Karl Theodor von Inama-Sternegg · 1889
Karl Theodor von Inama-Sternegg’s Die Ergebnisse der Evidenzhaltung des Grundsteuer-Katasters in Bezug auf die steuerpflichtigen Objecte in den Jahren 1886 und 1887 (1889) examines Austrian records of changes in taxable land and permanent land use. The article proceeds from legislation and administrative procedures to methodological assessment, regional findings, and international comparisons, concluding with three statistical tables. It asks how cadastral maintenance can reveal agricultural transformation despite incomplete and delayed registration.
The laws of 1869 and 1883 established periodic revision and ongoing maintenance of the cadastre. Inama-Sternegg distinguishes changes in taxable objects from changes between cultivation categories. The former affect tax liability; permanent cultivation changes are recorded for future revision without immediately altering assessment. This administrative distinction governs the statistical evidence available.
Eine statistische Bearbeitung der vorgeschriebenen Aenderungsausweise nach ihrem vollen Detail war bei der Massenhaftigkeit der jährlich zur Anschreibung gelangenden Veränderungsfälle (gegen 1 Million im Jahre) allerdings ausgeschlossen.
English translation: A statistical treatment of the prescribed returns of alterations in their full detail was, to be sure, precluded by the sheer mass of cases of change entered annually (close to 1 million a year).
The statistical commission therefore sought standardized summary returns rather than exhaustive processing of individual entries. The resulting evidence covers cultivation changes for two years but other changes for only one:
Auf Grund dieser Verfügung sind die Culturänderungen bereits für das Jahr 1886 und 1887, die übrigen Veränderungsfälle für das Jahr 1887 zur Nachweisung gebracht worden.
English translation: On the basis of this ordinance the changes of cultivation have already been recorded for the years 1886 and 1887, and the remaining cases of change for the year 1887.
These returns cannot reconstruct an uninterrupted series from the definitive assessment of 1883. Nevertheless, they possess independent statistical value. Ownership returns supplement land-register statistics with information on area and assessed net yield, although their detailed analysis is reserved for another study. This article concentrates on taxable objects and cultivation.
Its methodological argument connects reliability to fiscal incentives and administrative observation:
Der Grad von Genauigkeit, welcher diesen beiden Arten von Nachweisungen innewohnt, ist der Natur der Sache nach ein verschiedener.
English translation: The degree of accuracy inherent in these two kinds of returns is, in the nature of the case, a different one.
Owners have reason to report changes ending tax liability; newly taxable land can also be identified through official proceedings and surveyors’ inspections. Cultivation changes have no immediate fiscal consequence, may develop gradually, and may become recognizable as permanent only retrospectively. Their registration depends more heavily on official judgment and landowner cooperation. The recorded cases are treated as genuine, but their completeness and allocation to particular years remain uncertain. Continuous reporting can recover missed changes without making each annual return an exact account of transformations within that year. Some entries for 1886 include changes dating from 1884–1885.
For 1887, 81,202 recorded object changes removed 6,777 Joch from taxable land and added 1,723, yielding a net reduction of 5,054 Joch and 19,740 florins in assessed net yield. The article does not equate fiscal contraction with uniform agricultural decline. Relationships between area and assessed yield suggest different processes: valuable cultivated land becoming building sites or roads, natural destruction of poorer land, and the withdrawal from productive use of the Millstädter See. Administrative totals thus require geographical and economic interpretation.
The cultivation returns indicate an aggregate movement toward more intensive land use, with vineyards gaining most relative to their previous cadastral area and rough pasture declining most. Regional differences complicate this pattern. Phylloxera reduced Lower Austrian vineyards, while Dalmatian viticulture expanded. Bohemian pasture became woodland; in Moravia, Galicia, and Bukovina, arable cultivation gained at the expense of pasture and forest. These developments matter amid overseas competition, agricultural tariffs, and pressures to alter farming practices, but systematic causal analysis must await a longer series.
International comparisons reinforce this restraint. Annual crop statistics measure planted areas, whereas cadastral categories describe enduring land use; irregular revisions and different classifications further limit comparability. Evidence from France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Baden, and Württemberg supplies context rather than directly equivalent measurements. The concluding tables document the Austrian results, while their closing note explains small imbalances through corrected parcel measurements and object changes discovered during registration. The work treats cadastral records both as evidence of agrarian transformation and as administrative products shaped by incentives, classification, and reporting delays.
This work was divided into 7 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 7 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian