Shimazu’s conquest had been conducted as a demonstration of loyalty to the new Shogun, but his need to secure control over a vital source of revenue was a more pressing concern. The Shogun had not confiscated all Satsuma lands,[1] but had reduced the size of the domain and imposed a higher level of taxation. Clearly, Shimazu had to tighten up his financial affairs. He demanded no less of the Ryukyu King and Ofu. Whilst taking complete control of all aspects of China trade, Shimazu Iehisa's 'Fifteen Article Ordinance' (okite jugojo) banned the practice of financial awards to mistresses or on the basis of family origins, stressing that rewards should only be given in recognition of public service.[2] The King was instructed to keep temple and shrine construction within reasonable limits. Shimazu was aware of the relative decline in the kingdom's economy since exit from Southeast Asia and was not insensitive to the situation. Yet Shuri was still involved in tributary trade with China lucrative enough for Shimazu to make every effort to avoid interruptions. At the same time, to obtain maximum benefit from this trade he would have to ensure Shuri not fritter away more than necessary and that it learn to administer resources more efficiently. Although there are many recorded lapses, this new period under Satsuma is marked by a high degree of skill in resource management and efficiency in agricultural productivity and government organisation. The Ofu bureaucracy would come to play a far more visible role in the agrarian communities.

Though there developed a good deal of complexity to the system in later years, Shuri was obliged to pay taxes and tributes to Satsuma and lose control over trade with China.[3] Tribute tax was derived from the assessed productive capacity of all Ryukyuan lands. In 1611, on completion of surveys, Satsuma agents set the rice koku value of the Ryukyus at 89,086, of which some 50,000 koku (56% of the total) was assessed as royal family income.[4] Of the tax system in mainland Japan there was a correlation between population size and koku valuations. Since historians agree that the population figure at the start of the 17^th century was around 100,000, Satsuma's valuation can be seen as consistent with mainland levying standards, and as reasonably lenient. From the total koku value assessment, Shimazu received an annual payment of 8,783 koku,[5] about an eighth of which was in textiles rather than rice. The assessed tax figure for Shimazu was actually 11,933 koku, but transportation costs to Kagoshima for which Shuri was liable had to be factored in.[6] In addition, a personal tribute from the King's coffers was requested which was as much as 8,000 koku again. The largest amount of revenue coming from Ryukyu, however, was Shimazu’s share of Ryukyu-China trade, estimated at as much as 100,000 koku per year.[7] To put this in context, the total annual revenue of the Satsuma domain at the time stood at about 700,000 koku.[8] As such, income from Ryukyu accounted for 17% of Satsuma's total income during the early- to mid-17^th century.

It is common practice to attack the 270-year period of Satsuma rule, isolating it as Japan's first taste of colonial exploitation. The prevalent tendency is to link this with postwar debates on US bases in Okinawa and the Government of Japan's (GOJ) complicity with a Japan-US security alliance system that maintains them. However, there are significant problems with the argument. On the one hand, and in terms of the way we have come to define the concept, this certainly was colonialism with all attached negativity. The kingdom was taken, looted, and fell under the absolute authority of Shimazu who imposed taxes and held the threat of punishment for failure to comply with directives like a blade to the throat. On the other, and in terms of the political situation of the day, it was more complex. One must balance associated inflammatory words like conquest, exploitation, and tyranny: which pop up time and time again in discussions about this period, against the degree to which the new system suited Ryukyu within a rapidly changing geopolitical and geoeconomic environment and in terms of its internal modernisation requirements.[9] Proponents of what may be called 'exploitation continuity theories' generally avoid such historical grey matter and consequently contemporary debate suffers. Ryukyu sat in a vulnerable location at a time when China could not offer vassals protection, itself under threat from European powers acquiring territories in the Asian region apace.[10] Colonialism was on the rise throughout Asia in the 17^th and 18^th centuries.

Another argument holds that Shimazu was tyrannous, with his tax demands in particular leading to wide scale poverty and exploitation of the people. In truth, these demands were not as heavy as legend has it during the first two centuries of Satsuma rule and, perhaps most importantly, were quite egalitarian. The tribute tax, which fell mainly on agrarian households, was difficult to achieve if a harvest was poor. Yet while the figure was about 15% of assessed productivity in 1611, the real term figure was much higher after the introduction and improved production of high value crops like imo and sugar cane in the 17^th century, and with the opening of more land for cultivation.[11] The imo became a staple food item throughout Ryukyu, while sugar the main item for export to Japan. Droughts, famines, and violent typhoons were common, but the average household dealt with these as ever, being prosperous neither before nor after the Satsuma conquest. Those located at the bottom rung of the social hierarchy started at zero, but progressed to zero. In this sense poverty was relative. If anything, the field was levelled. Those high in the social hierarchy felt the pinch, losing relatively more. Arguably, this was a positive development of Satsuma rule. Only extreme monarchists can work from the proper philosophical foundation to legitimately vilify the Lord of Satsuma. He took most from the Ofu and social elite who were the biggest consumers and who had been, and continued to be, guilty of squeezing whatever they could from agrarian households. For the benefit of the latter Satsuma introduced better systems of food production and resource management.[12]

Furthermore, all of Japan was afflicted by this early-19^th century crisis which, in part, led to the fall of the Tokugawa. While siphoning trade profits and collecting taxes Shimazu did not escape obligation-free. Flexibility had to be shown in times of economic hardship and actual financial assistance to Shuri was necessary when a Chinese cefeng mission was due in port. The Chinese Emperor's tianshi, or 'celestial envoy,' would arrive with a retinue of at least 300 people, expecting lavish treatment and accommodation for the duration of their stay. This was the price for Shimazu had to pay to keep China-Ryukyu relations plodding along happily.[13] This became of greater importance after the new shogun Tokugawa Iemitsu prohibited all foreign intercourse, except that with China and Holland via Dejima Port in Nagasaki. This official sakoku, or exclusion policy, remained in effect for more than two centuries.