Mar 15, 2009 09:44
I've just finished PJ Cain and AG Hopkins British Imperialism 1688-2000. I would have to say it's one of the most interesting books I've read in a long time. The book deals with how British domestic and overseas policies were shaped by the financial imperatives of the economic system that developed in and out of London during the period in question. Central to the analysis is the construct of "Gentlemanly Capitalism"; an alliance of landed, financial and rentier interests that, it is argued, dominated British government throughout the period. A crucial element in the argument is that industrial interests were marginal and largely ignored and, by implication, as have been given a role far beyond their actual importance by economic historians, especially those of a Marxisant tendency. It's an argument I find compelling. I can't see how else to explain London's continuation as a financial capital and Britain's continued status as a world power right up to 1939 despite the virtual collapse of British manufacturing between 1880 and 1925. Certainly the authors can find many, many compelling examples where sound money and free trade were seen as far more central to Britain's "national interest" than the preservation of markets for industrial goods.
A particularly interesting aspect of this line of analysis is how the authors deal with the evolution or self-reinvention of the gentlemanly capitalist elite. Central to this is the creation of the Gladstonian state as a successor to "Old Corruption"; the high spending, high taxing entity that won the long struggle for global supremacy with the French. The expansion and transformation of the public schools and the old universities to be the training grounds for the entrants to this elite is seen as central to the process. The authors also have an interesting perspective on how the Labour leadership was brought into the fold in the 1940s as the Treasury and the City sought to create a new form of Empire out of the Sterling Area.
It's not a light read; 680 pages plus apparatus of dense argument and a fair amount of quantitative data, but it really is one of those rare books that force one to reconsider some pretty basic assumptions about patterns of historical development. It also makes me ask (though it's beyond the authors' scope), what is Britain's role in a world where she is neither a financial nor an industrial power and what does it mean to be British. How do you reinvent a value system that was predicated on a world that no longer exists? Similarly, if the inflow of vast amounts of foreign capital and the nurture of the service industries associated with them tend to lead to a hollowing out of the manufacturing base then whither America?
history,
books