Inheritance is the practice of passing on
property,
titles,
debts,
rights and
obligations upon the
death of an
individual. It represents also to pass a characteristic, genetically. It has long played an important role in human societies. The rules of inheritance differ between societies and have changed over time.
Terminology [edit]
In law, an
heir is a person who is entitled to receive a share of the
decedent's (the person who died) property, subject to the rules of inheritance in the
jurisdiction where the decedent died or owned property at the time of death. In politics members of ruling noble houses may be heirs of a living person, called
heirs apparent. In law, however, a person does not become an heir before the death of the decedent, since the exact identity of the persons entitled to inherit is determined only then. There is a further concept of jointly inheriting, pending renunciation by all but one, which is called
coparceny.
In modern law, the terms
inheritance and
heir refer exclusively to the succession of property from a deceased descendent
intestate. Future recipients of property through a will are termed
beneficiaries, devisees, or
legatees.
History [edit]
Detailed studies have been made in the
anthropological and
sociological areas about customs of
patrilineal inheritance, where only male children can inherit. Some cultures also employ
matrilineal succession, where property can only pass along the female line, most commonly going to the sister's sons of the (male) decedent; but also, in some societies, from the mother to her daughters. Many ancient societies and most modern states employ
egalitarian inheritance, without discrimination of gender.
Historically, there were also mixed systems:
- According to Islamic inheritance jurisprudence, sons inherit twice as much as daughters. The complete laws governing inheritance in Islam are complicated and take into account many kinship relations, but in principle males inherit twice as much as females with some exceptions. However, the Indonesian Minangkabau people (from western Sumatra), despite being Muslim, employ only complete matrilineal succession with property and land passing down from mother to daughter.
- Among ancient Israelites, the inheritance is patrilineal. It comes from the father, who bequeaths only to his male descendants (daughters don't inherit). The eldest son received twice as much as the other sons. The father gives his name to his children; for example: the sons of Israel are called Israelites, because the land belonged to the father, and every one of his twelve sons gave his name to his descendants. Example: the sons of Judah are called Yehudi (which is translated into Latin as Judaeus and into English as Jew.)
- In Galicia (Spain) it was typical that all children (both men and women) had a part of the inheritance, but one child (the one who inherited the house and a larger share of other property) inherited one-third of all the inheritance. This child was called the mellorado (literally, "improved upon"). In some villages the mellorado even received two-thirds of all the inheritance. This two-thirds would be all the family's lands, while other children received their part in money. In Galicia's coastal villages, the youngest daughter was often the privileged inheritor, while in Galicia's inner villages, the privileged inheritor was often the eldest son.[1][2][3][4] Male primogeniture was also common among peasants in Asturias,[5] Cantabria,[6] Huesca,[7] Catalonia[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and parts of the Balearic Islands[16][17] and Valencia[18][19]
- In Sweden, from the thirteenth century until the nineteenth century, sons inherited twice as much as daughters. This rule was introduced by the Regent Birger Jarl, and it was regarded as an improvement in its era, since daughters were previously usually left without. Even after the introduction of these laws, however, the eldest son still inherited the land from his parents in rural areas in exchange for taking care of them in their old age. His siblings usually received only monetary compensation for giving up their claims on the family land.[20]
- Among Polish peasants, male primogeniture became the most common practice after the 15th century, but there was high regional variation[21] This diversity continued in later times, fostered by the influence of neighbouring countries with different family systems. The Polish pattern ofmale primogeniture held most strongly in the core, central parts of the country,[22][23] as well as in Little Poland,[24][25] but in peripheral areas different family forms prevailed. In the west Polish areas, namely Silesia and Greater Poland, male primogeniture didn't predominate among Polish peasants until their liberation from serfdom between 1808 and 1823.[26] Previously, ultimogeniture had prevailed among them in these areas.[27]
- In Lowland Laos, inheritance is often bilateral or matrilineal, but in Highland Laos, inheritance is patrilineal and the eldest son is often the main heir; his brothers receive only minor shares[28][29][30]
- In Pre-colonial Myanmar, inheritance customs among the Bamar or Burmese, who inhabit the Irrawaddy valley, generally followed patrilineal primogeniture: the eldest son, having the special position known as oratha, often received the largest share of the property.[31][32] However, theKachin or Jingpo people, who inhabit the northern parts of the country, are famous in the Anthropological field for their complicated but highly structured social system that, if strictly followed, would result in patrilineal ultimogeniture in most cases.[33]
