Military occupation of Syria cost more than it returned in revenue

Evidence

With regard to the economic benefits of the occupation of Syria, for example, which was arguably the wealthiest and most productive province that Mehmed Ali annexed, it was eventually realized that there were serious problems in reaping the economic fruits of the occupation. It was suggested, for example, that in an attempt to “increase the productivity” of the province the local peasants should be given the freedom to plant whichever commodities they wanted. Towards the end of the occupation when these problems were still being strongly felt, Ibrahim suggested to his father that taxes be reduced so as to encourage people to be more productive. Mehmed Ali responded by saying that “to increase our revenues we should [encourage the population to] work harder rather than lower our taxes.” He added that he could not accept that the tax burden on the Syrians was heavy since “what we have taken is like an ear from a camel. We should have done as the Europeans do and collected [a flat rate] of 5 percent.” This was after he had received conclusive and clear reports confirming what has been feared all along, namely, that the cost of maintaining the army in Syria was not covered by the revenue raised there. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 200 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Egypt’s superior revenue extraction enabled the invasion of Syria. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1545; Egyptian occupation of Syria cost more than its revenue despite its wealth — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 200

Broader Connections