Role of colonies in economy of British Empire

**intel** · November 06, 2009, 03:17 AM

I am researching the subject at the moment, and I cannot find proper web sources to use in my referate. I'm curious: what was the reason behing Britsh Imperialism? Adam Smith proved imperial policy to be unreasonable, yet despite his authority and overall unfavorable opinion about colonies amongst British political elites, Empire kept on expanding. But most of all, I'd like to know about importance and role of colonies in British Empire.

Accurate and informative sites are most welcome

Feel free to express yourselves and broaden my knowledge on the subject!

I apologize for possible spelling mistakes and grammar errors.

Regards

**Poach** · November 06, 2009, 11:04 AM

Massive influx of trade goods into British markets and via British companies. British companies getting rich makes the British economy rich, and the government gets a lot of money through taxes and import fees etc.

Added to this, all these companies need ships and such, which they buy from British shipyards.

**Salem1** · November 06, 2009, 11:05 AM

Colonies were in a simple way reversed garbage dumps in that stuff was taken from rather than to them and they were supposed to be dependant on the motherland, to stop any ambitions of self-rule. The African colonies were pretty much economical black holes that ran deficits pretty much forever, they were prestige projects. What really turned in the cash was for example India but as far as I know the British didn't exploit Africa less than India, it just turned out less of a profit. Correct me if I'm wrong on that though, that's about what I know in one small package.

**dogukan** · November 06, 2009, 11:36 AM

haha, intel, I hope after this thread your view on brutal capitalism will change a little....

Anyways on topic. The coutnry itself had large amounts of coal reserves and a growing industry. The technological advancements have increased the output of basic needs earlier which caused a population boom. So there was also a large workforce. I mean, Britain without her colonies could still have been a local power that is enough for her people.
Well capitalism/imperialism never gets satisfied as we all know...so they wanted to be a superpower and their colonies were very helpfull for this purpose.

First of all, it enlargened the markets Brits have access to. They have also had products that were new in European market. The lesser the product is, the more it costs.
Having colonies meant that Brits could provide their basic needs from colonies....as well as stuff that could help them produce new products for the market(coming with advancing of technology)
Anyways thanks to colonies, Brits concentrated their people in industry(also the fact that advanced farming tools) rather than basic needs.(the sea domination helped a lot) The products from colonies were used to produce new things in factories of Britain.
At that point you can sell them to 3 places
-your people
-world market(mostly Europeans)
-your colonies (yes, another brutal aspect of capitalism. You make them work, you take their resources, you give them back with more expensive prices and profit)

It also helped the British merchants as they have had a wide area of trading possibilities, which I believe helped the formation of the most primitive capitalists society we can imagine.
-monarchy
-aristocracy
-rich people
-soldiers
-labours
-farmers
-slaves/semi-slaves*
as you can this society is brutal to her lower groups, as there was no well established social reforms back in the day. Massive population boom, migrations to cities....people were living in very very poor conditions.

*semi-slaves: I mean natives who worked in the colonies to extract local resources

**intel** · November 06, 2009, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by dogukan

haha, intel, I hope after this thread your view on brutal capitalism will change a little....

Anyways on topic. The coutnry itself had large amounts of coal reserves and a growing industry. The technological advancements have increased the output of basic needs earlier which caused a population boom. So there was also a large workforce. I mean, Britain without her colonies could still have been a local power that is enough for her people.
Well capitalism/imperialism never gets satisfied as we all know...so they wanted to be a superpower and their colonies were very helpfull for this purpose.

First of all, it enlargened the markets Brits have access to. They have also had products that were new in European market. The lesser the product is, the more it costs.
Having colonies meant that Brits could provide their basic needs from colonies....as well as stuff that could help them produce new products for the market(coming with advancing of technology)
Anyways thanks to colonies, Brits concentrated their people in industry(also the fact that advanced farming tools) rather than basic needs.(the sea domination helped a lot) The products from colonies were used to produce new things in factories of Britain.
At that point you can sell them to 3 places
-your people
-world market(mostly Europeans)
-your colonies (yes, another brutal aspect of capitalism. You make them work, you take their resources, you give them back with more expensive prices and profit)

It also helped the British merchants as they have had a wide area of trading possibilities, which I believe helped the formation of the most primitive capitalists society we can imagine.
-monarchy
-aristocracy
-rich people
-soldiers
-labours
-farmers
-slaves/semi-slaves*
as you can this society is brutal to her lower groups, as there was no well established social reforms back in the day. Massive population boom, migrations to cities....people were living in very very poor conditions.