- Pre-revolutionary France is an excellent example of a culture where inheritance customs can be very diverse. Although patrilineal primogeniture prevailed among the nobility, as in most other European countries, with respect to plebeian custom there were two general patterns: in the southern half of the country, where testamentary freedom was allowed, a system of "stem" families and patrilineal primogeniture emerged, while in the northern half, where inheritance processes were fixed by law, a system of "nuclear" families and relatively egalitarian inheritance emerged.[34] However, within these two regional patterns there was high local variation, and historians and sociologists often disagree about the details of the different family forms. Focusing only on the Pyrenees, for example, in its western parts primogeniture regardless of sex prevailed in the French Basque Country, while in Bearn, male primogeniture predominated.[35][36] In the Central Pyrenees, primogeniture regardless of sex predominated in Lavedan and Bareges, while in the Luchonnais, as well as the Baronnies and Bigorre, male primogeniture was the dominant practice.[37][38][39] In Aude, male primogeniture also predominated.[40] In other southern French regions (Dauphiné,[41] Midi,[42][43][44] Languedoc[45][46][47][48] Aquitaine,[49] Savoy[50] and Haute Provence[51]) there was a more homogeneous pattern of male primogeniture, but in WesternCantal, a daughter was often preferred as inheritor[52] and in some areas, most strongly in the Limousin, joint families coexisted with stem families and male primogeniture.[53] In the coastal (but not in the mountainous) areas of Provence, too, property was usually inherited by all sons and joint and nuclear families were numerous. In Brittany, a region in the northwest, local variation in peasant inheritance customs was also high: stem families with an attenuated form of male primogeniture prevailed in Leon and inner Vannetais, while in Cornouaille no single inheritance custom prevailed, though stem families predominated. In the rest of the region nuclear families were prevalent, but inheritance was often inegalitarian and favored the eldest son, though in some parts (Tregor and some other areas) the youngest son was favored. Nuclear families with male primogeniture, as in the case of England, were also common in the neighbouring Loire provinces, as well as parts of the Northern coast (Caux,[54] Ponthieu,[55] Vimeu and the Boulonnais), suggesting a common historical origin for this family form (Normans and the Angevin dynasty, that also ruled England during a large period, had their origins in this part of France)[56] Variation was extreme in Poitou-Charentes, where all family types (stem, nuclear and joint) could be found. The rest of the north, save for a few zones (mainly Alsace and Nord) was dominated by nuclear families and relatively egalitarian inheritance practices.
- In Vietnam, male primogeniture has been predominant since the time of the Lê dynasty as a result of Sinicization and Confucianization.[57] However, in some places other customs, like male ultimogeniture or even female ultimogeniture, also exist.
- In Norway, male primogeniture traditionally predominated,[58][59][60][61] probably even since the Viking Age.[62] However, in the northernmost part of the country (northern Troms and Finnmark), where the Lapp (also called Sami) people lived, male primogeniture prevailed among Norwegianfamilies, while male ultimogeniture prevailed among Sami families[63]
- In Nigeria, an extensive survey across 18 diverse states conducted by the Women’s Rights Project of the Civil Liberties Organization between 1995-1997 revealed that 37 percent of the people practiced patrilineal primogeniture (inheritance by the eldest son), while 51 percent divided the inheritance between all sons or children.
- Inheritance customs can also differ greatly by social class. According to some sources, in Germany, male primogeniture was generally the rule of succession to entailed family estates and family-trust entails, while male ultimogeniture was generally the rule of succession to peasant estates.[64] (others maintain that male primogeniture was always predominant among peasants, too). In Pre-industrial England, the nobility and the gentry were characterized by their strict adherence to male primogeniture; among peasants, however, rules of inheritance were very "flexible", though they generally favored the eldest son, too. [65] In Wales, after the union with England, some argue that male primogeniture prevailed among freeholders and the gentry, while male ultimogeniture was predominant among copyholders (who were the majority of the peasant population). Not even among the aristocracy inheritance practices have been uniform across the world, though; among austronesian peoples, for example, Malay and Malagasy aristocrats practiced male primogeniture, while male ultimogeniture was the custom among Bugi andMassakarese nobles.[66]
- Inheritance customs can also change greatly over time. Among Bohemian peasants, for example, male ultimogeniture prevailed during the 18th century, but during the 19th century, male primogeniture was predominant[67] In fact, choosing a son as single-heir didn't become predominant among peasants in this region until the 18th century[68] In Germany, male primogeniture became prevalent among peasants during the 19th century.[69] (it was already the custom in many regions before, though male ultimogeniture, at least judging by previous intestacy laws of most states, seems to have been more common). In Austria, male primogeniture must have become the general rule even before 1787, for in that year the Emperor issued a decree formally establishing it as the law of succession to peasant estates.
- Scholars may often disagree about traditional inheritance patterns. In the case of Ireland, for example, some argue that the heir could be any son, as in the famous study of County Clare done by Arensberg and Kimball (1940)[70] Others, however, argue that the election of an heir wasn't random and that the eldest son was the heir in most cases[71][72] Some have adopted an intermediate view, arguing that primogeniture was the dominant practice, but it wasn't rigidly in force[73][74] Although neither gender, nor birth order were decisive factors in the election of an inheritor among Spanish Basques, in some areas male primogeniture was usually followed[75][76]
Rosenblatt (1974),
[77] studying 39 non-Western societies around the world, finds consistent correlations between the gender and birth rank of a child and his/her outcome in life, and these include differences in the degree of property control.
The Ethnographic Atlas (1998),
[78] gives the following figures regarding land distribution: primogeniture predominates in 247 societies, while ultimogeniture prevails in 16. In 19 societies land is exclusively or predominantly given to the one adjudged best qualified, while equality predominates in 301 societies.
