The Economic Consequences of British Imperialism

[Andropov]

What were the economic consequences of British Imperialism in the likes of India and Pakistan and the former colonys in Africa?

[ComradeOm]

Significant. In the first place, the arrival of a colonial power (formally or informally) often triggered mass de-industrialisation and ruination as the colonial market was forcibly opened up to cheaper manufactured imports. India is probably the classic example of this: according to David Clingingsmith (India's De-Industrialization Under British Rule) the Mughal Empire probably represented 25% of global manufacturing output in 1750 but this (admittedly cottage production) was systematically dismantled by the British and the economy reorientated to serve British interests. Its well known that raw materials were shipped from India to the mills of Lancashire and then the finished goods sold back at prices cheap enough to ruin the Indian competition

The same basic dynamic was at work in almost every British colony but to list all the other factors would be exhausting (read: I'm lazy) as its a huge question. Your best bet is probably finding a book that tackles the question head on, unfortunately I don't know of any off hand

[Andropov]

Cheers Comrade0m, all information is a help.
Out of interest was the same process of de-industrialisation at work in Ireland or was the context markedly different to India?
And you said that 25% of manufacturing in the world in 1750 was done in India, what exactly did they manifacture in India?
Also the book you mentioned, is it worth a read on the subject?

[ComradeOm]

Out of interest was the same process of de-industrialisation at work in Ireland or was the context markedly different to India?Not expert on Ireland but I'd imagine that it was markedly different. Namely the fact that there wasn't much industry at home to begin with. Local handicrafts were probably hard hit by exports from England but in the same way as other British communities/regions. Its hard to measure this impact because there was no sudden entry point - unlike the British in India or other 19th C markets (Portugal is another example)

That said, it is noticeable that under British rule there was very little industrial development outside of the north east of the island. Strongly suggests to me that the rest of Ireland was stuck in a trade dependency loop whereby it exported agricultural produce and imported manufactured goods


And you said that 25% of manufacturing in the world in 1750 was done in India, what exactly did they manifacture in India?Almost uniformly textiles IIRC. They tend to feature a lot in both cottage industry and the early stages of industrialisation

You have to understand as well that India had such a huge percentage because it was a) a pretty big place with b) some well developed textile traditions. It was still an overwhelmingly agrarian society with no industrial base to speak of - its manufacturing was of the cottage/artisan variety. That simply couldn't compete with the new mechanised industry that was developing in the UK around the same time


Also the book you mentioned, is it worth a read on the subject?Its a paper (might be available online for free) and it deals fairly specifically with India. Probably not the best place to start reading. There should be plenty of literature out there on this subject (I know that developmental economics often deals with it in passing) but unfortunately I wouldn't know where to start looking

[Demogorgon]

When the British arrived in India it was roughly on the same economic level as Europe. When they left it was by some estimates the poorest country in the world on a per capita basis. I think that speaks for itself.