*semi-slaves: I mean natives who worked in the colonies to extract local resources

I don't see a point in blaming capitalism for sins of colonialism. I also fail to see a direct link between slavery and capitalism... Also, why should I change my views towards capitalism? You only proved that without proper law execution and any social services, things can get very bad. Nothing new with it plus the fact that I'm familiar with the basics of British economy of that period.

If you can extract the facts from Dogukan's biased rantings, he's got the basic idea.

The problem is that I already have basic knowledge, what I need is detailed informations, e-books, academic essays, statistics etc.!

**Poach** · November 06, 2009, 11:42 AM

If you can extract the facts from Dogukan's biased rantings, he's got the basic idea.

**uzi716** · November 06, 2009, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Poach

If you can extract the facts from Dogukan's biased rantings, he's got the basic idea.

Being descendants of people living in Britsh Raj I have to say that I saw the colonies as a way for Britain to be prosperous. British Isles itself have little resources but the colonies were full of useful things.

The Brits were very dependabt on their colonies.

**Civil1z@tion** · November 06, 2009, 11:42 PM

The British Isles had most of the major resources they needed, the colonies were supplemental. Remember Britain has lots of wool coal and even iron and textiles and steel were the two single largest manufacturing industries of the Industrial revolution. The colonies were helpful, but perhaps not vital.

**dogukan** · November 06, 2009, 12:05 PM

I think I have had some statistical information(mostly regarding industrial revolution)...but I can't find them among all these papers.
Maybe if you say "viva la revolution"

I don't see a point in blaming capitalism for sins of colonialism. I also fail to see a direct link between slavery and capitalism...

yeah I realized that too

Also, why should I change my views towards capitalism? You only proved that without proper law execution and any social services, things can get very bad. Nothing new with it plus the fact that I'm familiar with the basics of British economy of that period.

oh well, okay

**~~Barry Ferguson~~** · November 06, 2009, 12:17 PM

Britain's economy grew by accident in large part. We grabbed places basically so no-one else could grab them. The role of colonies was to provide raw material which were shipped back to Britain, processed and flogged back to the colonies at extortionate prices. The only colonies which actually made a profit were India, South Africa and i think Australia. One of the best sources is Eric Hobsbawm's Age of Empire. See if it's on Google books

**SturmChurro** · November 06, 2009, 03:34 PM

TRADE, Imperialism.

**Civil1z@tion** · November 06, 2009, 04:09 PM

I typically don't deal with websites when I'm researching academic issues like this but I can offer a few helpful book titles.

The Absent Minded Imperialists by Bernard Porter is an excellent study of the British Empire. It mostly covers cultural issues, however the economic debates surrounding the empire come up in several places (one of the main debates about the colonies was were they worth the costs).

Empire: The British Imperial Experience by Denis Judd is a book I'm currently reading. It gives a good overview of the empire as a whole including economic issues.

If you get interested in cultural issues surrounding the British Empire read Culture and Imperialism by Edward Said. I don't agree with his simplification of Western scholarship into simply a morass of racism and imperialism apologia but its an influential and interesting read none the less.

One thing to remember about the British Empire is that it invested heavily in the colonies. The ability to use capital was probably and even bigger economic reason for having the colonies than using them as markets for British goods (which lead to disappointing results as the natives were too poor to afford many goods). This investment formed the foundation of the current post-colonial countries and depending upon how well the nation has been managed since has lead to relative prosperity (the main example being South Africa) or continued stagnation and poverty (e.g. the rest of Africa).

**IronBrig4** · November 06, 2009, 04:38 PM

Jackson, Joe. The Thief at the End of the World: Rubber, Power, and the Seeds of Empire.

Headrick, Daniel.The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century.

Both are excellent books. You can find both on Amazon, and I know you can find Jackson's book at any Borders or Barnes & Noble.

**G-Megas-Doux** · November 06, 2009, 09:39 PM

If I were you, I would try and get to a library and start researching books on the subject from there. That would be the most educational and useful tool.

I recommend that you start during the beginning of the Tudor period and their licence adventurers around the world; John Cabot was licence by Henry VII to find a northern route to the orient at around the same time as Columbus. There were colonies that were tried during Elizabeth but were not successful. You would be remiss to not find this information out before you start reviewing from the 1620s onwards. Both England and Scotland acting separately did look to the Americas first. These initial colonies and trade colonies later formed in the Orient are very important. Don’t overlook the role of competition from the Spanish, Portuguese, French or Dutch as it is this competition that drove the British to create an Empire and many lands were taken off these nations.