implementation is not considered under the scope of taxation. It has been examined within the scope of compulsory public service considering the main goal of the central government and other criteria. In this article, it is argued that replacement of physical working with the commutation money gave the implementation a tax character