Skip to main content

Was the British Empire worth it?

Recently the children and grandchildren of ex-colonials who work for the BBC etc. have been getting a major attack of conscience about the British Empire.  Most of us just regard the old Empire as something that ended in or before the days of our grandparents but if you have family that returned from the colonies or were expelled from the colonies you might feel guilty.


How much did the British Empire benefit the British?  We should be sceptical

Wikipedia:Great Divergence

about the economic impact of Empire because the rapid growth in British incomes relative to our European neighbours began before the huge expansion of Empire in the nineteenth century.  The British domestic economy was making the British rich so how did Empire help?

Traditionally it is assumed that imperial trade provided a huge boost to the UK economy.  Overseas trade requires that in the long run it is balanced. The customers must have enough money to buy goods and services and the producers must have the resources and capital to produce them. As part of this equilibrium the wholesalers, retailers and other middlemen must benefit equally at both ends of the trading.  The scope for big profit lies in the local producers or middlemen being able to extort labour or goods from their locality and in the days of maritime empires this usually entailed living abroad as a colonist.  Being a colonist made some entrepreneurial people very wealthy, they received the "huge boost" of empires and much of that boost remained overseas.

The classic picture of imperial trade is that the UK produced manufactured goods in return for raw materials.  However, in the nineteenth century much of the raw materials for manufactures, such as coal, iron, copper, tin etc. were produced in the UK.  The raw materials obtained from the Empire were cotton, sugar, tobacco and wood.  Of these cotton was by far the most important, in around 1825 processed cotton goods were about 40% of UK exports whilst imports of sugar etc added together were of relatively low value.  

However, much of British cotton (70% to 90%) was imported from the USA:

Source: Olmstead AL and Rhode, PW. (2016)

The USA was not part of the British Empire after 1776.  The rise in British cotton imports from India was a result of the American Civil War as can be seen from the massive fall in imports from the USA in 1862:

Source: Surdam

Indian cotton was about 35% of cotton imports in 1870 as US supply rapidly returned. 

There is no doubt that Britain was a major trading power in the nineteenth century:

But the distribution of this trade was largely outside of the British Empire: 

If we remove the seventy percent or more of British trade that went outside the empire we are left with perhaps 20-30% of trade within it.

This confirms that having an Empire was a fairly pointless exercise throughout the nineteenth century from the viewpoint of trade. Much of the "Empire Share" of trade would probably have been available without an empire.  Why did Britain have an empire?

The Empire began as a mixture of the seizure of the overseas possessions of other European powers in the wars of the eighteenth century and the entrepreneurial activity of bodies such as the East India Company.  These new possessions were colonised and the Empire then became an exercise in protecting the colonists.  Much of the apparently large wealth of the British Empire was in fact the wealth of the colonists.

Why did Britain have an Empire?  Another answer to that question is that, as in all other commercial activities, it makes some entrepreneurial people wealthy.  Some of the British people who went overseas, colonising and trading, got richer than they could have expected at home. Some of their descendants then got kicked out of the colonies, came back to the UK, and joined the BBC to lecture us on the evils of the old Empire as if it still existed.

The colonists who stayed overseas turned out to be a huge boon to the world. Without them we would be speaking German.

 

See also Slavery and British Wealth in the 18th and 19th Centuries


7/10/2020

Olmstead, AL and Rhode, PW. (2016)  Cotton, Slavery, and the New History of Capitalism.

Surdam, David G. “King Cotton: Monarch or Pretender? The State of the Market for Raw Cotton on the Eve of the American Civil War.” The Economic History Review, vol. 51, no. 1, 1998, pp. 113–132. 

McKeown TJ (1983). Hegemonic Stability Theory and Nineteenth-Century Tariff Levels in Europe. International Organization · February 1983

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b
35 comments
Read more

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H
1 comment
Read more

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone political union ( EMU Stage
15 comments
Read more