British Empire (13 Colonies And BWI)

Question 1

What was British imperialism?

Answer 1

Transition from 1700-1820 where Britain developed into a global hegemon (political, economic and military predominance of one state over others)

Question 2

How did the British imperialism and empire come about? Examples of countries gained (2) and treaties that created significant gains

Answer 2

Colonial and trade expansion and wars with different European powers.

Treaty of 1713 (Utrecht)
Treaty of 1763 (Paris)

Question 3

Wars made France (1) , Spain (2), Dutch (1) concede what?

Relavent as crippling of other countries made British superior.

Answer 3

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)

Question 4

The colonial debate question

Answer 4

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?

Question 5

Maddison’s view on the colonial debate

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Two views on colonies

Answer 6

Burke’s view

Adam Smith
Empire is highly costly, profit is an illusion.

Question 7

Burke’s ideas on colonies (4) (Positive)

Answer 7

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)

Question 8

Smith views on colonies (4) (negative)

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

The colonial debate by region is split into 2 spheres

Answer 9

13 colonies and the navigation acts

British West Indies and sugar

Question 10

9 acts

Answer 10

Navigation acts (1651)
Currency Act
Sugar act
Stamp act
Quartering act
Declaratory act
Townsmen’s act
Tea act
Intolerable act

Question 11

Navigation act 1651 function

Answer 11

Regulated colonies trade with rest of world

Question 12

Navigation act features (4)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Nettels vs Dickerson’s view on navigation acts

Answer 13

Nettels-Restrictive and economically oppressive.

(Upholds Burke’s idea of harsh policy, allowing Britain to extract large rents)

Dickerson-not oppressive

Question 14

Argument for navigation acts being good, and not exploitative.

(Complying with Dickerson of not-oppressive)

Answer 14

Preferential trade and commerce was a benefit to colonies. Guaranteed export to Britain who would buy everything.

Question 15

Quantitatively assessing whether navigation acts were exploitative…

Thomas (1965)

Answer 15

Calculated two main trade costs:
Enumerated goods (that go to Britain first to be exported)
Production, shipping and defence effects (indirect costs)

Question 16

Thomas’ work on enumerated goods (goods have to go to Britain)

Answer 16

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)

Question 17

Thomas’ work on production, shipping and defences. Look at 3 individually

Looked at benefits of production: preferential duties (3)

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Thomas’ Cost/benefit analysis of shipping services (1)

Answer 18

Equal (no effect), using empire ships made no difference.

Question 19

Thomas’ cost/benefit analysis of defence (1)

Answer 19

Costly to protect colonies.

Question 20

Thomas’ cost/benefit of bounties (part of production again)

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

So was Britain a burden to the 13 colonies in Thomas’ view?

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Revisionists response to Thomas’ findings

Answer 22

Questioned Thomas’ view of Britain not exploiting the colonies, but ultimately failed to prove.

Question 23

Revisionist unsuccessful findings from
Ransom (19680) and (McClelland)

Answer 23

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

Question 24

So critics ask, if empire was not exploitative (as Thomas proves and revisionists fail to disprove), why did 13 colonies revolt???

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Note: other acts also influenced the revolt

Currency act effect?

Answer 25

Colonial money supply was an issue, felt Britain was restrictive.

Question 26

Second sphere of the colonial debate by region:

British West Indies and Sugar (first was 13 colonies and navigation acts)

Question 27

British West Indies- Sheridan’s view

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

Thomas’ view on BWI: what did he look at?

Answer 28

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

Question 29

What did Thomas find when looking at ARR in BWI and domestic bonds?

Answer 29

ARR in BWI was 2%.

Risk free British bonds were 3.5%.

Britain would’ve been better off investing at home.

Question 30

Evaluation to Thomas’ work on BWI

Answer 30

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)

Question 31

Coehlo views on BWI- accounting loss!

Answer 31

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)

Question 32

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

Answer 32

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)

Question 33

If there was an accounting loss as Coehlo displays, BWI hindered the IR.

So why hold onto the BWI? (2)

Answer 33

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.