Regarding land inheritance rules, in 340 societies sons inherit, in 90 other patrilineal heirs (such as brothers), in 31 sister's sons, in 60 other matrilineal heirs (such as daughters or brothers), and in 98 all children. In 43 of these latter societies, however, daughters receive less.
It is also noteworthy that in 472 societies distribution of inherited land follows no clear rules or information is missing, while in 436 societies inheritance rules for real property do not exist or data is missing; there are many societies where there is little or no land to inherit (such as in hunter gatherer societies).
Patrilineal primogeniture, also called
male primogeniture (eldest son inherits), was traditionally the rule among
Japanese,
Korean,
Tibetan,
Changpa,
Innu,
Lakher (or
Mara),
Kukis,
Khumi,
Mog,
Paite,
Pawi,
Gangte,
Tripuri,
Simte,
Wancho,
Deccanese,
Mikir or
Karbi,
Munda,
Kharwars,
Nambudiri Brahmin,
Khond,
Aztec,
Scottish,
Catalan,
Cornish,
Kashubian,
Moravian,
Estonian,
Balt,
Croatian,
Danish,
Ossetian,
Xibe,
Timorese,
Rukai,
Lampung,
Tausug,
Tongan,
Sumban,
Batak,
Nias,
Buru,
Florinese,
Torajan,
Bali Highlands,
West Papuan,
Mauritian,
Bilen (also called
Bogos),
Fon,
Igbo (also called Ibo),
Ibibio,
Nupe,
Luhya,
Edo,
Shilluk,
Kikuyu,
Masa,
Black South African,
Nama,
Tanzanian,
Upper Congo,
Ugandan,
Shona,
Alur,
Dogon,
Nandi,
Oromo,
Konso, and
Kaffa peasants, for example, while patrilineal ultimogeniture, also called
male ultimogeniture(youngest son inherits), was customary among
Fur,
Sami (or
Lapp),
Achang,
Ayi,
Atayal,
Sherpa,
Kachin,
Nung Rawang,
Biate,
Khyeng,
Hmar,
Mro,
Kom, and
Lushei or Lushai (sometimes mistakenly taken for the whole
Mizo people, especially in the past) peasants. Spanish
Basques gave their land to the one considered best qualified, though they had a preference for sons, while
Javanese,
Turk,
Kurd,
Armenian,
Lolo or
Yi,
Santal,
Abkhaz,
Lepcha,
Lisu,
Kota,
Nu,
Tanala,
Georgian,
Qiang,
Bhutia,
Gaddi,
Nepalese,
Vedda,
Bai,
Koya,
Hakka,
Meithei,
Rotinese,
Hani,
Havasupai,
Tikopian,
Miao,
Papago,
Riffian,
Jat,
Trukese,
Mapuche,
Aymara,
Quiche,
Popoluca,
Kimam,
Kwoma,
Naxi,
Omaha,
Bhil,
Pumi,
Badaga,
Chinese,
Gheg Albanian, Southern
Albanian,
Gondi,
Banen,
Nubian, and Lowland
Bali farmers, for example, gave more or less equal shares of land to sons, but excluded daughters (and, needless to say, could leave the house or parental dwelling to only one child in most cases).
Roman,
Malay,
Bugi,
Massakarese,
Andalusian,
Castillian,
Iban,
Greek,
Shan,
Khmer,
Madurese and
Siamese (or
Thai) peasants gave relatively equal shares to both sons and daughters, while
Gilbertese gave less land to daughters, and the same system prevails in contemporary
Egypt (and most other
Islamic countries -see
Sharia-). There have been other, rarer customs of inheritance, like bilateral primogeniture (eldest son inherits from the father, eldest daughter inherits from the mother), such as among the Classic
Mayas, who transmitted the family's household furnishings from mother to eldest daughter, and the family's land, houses and agricultural tools from father to eldest son,
[79] and in the
Greek island of
Karpathos, where the family's house was transmitted from mother to eldest daughter, while the family's land was transmitted from father to eldest son
[80] Among the
Igorot, the father's land is inherited by his eldest son and the mother's land is inherited by her eldest daughter.
[81] Land inheritance customs, thus, greatly vary across cultures. However, inheritance customs are sometimes considered a culturally distinctive aspect of a society; for example, the customs of
primogeniture predominant among many North-eastern
Indian tribes have been considered as possible proof of the possible remote
Jewish or
Semitic origin of some of them
[82] Although it is many times said that
Mizos employ ultimogeniture, where the youngest son inherits all, this is because the customs of
Lushais or
Lusheis are confused with those of all
Mizos; indeed,
Mizo and
Lushai have been sometimes used as interchangeable terms. Among most non-Lushai
Mizos,
primogeniture predominates,
[83] just as among
Kukis[84][85][86] In general there is great confusion about the ethnic identity of the many North-eastern
Indian tribes.
[87] Some regard the generic term
Zomi as most appropriate.
