Editing Debt bondage (section)

=== Europe ===
====Classical antiquity====
Debt bondage was "quite normal" in [[classical antiquity]].<ref>{{cite book |first=Kurt A. |last=Raaflaub |title=The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece |page=47 | year=2004 |publisher=University of Chicago Press | isbn=978-0-226-70101-1}}</ref> The poor or those who had fallen irredeemably in debt might place themselves into bondage "voluntarily"—or more precisely, might be compelled by circumstances to choose debt bondage as a way to anticipate and avoid worse terms that their creditors might impose on them.<ref>{{harvnb|Raaflaub|2004|loc=pp. 32, 47 ''et passim.''}}</ref> In the [[Greco-Roman world]], debt bondage was a distinct legal category into which a free [[Person (law)|person]] might fall, in theory temporarily, distinguished from the pervasive practice of [[slavery in antiquity|slavery]], which included enslavement as a result of defaulting on debt. Many forms of debt bondage existed in both [[ancient Greece]] and [[ancient Rome]].<ref>{{cite book | last=de Ste. Croix | first=G.E.M. | title=The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests | publisher=Cornell University Press | year=1981 | isbn=978-0-8014-1442-8 |pages=136–137}}, noting that economic historian [[Moses Finley]] maintained "serf" was an incorrect term to apply to the social structures of classical antiquity.</ref>

====Ancient Greece====
Debt bondage was widespread in ancient Greece. The only [[polis|city-state]] known to have abolished it is [[ancient Athens|Athens]], as early as the [[Archaic Greece|Archaic period]] under the debt reform legislation of [[Solon]].<ref>{{harvnb|de Ste. Croix|1981|loc=pp. 137, 162}}</ref> Both enslavement for debt and debt bondage were practiced in [[Ptolemaic Egypt]].<ref name="Ste. Croix p. 165">{{harvnb|de Ste. Croix|1981|page=165}}</ref> By the [[Hellenistic period]], the limited evidence indicates that debt bondage had replaced outright enslavement for debt.<ref name="Ste. Croix p. 165"/>

The most onerous debt bondage was various forms of ''paramonē'', "[[indentured servitude|indentured labor]]." As a matter of law, a person subjected to ''paramonē'' was categorically free, and not a slave, but in practice his freedom was severely constrained by his servitude.<ref name="Ste. Croix p. 169">{{harvnb|de Ste. Croix|1981|page=169}}</ref> Solon's reforms occurred in the context of [[Athenian democracy|democratic politics at Athens]] that required clearer distinctions between "free" and "slave"; as a perverse consequence, [[chattel slavery]] increased.<ref>{{harvnb|Raaflaub|2004|p=49}}</ref>

The selling of one's own child into slavery is likely in most cases to have resulted from [[extreme poverty]] or debt, but strictly speaking is a form of chattel slavery, not debt bondage. The exact legal circumstances in Greece, however, are more poorly documented than in ancient Rome.<ref name="Ste. Croix p. 169"/>

====Ancient Rome====
{{Main|Nexum}}

''[[Nexum]]'' was a debt bondage contract in the early [[Roman Republic]]. Within the [[Roman law|Roman legal system]], it was a form of ''[[mancipatio]]''. Though the terms of the contract would vary, essentially a free man pledged himself as a bond slave (''nexus'') as surety for a loan. He might also hand over his son as collateral. Although the bondsman might be subjected to humiliation and abuse, as a [[Roman citizenship|legal citizen]] he was supposed to be exempt from [[corporal punishment]]. ''Nexum'' was abolished by the ''[[Lex Poetelia Papiria]]'' in 326 BC, in part to prevent abuses to the physical integrity of citizens who had fallen into debt bondage.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Slavery and economy in ancient Rome|last=McKrause|first=Stanford|publisher=Brainy Bookstore Mckrause}}</ref>

[[Roman historiography|Roman historians]] illuminated the abolition of ''nexum'' with a traditional story that varied in its particulars; basically, a ''nexus'' who was a handsome but upstanding youth suffered [[sexual harassment]] by the holder of the debt. In one version, the youth had gone into debt to pay for his father's funeral; in others, he had been handed over by his father. In all versions, he is presented as a model of virtue. Historical or not, the cautionary tale highlighted the incongruities of subjecting one free citizen to another's use, and the legal response was aimed at establishing the citizen's right to liberty ''(libertas)'', as distinguished from the [[Slavery in ancient Rome|slave]] or [[infamia|social outcast]].<ref name="Roman Republic 1971 pp. 56-57">{{cite book | last=Brunt | first=P.A. |author-link=Peter Brunt | title=Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic | publisher=Chatto and Windus | series=Ancient culture and society | year=1971 | isbn=978-0-7011-1630-9 | pages=56–57}}</ref>

[[Cicero]] considered the abolition of ''nexum'' primarily a political maneuver to appease the common people ''([[plebs]])'': the law was passed during the [[Conflict of the Orders]], when plebeians were struggling to establish their rights in relation to the hereditary privileges of the [[Patrician (ancient Rome)|patricians]]. Although ''nexum'' was abolished as a way to secure a loan, debt bondage might still result after a debtor defaulted.<ref name="Roman Republic 1971 pp. 56-57"/>

====European Middle Ages====
While [[serfdom]] under [[feudalism]] was the predominant political and economic system in [[Europe]] in the [[High Middle Ages]], persisting in the [[Austrian Empire]] till 1848 and the [[Russian Empire]] until 1861 ([[Serfdom in Russia|details]]),<ref>{{cite encyclopedia| last=Wright | first=Thomas Edmund Farnsworth | title=Oxford Dictionary of World History | date=2015 | isbn=978-0-19-176572-8 | chapter=serf | publisher=Oxford University Press |chapter-url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199685691.001.0001/acref-9780199685691-e-3313?rskey=SbsmsH&result=3362}}</ref> debt bondage (and slavery) provided other forms of unfree labour.

