The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 62)

غرض

عنوان

The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 62)

المحتوى

46
Although it was true that the Jewish community paid more in indirect taxes
as Metzer says because of its “higher propensity to import” and higher income, the
burden of that part of indirect taxes that includes import duties and excises on
necessities was much greater on the Arab peasantry and urban poor. One example
of the latter was the imposition of protective duties on flour and salt and lower
ones on wheat, the latter “introduced for the benefit of mechanized milling.” In
the case of salt, being a necessity but also used in traditional leather processing, a
Jewish European company, the Palestine Salt Company, was given a concession by
the government as a public utility company and protected by high import duties.
This meant that “the company was supplying salt to the public at between £P 7-7.5
a ton, whereas salt of a superior quality could be imported from Egypt at £P 1.5
per ton.” Thus, there was an important connection between some indirect taxes
and the commercial policies of the government.
Metzer’s discussion of the government’s commercial policies is most
peculiar. He acknowledges that the government was
motivated by “infant industry” arguments, and yielding to specific
pressures for protection and support, the government ultimately
exempted most raw materials and inputs used in material production
from import duties, and imposed varying protective tariffs on almost
all domestically manufactured goods [primarily affecting Jewish
European industry] (and on quite a few farm products as well),
[primarily Arab].”
“Smith, 170.
Ibid.
*Metzer, Divided Economy, 183.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

هو جزء من

The Dispossession of the Peasantry

تاريخ

٢٠٠٦

المنشئ

Riyad Mousa

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set

Theses رسائل ماجستير ودكتوراه