The same disparity is seen regarding inheritance of movable property. Most nomadic peoples from
Asia, like for example the
Khalka Mongols, divide livestock equally at the point of each son's marriage, typically letting the youngest remain behind caring for the parents and inheriting his father's yurt after their death in addition to his own share of livestock;
[88] but others, such as the
Yukaghir and the
Yakut, leave most livestock to one son (in the above examples the youngest and the eldest, respectively). And some pastoral peoples from other geographical areas also practice unequal wealth transfers, although customs of equal male inheritance are more common among them than among agriculturalists.
Inheritance Rules for Movable Property are as follows: in 381 there isn't enough information, in 132 there are no individual property rights or rules, in 45 sister's sons inherit, in 73 other matrilineal heirs, 67 all children, but daughters receive less, in 89 all children inherit equally, in 393 only sons inherit, and in 87 other patrilineal heirs.
Inheritance Distribution for Movable Property are as follows: in 382 there isn't enough information or there are no rules, in 435 equality prevails and in 18 movable property is exclusively or predominantly adjudged to the one best qualified, while in 14 societies ultimogeniture predominates and in 244 primogeniture predominates.
Among many peoples who divide their land and movable property equally among all sons or children, the youngest son, daughter or child inherits the house or parental dwelling after caring for his/her parents until their death, since each of the sons or children will receive his/her share of land and movable property as he/she marries. The
gavelkind practice of
Kent is the most known example of this, but such custom is characteristic of many other peoples who also practice equal or relatively equal inheritance of land and movable property, such as for example many ethnic minorities in Southwest
China.
Ultimogeniture with regards to house inheritance and equal inheritance of land and movable property by all sons is also characteristic of many
Latin American rural communities.
[89] The fact that the youngest only receives the house and not any productive means, such as land or livestock, as a reward for caring for the parents sometimes diminishes his or her marriage opportunities and reproductive chances, but some authors argue that at least it increases the bond between him/her and his/her parents. There are also cases, however, as among some
Naga tribes in
India, the
Luo of
Kenya[90] and some
Latin American communities,
[91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99] where the youngest is even disadvantaged with regards to land or livestock inheritance in spite of his/her responsibility for caring for the parents, though in the case of the
Luo of
Kenya is normal, as the
Luo of
Kenya attach great importante to seniority. Thus among them the eldest son receives the largest share, for each son receives a larger share with increasing seniority.
[100] Ultimogeniture with regards to house inheritance and equal inheritance of land and other property is also characteristic of
Thailand, but in this case the child who inherits the house (generally the youngest daughter) sees his or her share of other property proportionally reduced
[101]
Inheritance customs do not follow clear ethnic, linguistic or geographical patterns. Equality between all sons and a subordinate position of women (with the exclusion of daughters from inheriting) are prominent aspects of
Hungarian,
[102][103][104][105][106] Romanian,
[107] and most
Slavic[108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116] or
indigenous Latin American[117][118][119][120][121] cultures, for example, while many studies show the privileged position that the eldest son traditionally enjoyed in
Slovene[122] Finnish[123][124][125][126] [127][128][129] or
Tibetan[130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142] culture, for example. The
Minangkabau, the
Garo and the
Khasi, on the other hand, traditionally privileged the youngest daughter. Some peoples, like the
Dinka,
[143][144] the
Arakanese,
[145] the
Chins of
Myanmar[146] or the
Karen, frequently show a compromise between
primogeniture and
ultimogeniture in their inheritance patterns, and this is also to some degree the pattern among the
Sherpa and the
Kachin (or
Jingpos). Sometimes inheritance customs do not entirely reflect social traditions.
Romans valued sons more than daughters and
Thais and
Shan showed the reverse pattern, though all practiced equal land inheritance between all children.
[147][148][149][150] In fact,
Shan people, who live mostly in Northern
Thailand and northeastern
Myanmar, are markedly matrilocal. In
Han Chinese tradition, the eldest son was of special importance. He received the family headship in cases where the family held together as a single unit, and the largest share in cases of family division, since he also inherited the cult to ancestors,
[151][152] though Chinese peasants have practiced partible inheritance since the time of the
Han Dynasty. In some cases, the eldest son of the eldest son, rather than the eldest son, was favored.
[153] Ritual primogeniture was emphasized in the Lineage organizations of
North China[154] During the time of the
Zhou dynasty,
male primogeniture predominated
[155]It has been usually stated that among
Mongols, on the other hand, the youngest son had an special position because he cared for his parents in their old age and on their death inherited the parental dwelling, which was connected with the religious cult in
Mongol traditions, though all sons received more or less equal shares of livestock as they married. In contrast to this popularly hold notion, however, more rigorous and substantiated anthropological studies about kinship in
Central Asian peoples strongly indicate that elder sons and their lines of descent had higher status than younger sons and their lines of descent in these societies.
[156][157] Arabic kinship, in contrast to its
Central Asian counterpart, has been considered by some as reflective of the egalitarian nature of brothers' relationships in most
Arab and
Iranian cultures. It is sometimes argued that the expansion of
Islam brought an end to the sharp distinction between the firstborn and other sons so characteristic of ancient
Semites[82] and erased any cultural notion of precedence of the first-born son (or any son) over other sons in the family that could previously exist among many of these peoples (though some peoples who have partially or completely embraced Islam, have also established inequality between sons, like the
Oromo, who even had
male primogeniture in inheritance, in spite of the fact that some of them were
Muslim.
