For early modern societies, distributing the costs of flood defences between the stakeholders in an equitable way was difficult. Institutions were abused by powerful groups to shift the financial burden to poorer groups. According to Epstein, such elite abuse of institutions was possible because in pre-modern states political and economic power were not separated, which made it possible for elite groups to hijack the decision-making process. By studying how three ‘states’ in the South-Western Netherlands distributed the high costs of dike maintenance, this paper partly confirms Epstein’s thesis. No separation existed between political and economic power in the province of Zeeland and here this caused a stalemate because cities represented in the provincial government protected their elites’ interests. In Holland and the territories of the States-General, however, taking quick and efficient measures for the repair and financing of sea defences was possible. Here the powerful cities had less significant interests in the areas concerned and were prepared to leave decision- making to technical and financial experts.

中文翻译：

---

分担荷兰西南部堤防维护成本：比较三个“州”的“灾难性圩田”，1715-1795 年

对于早期的现代社会，很难以公平的方式在利益相关者之间分配防洪成本。制度被权势集团滥用，将经济负担转嫁给较贫穷的群体。爱泼斯坦认为，这种精英滥用制度是可能的，因为在前现代国家，政治和经济权力没有分开，这使得精英团体有可能劫持决策过程。通过研究荷兰西南部的三个“州”如何分配堤防维护的高成本，本文部分证实了爱泼斯坦的论点。泽兰省的政治和经济权力之间不存在分离，这导致了僵局，因为省政府中代表的城市保护了他们精英的利益。然而，在荷兰和国会的领土上，采取快速有效的措施来修复和资助海防是可能的。在这里，强大的城市对相关领域的兴趣不大，并准备将决策权交给技术和金融专家。