====Russian Empire====
{{See also|Serfdom in Russia#Abolition|Emancipation Reform of 1861#Effects on the serfs}}

Throughout the reign of [[Alexander II of Russia|Tsar Alexander II]], Russia was [[Alexander II of Russia#Reign|dominated by reforms]]; Serfdom [[Emancipation Reform of 1861|was abolished]] in 1861 after decades of subjection, granting over 23 million serfs their freedom as well as obtaining citizenship, marriage without permission, property rights along with business ownership. This was well received amongst the peasantry, whom labelled Alexander "the Liberator". This act was the first and most paramount of [[Government reforms of Alexander II of Russia|major reforms enacted]] during his reign. However, serfs became obligated towards labouring on the land in order to gain private ownership, thus rendering them heavily indebted. Moreover, the [[Industrialization in the Russian Empire#Industrial development in the second half of the 19th century|outward urban migration]] of the population from rural areas only made this more difficult to achieve, with peasants enduring similar, albeit greatly reduced, hardship as a result.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The 1861 Emancipation of the Serfs |url=https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-1861-emancipation-of-the-serfs/ |access-date=2024-08-22 |website=www.courses.lumenlearning.com |language=en-GB}}</ref>

Despite that, peasants were enabled to purchase private property, and therefore begin soil cultivation for their own behalf, although this was also somewhat reduced by former tenants being forced to provide land redemption payments for the next several decades,<ref>{{Cite journal |title=The Economic Effects of the Abolition of Serfdom: Evidence from the Russian Empire |url=http://www.cefir.ru/papers/WP237.pdf |access-date=2024-08-22 |journal=American Economic Review | date=2018 | doi=10.1257/aer.20160144 |language=en-US | last1=Markevich | first1=Andrei | last2=Zhuravskaya | first2=Ekaterina | volume=108 | issue=4–5 | pages=1074–1117 }}</ref> whilst simultaneously being restricted to purchasing less fertile and profitable land without nobility interests. Furthermore, peasants were often overcharged for land beyond [[market value]],<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Freed Serfs without Free People: Manumission in Imperial Russia |url=https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/118/4/1029/43573 |access-date=2024-08-22 |journal=The American Historical Review |date=2013 |doi=10.1093/ahr/118.4.1029 |language=en-GB |last1=Smith |first1=A. K. |volume=118 |issue=4 |pages=1029–1051 }}</ref> often varying from every location, with almost all the peasantry whom obtained greater land amounts being within the [[Congress Poland]], in order to weaken the dominant [[Szlachta|Polish nobility]] [[Nobility privileges in Poland|power structure]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=This land is my land |url=https://www.aeaweb.org/research/serfdom-abolition-russia-19th-century |access-date=2024-08-22 |website=www.aeaweb.org |language=en-US}}</ref> It has also been documented that many serfs remained heavily indebted, bound by their superior landlords, having acquired no significant liberty irrespective of the abolition reforms that were recently introduced. Nobility privileges were not affected, and, if anything, debatably strengthened.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=The Social and Economic Impact of the Emancipation of the Serfs in Russia |url=https://publications.essex.ac.uk/esj/article/id/193/ |access-date=2024-08-22 |website=www.publications.essex.ac.uk |date=2010 |doi=10.5526/esj139 |language=en-UK |last1=Hobart |first1=Louis |volume=2 |issue=2 }}</ref>

Regardless of the Tsar's intentions, some have argued that the emancipation enactment merely benefitted the landowners as an extension of [[Russian nobility|the nobility]], in that dedicated compensation secured for the aforementioned greatly overestimated market value of their property. They also determined what they would surrender, with partial remains distributed between the serfs. Extortionately priced land meant that peasants only bought narrow areas difficult to preserve with barely any food or revenue.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ending Feudalism: The 150th Anniversary of the Emancipation of the Serfs |url=https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2011/02/ending-feudalism-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-emancipation-of-the-serfs?lang=en&center=russia-eurasia |access-date=2024-08-22 |website=[[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]] |language=en-GB}}</ref> Landowners received additional financial compensation for land plots they yielded to serfs, contrary to the peasants having to pay for their own plots of land. This led to serfs having to borrow loans as well as mortgages off the [[State Bank of the Russian Empire|State Bank]] and their landlords, the vast majority of which originating from the former issuer. In order to alleviate the heavy burden, they were tied towards labouring until their debts repaid; [[Debt consolidation]] was entirely absent.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Emancipation of the Russian Serfs, 1861 |url=https://www.historytoday.com/archive/emancipation-russian-serfs-1861 |access-date=2024-08-22  |website=www.historytoday.com |language=en-GB}}</ref> Land inventories were seized with allotments and payments calculated, since it legally belonged to the landlord, as peasants with government loans were required to redeem allotments from landlords, although redemption payment durations were almost half a century. Within the first 20 years of emancipation, almost all of their peasants had received their land, leading to redemptions becoming mandatory, although allotments were adequate enough. Notwithstanding of this, the domestic population explosion that occurred for the remainder of the 19th century exposed peasants to increased economic difficulties.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Property Rights, Serfdom, and Institutional Divergence |url=https://broadstreet.blog/2022/04/25/property-rights-serfdom-and-institutional-divergence/ |access-date=2024-08-22 |website=www.broadstreet.blog |date=25 April 2022 |language=en-GB}}</ref>