[158][159] Some other
Muslim peoples, like the
Minangkabau, also have social practices regarding their treatment of children that strongly contradict their supposedly
Islamic beliefs). In
India, inheritance customs were (and still are) very diverse.
Patrilineal primogeniture predominated in ancient times,
[160][161] but since the Middle Ages, patrilineal equal inheritance has prevailed in perhaps a majority of groups,
[162] although the eldest son often received an extra share
[163][164] Under this system, the estate would be shared between all sons, but these would often remain together with their respective families under the headship of the karta or family head, who was usually the eldest son of the previous family head (and hence the eldest of the brothers who jointly owned the property)
[165][166] In some cultures, such as that of
Khmers and non-aristocratic
Malays,
Bugis and
Massakarese, equality between all children, both male and female, is stressed.
[167][168]
In the above cited
Han Chinese example, family heads, who were usually first sons, married earlier, had lower rates of definitive celibacy and had more children, on average, than their younger brothers.
[151] Historical differences in marriage and/or reproductive success according to
sex and parity due to unequal systems of devolution have also been demonstrated in
Sweden,
[169] Quebec,
[170] Alsace,
[171] Ireland,
[172] the
Arsi Oromo,
[173] Germany,
[174][175][176][177] Austria,
[178] England,
[179][180] Italy,
[181][182] Catalonia,
[183][184] Japan,
[185] the
Northern United States,
[186] the
Gabra,
[187][188] the
Rendille,
[189] Kipsigis,
[190] and even the
Orkney Islands[191] or medieval
Portuguese elites
[192] In the
East Frisian example, inheritance also served to perpetuate economic inequalities in the whole population, since the farming class perpetuated itself and cut the access to its ranks to the rest of the population trough inheritance. In all these studies, except those from
Germany, having elder brothers significantly decreased the access to marriage and reproduction of a male. The anthropologist
Ruth Mace writes in her contribution to the Open Comment of an study about
Polyandry in
Tibet that she found out that the practice of
widow inheritance by younger brothers in many parts of
Africa and the
Asian steppe, as well as some small zones of
South Asia, whereby younger brothers are forced to marry older women "somewhat against their will", also reduces the reproductive success of these men, thereby diminishing population growth.
[193] Eastern
European cultures, especially
Russia, have been considered as prime examples of societies characterized by early and universal marriage, due to their systems of equal inheritance of land and movable property by all sons
[194] (although research on pre-industrial
Russian Karelia suggests that younger brothers frequently remained unmarried)
[195] However, to assume a relationship between fertility and inheritance presupposes a "Malthusian" context of resource scarcity; in contexts where resources are plentiful, the relationship between inheritance and social outcomes can be different. In the
Northern United States, for example, being the first son had a positive correlation with wealth and fertility during 1775-1875, as in other Western cultures, but unlike in some
European societies where resources were scarce, this had a complex relationship with migration, inheritance and other phenomena, since in the
United States resources were plentiful.
[196] Kathleen A. Gillogly also discusses how inheritance practices, as well as the importance of inheritance itself, have varied over time among the
Lisu, mostly in response to changes in
poppy cultivation. She explains how seniority of lineage was of great importance to the
Lisu and how this has affected inheritance practices over time according to changes in resource availability and
poppy cultivation.
[197]
Interestingly, in some
European societies males outreproduced females among the higher class, while females outreproduced males among the lower classes. According to the
Trivers-Willard hypothesis, high status parents should favor sons while low-status parents should favor daughters. The
Mukogodo and the
Ifaluk have provided confirmatory evidence for this theory, but research on the
United States has failed to confirm this hypothesis
[198] In the
United States, daughters inherit on average slightly more than sons. In past times, however, the eldest son was frequently favoured in matters of land inheritance in the
United States. In the North he often inherited more than his siblings,
[199] and in the South there was even a rule of
male primogeniture in cases of intestacy during the colonial period.
[200]
Nowadays in the western world, parents commonly show favoritism towards daughters and later-born children
[201][202][203] Familial or social feelings against firstborn sons have been explained as a consequence of the idea that the eldest son, being the foremost representative of the following generation, is also the one who symbolically "kills" the older generation (see
magical thinking). Indeed, customs of
ultimogeniture have been explained as a consequence of the farmers' desire to postpone a few years their age of retirement due to feelings of being "early dethroned" if they chose their eldest sons as successors. This line of superstitious thinking has been linked to the preeminence of lastborn siblings in popular
myth and
folklore around the world. Thus in some cultures that practice
male primogeniture there are ambiguous, contradictory feelings towards lastborns (see for example Walter H. Sangree's investigations about the
Tiriki tribe in
Kenya).
[204]
According to
Das Gupta's hypothesis, the patrilineal joint-family systems of
India and
China tend to control the size and composition of the sibling set, so that the survival and well-being of higher parity (later-born) same-sex children are sharply reduced, especially in the case of girls. However, there would be no sharp differences in marriage and reproduction due to birth order, since inheritance is more or less equal for all sons. On the other hand, in the stem-family systems of Northwest
Europe, there are no great efforts to control the size and composition of the sibling set, so that the survival and well-being of children aren't influenced to a great degree by sex and parity; however, access to marriage and reproduction wouldn't be equal for all sons, since only one of them would inherit most or all of the land.
