British Empire (13 Colonies And BWI) Flashcards
What was British imperialism?
Transition from 1700-1820 where Britain developed into a global hegemon (political, economic and military predominance of one state over others)
How did the British imperialism and empire come about? Examples of countries gained (2) and treaties that created significant gains
Colonial and trade expansion and wars with different European powers.
Treaty of 1713 (Utrecht)
Treaty of 1763 (Paris)
Wars made France (1) , Spain (2), Dutch (1) concede what?
Relavent as crippling of other countries made British superior.
Wars made countries cede land…
Spain ceded Gibraltar and Asiento (monopoly contract for slaves)
France ceded Canada etc
Dutch ceded all their Asia and African territories bar Indonesia (hence why lot of Indonesian restaurants in Holland)
The colonial debate question
Rise of empire coincides with British growth, so debate on causation.
We assume Britain extracted rents from colonies of their empire. We see profits that could not have been acquired through normal trade alone, so…
Did colonies generate SNP that explain EU growth?
Maddison’s view on the colonial debate
The rise in empire was partly due to Britains mercantilist approach (export high import low-trade surplus)
For context, US accuse China of being mercantilist now.
Two views on colonies
Burke’s view
Adam Smith
Empire is highly costly, profit is an illusion.
Burke’s ideas on colonies (4) (Positive)
Colonies provided preferential trade ( cheaper) (Evaluated in Smith: could’ve got even cheaper)
Colony policy was harsh, allowing Britain to get high rent (evident by American War of Independence)
Dependency theory created a core (UK) /periphery (Colony) relationship, resource flow between the 2.
SNP reinvested into capital domestically, explaining British LR success. (evaluated in Smith-profits stayed with interest groups, not spread to British economy, as well as being funded by British taxpayers)
Smith views on colonies (4) (negative)
Colonies were a drain on resources i.e had to defend them etc.
Preferential trade-could’ve got cheaper, but we use colonies. (Opposes Burke)
Caused capital diversion from non-colonial opportunities e.g building railways in US rather than locally
Profits existed but were captured by interest groups, funded by British taxpayers subsidising it, so net effect on British economy was little.
The colonial debate by region is split into 2 spheres
13 colonies and the navigation acts
British West Indies and sugar
9 acts
Navigation acts (1651)
Currency Act
Sugar act
Stamp act
Quartering act
Declaratory act
Townsmen’s act
Tea act
Intolerable act
Navigation act 1651 function
Regulated colonies trade with rest of world
Navigation act features (4)
Had to use British ships and British crew
Foreign trade conducted through England (come to Britain first)
Enumerated goods only exported to England e.g tobacco, sugar cotton
Selected goods could only be purchased in Britain (not made in colonies), and other selected goods given bounties to produce in colonies
Nettels vs Dickerson’s view on navigation acts
Nettels-Restrictive and economically oppressive.
(Upholds Burke’s idea of harsh policy, allowing Britain to extract large rents)
Dickerson-not oppressive
Argument for navigation acts being good, and not exploitative.
(Complying with Dickerson of not-oppressive)
Preferential trade and commerce was a benefit to colonies. Guaranteed export to Britain who would buy everything.
Quantitatively assessing whether navigation acts were exploitative…
Thomas (1965)
Calculated two main trade costs:
Enumerated goods (that go to Britain first to be exported)
Production, shipping and defence effects (indirect costs)
Thomas’ work on enumerated goods (goods have to go to Britain)
76% of exports were subject to enumeration.
85% were re-exported to EU.
Increased prices in EU and lowers quantity sold (as redirecting trade costs more)
Thomas’ work on production, shipping and defences. Look at 3 individually
Looked at benefits of production: preferential duties (3)
Benefits of preferential duties:
Colonies faced lower tariffs
Benefits on goods England would have purchased regardless
And benefits from goods that would not have been purchased before
Thomas’ Cost/benefit analysis of shipping services (1)
Equal (no effect), using empire ships made no difference.
Thomas’ cost/benefit analysis of defence (1)
Costly to protect colonies.
