OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION’S PERCEPTION OF PROFITEERING (İHTIKÂR) AND ITS PUNISHMENT

The Ottoman administration had always been keen on coping with profiteering, a practice disrupting the balance of markets via increasing the prices of the commodities subject to production and consumption. And it had always been in an uncompromising and uninterrupted struggle against it. In this pro...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Muharrem ÖZTEL
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	DE EN FR TR
Publicado:	Fırat University 2019
Materias:	profiteering profitering crime exiling conviction of the castle (kalebend) Social Sciences H Social sciences (General) H1-99
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/b72ef26e0c4a4485a943577ef05ae548
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:b72ef26e0c4a4485a943577ef05ae548
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:b72ef26e0c4a4485a943577ef05ae5482021-11-24T09:21:09ZOTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION’S PERCEPTION OF PROFITEERING (İHTIKÂR) AND ITS PUNISHMENT2148-416310.9761/jasss_334https://doaj.org/article/b72ef26e0c4a4485a943577ef05ae5482019-08-01T00:00:00Zhttps://jasstudies.com/index.jsp?mod=tammetin&makaleadi=1990559570_%C3%B6ztelmuharrem_TT.pdf&key=26316https://doaj.org/toc/2148-4163The Ottoman administration had always been keen on coping with profiteering, a practice disrupting the balance of markets via increasing the prices of the commodities subject to production and consumption. And it had always been in an uncompromising and uninterrupted struggle against it. In this process some methods came to be prominent for identifying profiteering and increasing prices due to scarcity of goods came to be the most significant indicator. The profiteering in the provinces done on any commodity had been complained to the administrative units in charge by tradesmen or ordinary consumers. Also, it became the subject of the petitions sent. When a profiteering crime had been determined, people committed this offense had been exposed to some punishments getting gradually heavier according to the extent of the crime, from injunction to exile and eventually to the conviction of the castle, and aiming to correct the actor as well as constitute a deterrent to the public. Distance of the places allotted to punishment varied as well depending on the degree of the crime. Such islands as Tenedos, Mytilene, Chios, Crete, Rhodes and Cyprus, Trabzon as well as some coastal castles such as Trebizond and Sinop were common places where the criminals were sent to face their penalties.Muharrem ÖZTELFırat Universityarticleprofiteeringprofitering crimeexilingconviction of the castle (kalebend)Social SciencesHSocial sciences (General)H1-99DEENFRTRJournal of Academic Social Science Studies , Vol 5, Iss 13, Pp 397-420 (2019)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	DE EN FR TR
topic	profiteering profitering crime exiling conviction of the castle (kalebend) Social Sciences H Social sciences (General) H1-99
spellingShingle	profiteering profitering crime exiling conviction of the castle (kalebend) Social Sciences H Social sciences (General) H1-99 Muharrem ÖZTEL OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION’S PERCEPTION OF PROFITEERING (İHTIKÂR) AND ITS PUNISHMENT
description	The Ottoman administration had always been keen on coping with profiteering, a practice disrupting the balance of markets via increasing the prices of the commodities subject to production and consumption. And it had always been in an uncompromising and uninterrupted struggle against it. In this process some methods came to be prominent for identifying profiteering and increasing prices due to scarcity of goods came to be the most significant indicator. The profiteering in the provinces done on any commodity had been complained to the administrative units in charge by tradesmen or ordinary consumers. Also, it became the subject of the petitions sent. When a profiteering crime had been determined, people committed this offense had been exposed to some punishments getting gradually heavier according to the extent of the crime, from injunction to exile and eventually to the conviction of the castle, and aiming to correct the actor as well as constitute a deterrent to the public. Distance of the places allotted to punishment varied as well depending on the degree of the crime. Such islands as Tenedos, Mytilene, Chios, Crete, Rhodes and Cyprus, Trabzon as well as some coastal castles such as Trebizond and Sinop were common places where the criminals were sent to face their penalties.
format	article
author	Muharrem ÖZTEL
author_facet	Muharrem ÖZTEL
author_sort	Muharrem ÖZTEL
title	OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION’S PERCEPTION OF PROFITEERING (İHTIKÂR) AND ITS PUNISHMENT
title_short	OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION’S PERCEPTION OF PROFITEERING (İHTIKÂR) AND ITS PUNISHMENT
title_full	OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION’S PERCEPTION OF PROFITEERING (İHTIKÂR) AND ITS PUNISHMENT
title_fullStr	OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION’S PERCEPTION OF PROFITEERING (İHTIKÂR) AND ITS PUNISHMENT
title_full_unstemmed	OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION’S PERCEPTION OF PROFITEERING (İHTIKÂR) AND ITS PUNISHMENT
title_sort	ottoman administration’s perception of profiteering (i̇htikâr) and its punishment
publisher	Fırat University
publishDate	2019
url	https://doaj.org/article/b72ef26e0c4a4485a943577ef05ae548
work_keys_str_mv	AT muharremoztel ottomanadministrationsperceptionofprofiteeringihtikaranditspunishment
_version_	1718415191726620672

OTTOMAN ADMINISTRATION’S PERCEPTION OF PROFITEERING (İHTIKÂR) AND ITS PUNISHMENT

Ejemplares similares