[205] Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence for both
India and
China (including her own research) of the fact that the survival and well-being of children are positively influenced by the number of older siblings of the opposite sex and negatively influenced by the number of older siblings of the same sex (see
[206][207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218] for
India,
[219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228] for
China). However, it is a well-known fact that definitive celibacy was historically relatively uncommon in
India and
China, but relatively common in many
European societies where inheritance was impartible.
Mary K. Shenk and others (2010)
[229] expose how intergenerational wealth transmission among agriculturalists tends to be rather unequal. Only slightly more than half of the societies they study practice equal division of real property; customs to preserve land relatively intact (most commonly primogeniture) are very common. Borgerhoff Mulder (2010)
[230] shows how wealth transfers are more egalitarian among pastoralists, but unequal inheritance customs also prevail in some of these societies.
The high historical prevalence of male primogeniture among upper classes around the world has been subject to some evolutionary theories, such as those elaborated by Betzig (1993)
[231] and Bergstrom (1994).
[232] Patrilineal primogeniture was generally more common among the wealthy landowners, as in pre-industrial Europe, where it prevailed among the nobility, but wasn't that widespread as a plebeian custom. However, there have also been societies where patrilineal primogeniture was used by common peasants, but ignored by aristocrats and rulers; such was the case in Pre-Colonial
Mexico, for example, to the surprise of Spanish chroniclers
[233]
Employing differing forms of succession can affect many areas of society. Gender roles are profoundly affected by inheritance laws and traditions.
Impartible inheritance has the effect of keeping large estates united and thus perpetuating an elite. With partible inheritance large estates are slowly divided among many descendants and great wealth is thus diluted, leaving higher opportunities to individuals to make a success. (If great wealth is not diluted, the positions in society tend to be much more fixed and opportunities to make an individual success are lower). Inheritance customs can even affect gender differences in cognitive abilities: a recent study
[234] showed that among the
Karbis, who employ
male primogeniture, men perform significantly better than women in tasks of spatial ablities, while there are no significant differences in the performance of men and women among the
Khasis, who employ female ultimogeniture. The degree of acceptance that a given society may show towards an inheritance rule can also vary. In
South Africa, for example, the influence of more modern, western social ideas has caused strong opposition, both civil and official, to the customary law of
male primogeniture traditionally prevalent among black peoples, and inheritance customs are gradually changing.
[235] In
South Sudan, however, the predominant custom of
male primogeniture hasn't caused much opposition
[236] In
South Korea, favouring the eldest son has been predominant almost up to this day, despite laws of equal inheritance for all children, and even in 2005, in more than half (52.6 percent) cases of inheritance the eldest son was the main heir.
[237][238][239] (in
North Korea, which obviously had the same family pattern as the South in the past, when they formed a single country, there has been no individual ownership of property since its proclamation as an independent, communist country in 1948). In
Japan, too, the eldest son was seven times likelier than other sons to co-reside with the parents and inherit their property across the whole country during the Postwar period,
[240][241] in spite of the fact that the Civil Code of 1947 imposes
forced heirship, and surveys conducted during the 1950s demonstrated a predominant approval and practice of the custom among the Japanese population, even in the southwest part of the country,
[242][243] Although co-residence of people aged 65 and above with a child has decreased from 86.8 percent in 1960 to 46.8 percent in 2005, partly due to the increase in the number of childless people,
[244] in many regions, such as
Yamanashi prefecture, the first son has almost always inherited everything even up to this day.
[245] In
Germany, there are still laws of
primogeniture and
ultimogeniture regulating the inheritance of farms. Unlike legislation during the
Nazi period, that made the youngest son heir in areas where no particular custom prevailed, since the 1950s the eldest has been favoured in these cases
[246]
Inheritance can be organized in a way that its use is restricted by the desires of someone (usually of the
decedent).
[247] An inheritance may have been organized as a
fideicommissum, which usually cannot be sold or diminished, only its profits are disposable. A fideicommissum's succession can also be ordered in a way that determines it long (or eternally) also with regard to persons born long after the original descendant.
Royal succession has typically been more or less a fideicommissum, the realm not (easily) to be sold and the rules of succession not to be (easily) altered by a holder (a monarch). The fideicommissum, which in fact had little resemblance to the Roman institution of the same name, was almost the standard method of property transfer among the European nobility;
Austria,
Germany,
Switzerland,
Bohemia,
Sweden and
Italy were some of the countries where it became very popular among wealthy landowners, beginning in most cases around the early Modern Age. It was almost always organized around principles of male primogeniture. The Spanish mayorazgo and the Portuguese morgado also resembled the Continental fideicommissum more than the noble customs of Great Britain and most French regions; noble customs of primogeniture in these countries were more ancient and thus took different legal forms. Inheritance of noble titles also distinguished Great Britain from Continental Europe, since in most European countries most noble titles (though not estates) were inherited by all sons, sometimes even all children.