Thomas’ cost/benefit of bounties (part of production again)
Colonies received bounties to produce inefficient goods vital to England. (E.g paying above market rate for lumber needed in British war)
Producer surplus was greater than resources wasted from being inefficient, so there was benefit for colonies.
So was Britain a burden to the 13 colonies in Thomas’ view?
No, Britain was actually paying for the burden of policing the empire.
Very small cost per capita 26p per £100.
So Thomas believed non-exploitative from a cost perspective.
Revisionists response to Thomas’ findings
Questioned Thomas’ view of Britain not exploiting the colonies, but ultimately failed to prove.
Revisionist unsuccessful findings from
Ransom (19680) and (McClelland)
Ransom found income was actually lower, making burden to British taxpayers higher in terms of cost (1.4-2% of income)
McClelland argued method was flawed, but once corrected burden was still 3% of income.
UPHOLDING THOMAS’ IDEA STILL, NON-EXPLOITATIVE
So critics ask, if empire was not exploitative (as Thomas proves and revisionists fail to disprove), why did 13 colonies revolt???
Taxes were low in colonies. (Lower than ROW except Poland)
Acts (e.g Navigation-making all exports go to Britain first) were thus to balance contributions, not exploit colonies.
And states were happy to be part of empire as protected from France and Spain (links to high cost of defence as mentioned)
However threat disappeared overtime, so colonies didn’t want to pay tax.
So attempts to rebalance tax burden across the empire (increase tax in colonies and decrease in England who were the highest tax payers) met extreme response
Note: other acts also influenced the revolt
Currency act effect?
Colonial money supply was an issue, felt Britain was restrictive.
Second sphere of the colonial debate by region:
British West Indies and Sugar (first was 13 colonies and navigation acts)
British West Indies- Sheridan’s view
Jamaica and BWI were exploited by empire;
British success based on big profits from BWI (later downgraded by Thomas to dismiss exploitative argument) , unlike 13 colonies where there wasn’t significant SNP.
Thomas’ view on BWI: what did he look at?
Pointed out Sheridan’s approach-only accounting profit considered.
Thomas looked at opportunity costs from annual rate of return on capital invested in BWI in comparison to domestic returns
Rejects the idea of significant total profit, so no exploitation
What did Thomas find when looking at ARR in BWI and domestic bonds?
ARR in BWI was 2%.
Risk free British bonds were 3.5%.
Britain would’ve been better off investing at home.
Evaluation to Thomas’ work on BWI
Thomas’ ignored producer/consumer surplus.
Didn’t address main argument of rents captured from sugar trade being the principle exploitative gain
(Thomas argued for no exploitation remember)
Coehlo views on BWI- accounting loss!
Exploitation or not depended on price of sugar.
If BWI sugar below world price, Britain made profits (exploitation) but it wasn’t. Prices were actually higher from BWI than elsewhere (Britain had to pay more)
Britain only received preferential trade benefits from ginger, which had a lower price than the world price!
(Of course good for Britain as cheaper)
Evidence why BWI was not exploited (4)
(Note: Sheridan and Thomas still argued for BWI accounting profits, whereas Coehlo argued accounting loss)
Sheridan believed profits existed and exploitation, Thomas said profit existed but NOT EXPLOITATION, Coehlo argued no exploitation too but also a LOSS
No, sugar prices were higher from BWI than elsewhere, cost to Britain. (Coehlo)
Only preferential trade benefits seen in ginger! (Small gain relative to losses in sugar)
Naval and army expenditure (protection) in BWI was high too (as in the 13 colonies)
Investment in infrastructure from Britain outweighed revenues collected. (Links to capital diversion in Smith)
If there was an accounting loss as Coehlo displays, BWI hindered the IR.
So why hold onto the BWI? (2)
Losses were small when spread out among taxpayers. (Burden was less than 1% per capita income)
Interest groups gained. BWI sugar producers benefitted from high prices (above world prices) purchased by Britain, so they would bribe British politicians to keep BWI alive to continue high profits.
