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.