[248]
In more
archaic days, the possession of inherited
land has been much more like a family
trust than a property of an individual. Even in recent years, the sale of the whole of or a significant portion of a farm in many European countries required consent from certain heirs, and/or heirs had the intervening right to obtain the land in question with same sales conditions as in the sales agreement in question.
Islamic laws of inheritance [edit]
The
Quran introduced a number of different rights and restrictions on matters of inheritance, including general improvements to the treatment of women and family life compared to the pre-Islamic societies that existed in the Arabian Peninsula at the time.
[249] The Quran also presented efforts to fix the laws of inheritance, and thus forming a complete legal system. This development was in contrast to pre-Islamic societies where rules of inheritance varied considerably.
[249] Furthermore, the Quran introduced additional heirs that were not entitled inheritance in pre-Islamic times, mentioning nine relatives specifically of which six were female and three were male. In addition to the above changes, the Quran imposed restrictions on
testamentary powers of a
Muslim in disposing his or her property. In their will, a Muslim can only give out a maximum of one third of their property.
The Quran contains only three verses that give specific details of inheritance and shares, in addition to few other verses dealing with testamentary. But this information was used as a starting point by Muslim jurists who expounded the laws of inheritance even further using
Hadith, as well as methods of juristic reasoning like
Qiyas. Nowadays, inheritance is considered an integral part of
Shariah Law and its application for Muslims is mandatory.
Jewish laws of inheritance (Torah/Old Testament) [edit]
The inheritance is patrilineal. The father—that is, the owner of the land—bequeaths only to his male descendents, so the Promised Land passes from one Jewish father to his sons. The Promised Land is called "The Land of Israel" because it belongs to Israel, and his sons are called Israelites denoting their connection with the land of their father.
If there were no living sons and no descendants of any previously living sons, however, daughters could inherit. In Numbers 27:1-4, the daughters of Zelophehad (Mahlah, Noa, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah) of the tribe of Manasseh come to Moses and ask for their father's inheritance, as they have no brothers. In Numbers 27:7-11, Jehovah grants that if a man has no sons, then his daughters may inherit, and lays down the order of inheritance: a man's sons inherit first, daughters if no sons, brothers if he has no children, and so on.
Later, in Numbers 36, some of the heads of the families of the tribe of Mannasseh come to Moses and point out that, if a daughter inherits and then marries a man not from her paternal tribe, her land will pass from her birth-tribe's inheritance into her marriage-tribe's. So a further rule is laid down: if a daughter inherits land, she must marry someone within her father's tribe. (The daughters of Zelophehad marry the sons' of their father's brothers. There is no indication that this was not their choice.)
The tractate
Baba Bathra, written during Late Antiquity in Babylon, deals extensively with issues of property ownership and inheritance according to Jewish Law. Other works of Rabbinical Law, such as the Hilkhot naḥalot : mi-sefer Mishneh Torah leha-Rambam,
[250] and the Sefer ha-yerushot: ʻim yeter ha-mikhtavim be-divre ha-halakhah be-ʻAravit uve-ʻIvrit uve-Aramit
[251] also deal with inheritance issues. The first, often abbreviated to
Mishneh Torah, was written by
Maimonides and was very important in
jewish tradition. All these treatises insist on the right of the first son to receive a double share of his father's property. The
Mishneh Torah states:
"A firstborn receives a double portion of his father's estate, as Deuteronomy 21:17 states: "To give him twice the portion."
What is implied? If a father left five sons, one the firstborn, the firstborn receives a third of the estate and each of the other four receives a sixth. If he left nine sons, the firstborn receives a fifth and each of the other eight receive a tenth. We follow this pattern in dividing the estate in all instances."
[250][252]
Thus, the first son receives twice the portion of each of the other sons, not twice the portion of all that the other sons receive. If a father had three sons, for example, the first son would receive two fourths and the other two sons one fourth each. If the eldest surviving son is not the first son, he is not entitled to the double portion.
Inheritance inequality [edit]
The distribution of inherited wealth is often unequal. The majority might receive little while only a small number inherit a larger amount, with the lesser amount given to daughter in the family. The amount of inheritance is often far less than the value of a business initially given to the son, especially when a son takes over a thriving multi-million dollar business, yet the daughter is given the balance of the actual inheritance amounting to far less than the value of business that was initially given to the son. This is especially seen in old world cultures, but continues in many families to this day.
[253]
Arguments for eliminating the disparagement of inheritance inequality include the right to property and the merit of individual allocation of capital over government wealth confiscation and redistribution, but this does not resolve the problem of unequal inheritance. In terms of inheritance inequality, some economists and sociologists focus on the inter generational transmission of income or wealth which is said to have a direct impact on one's mobility (or immobility) and class position in society. Nations differ on the political structure and policy options that govern the transfer of wealth.
[254]
According to the American federal government statistics compiled by Mark Zandi, currently of "Moody's Economy.com", back in 1985, the average inheritance was $39,000. In subsequent years, the overall amount of total annual inheritance was more than doubled, reaching nearly $200 billion. By 2050, there is an estimated $25 trillion average inheritance transmitted across generations.
[255] Some researchers have attributed this rise to the baby boomer generation. Historically, the baby boomers were the largest influx of children conceived after WW2. For this reason,
Thomas Shapiro suggests that this generation "is in the midst of benefiting from the greatest inheritance of wealth in history."
[256]
Inheritance and race [edit]
Inheritances are transfers of the unconsumed material accumulations of previous generations. Inheritances therefore take on a special meaning with respect to black and white Americans: they directly link the disadvantaged economic position and prospects of both white and mixed races, and in the case of black families that may have a disadvantaged positions with backgrounds of outright slavery of their ancestors.
[257]
Sometimes, depending on one's race, one inherits an inevitable amount of privilege or disadvantage at the time of their birth. This is also notable in families with adopted children when one child may be more racially acceptable in the family than another child who is left with less, as a result of parental-child preference. A number of possible explanations for this gap have been suggested, particularly differences in income and various socio-economic characteristics between black and white households.
[258] Some research reveals that race could be serving as a proxy for other, more fundamental, determinants of differences in inheritance. Among the findings, it was stated that a "father's education and variables indicating the economic conditions of childhood were the most important in predicting the size of inheritances."
[259] Based on samples of households in 1976 and 1989, researchers found that white households are at least twice as likely to receive an inheritance (than black households), yet this is not always based on race that includes other factors. White households are almost three times as likely to expect to receive an inheritance in the future as a result of socio-economic situations and the dependence of many blacks on social welfare. Hence, controlling for other factors, these researchers found that race is important in explaining whether or not a household has received an inheritance and the size of the inheritance.
[260]
Whites average both better health and inheritance than minority groups in the United States. Blacks and Hispanics are disadvantaged with respect to financial and human capital resources, more specifically, lower educational attainment, income, inheritances, and great concentrations in lower-skilled occupations.
[261] Additionally, due to employment discrimination and
residential segregation, minority households "have historically been denied the opportunity to accumulate wealth" and thus, acquire inheritance.
[255]
Inheritance and social stratification [edit]
Inheritance inequality has a significant effect on stratification. Inheritance is an integral component of family, economic, and legal institutions, and a basic mechanism of class stratification. It also affects the distribution of wealth at the societal level. The total cumulative effect of inheritance on stratification outcomes takes three forms. The first form of inheritance is the inheritance of
cultural capital (i.e. linguistic styles, higher status social circles, and aesthetic preferences).
[262] The second form of inheritance is through familial interventions in the form of
inter vivos transfers (i.e. gifts between the living), especially at crucial junctures in the life courses. Examples include during a child's milestone stages, such as going to college, getting married, getting a job, and purchasing a home.
[262] The third form of inheritance is the transfers of bulk estates at the time of death of the testators, thus resulting in significant economic advantage accruing to children during their adult years.
[263] The origin of the stability of inequalities is material (personal possessions one is able to obtain) and is also cultural, rooted either in varying child-rearing practices that are geared to socialization according to social class and economic position. Child-rearing practices among those who inherit wealth may center around favoring some groups at the expense of others at the bottom of the
social hierarchy.
[264]
Sociological and economic effects of inheritance inequality [edit]
The degree to which economic status and inheritance is transmitted across generations determines one's life chances in society. Although many have linked one's social origins and educational attainment to life chances and opportunities, education cannot serve as the most influential predictor of economic mobility. In fact, children of well-off parents generally receive better schooling and benefit from material, cultural, and genetic inheritances.
[265] Likewise, schooling attainment is often persistent across generations and families with higher amounts of inheritance are able to acquire and transmit higher amounts of human capital. Lower amounts of human capital and inheritance can perpetuate inequality in the housing market and higher education. Research reveals that inheritance plays an important role in the accumulation of housing wealth. Those who receive an inheritance are more likely to own a home than those who do not regardless of the size of the inheritance.
[266]
Often, minorities and individuals from socially disadvantaged backgrounds receive less inheritance and wealth. As a result, mixed races might be excluded in inheritance privilege and are more likely to rent homes or live in poorer neighborhoods, as well as achieve lower educational attainment compared whites in America, but this is not always the case, as many interracial marriages exist that redistributes wealth among non-whites. Individuals with a substantial amount of wealth and inheritance often intermarry with others of the same social class to protect their wealth and ensure the continuous transmission of inheritance across generations; thus perpetuating a cycle of privilege. For this reason, it can even be argued that one's inheritance places them in a specific social class position that requires a level of participation in certain activities that promote the oppression of lower-class individuals in terms of the social hierarchy and system of stratification.
Nations with the highest income and wealth inequalities often have the highest rates of homicide and disease (such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension). A
New York Times article reveals that the U.S. is the world's wealthiest nation, but "ranks twenty-ninth in life expectancy, right behind Jordan and Bosnia." This is highly attributed to the significant gap of inheritance inequality in the country.
[267] For this reason, it is clear that when social and economic inequalities centered on inheritance are perpetuated by major social institutions such as family, education, religion, etc., these differing life opportunities are transmitted from each generation. As a result, this inequality becomes part of the overall social structure.
[268]
Taxation [edit]
See also [edit]
