England and France governance in colonies and impact on realization of industrialization
Introduction
The colonial ruling styles of Britain and France have not been explored in relation to industrialization. In this study, the focus is on Africa since it was the hub of the slave trade, and the source of many raw materials. “What is Industrialization” is argued by prominent economist such as Crafts, Deane, and Rostow. By summarizing their points of view, it became clear that the availability of raw materials and labor were important to Britain and France, in achieving industrialization. The link between raw materials and labor, and the colonial ruling style of France and British, shows the advantages that Britain had over France.
Perspectives of Prominent Economists on Industrialization
After the Second World War, economists and historians debated the interpretation of the process of industrialization in the now developed countries. Two major powers in Europe; England and France, have been the focus of this debate. The debate becomes even more specific when economists argue on the “Why was England First” to industrialize. Phyllis Deane argued that there is no definite process which is called an industrial revolution (Deane 1). Rather, there were identifiable changes in methods and economic development that may have been interpreted as an industrial revolution. These improvements are associated with population growth, increase in services offered, as well as volume of goods produced. Phyllis Deane argued that England was the First to Industrialize.
Rostow compared the annual average patents granted and inventions approved, of Great Britain and France in the Eighteenth Century. The information shows an overwhelming dominance by Great Britain. Rostow argued that there were many inventions besides the Spinning Jenny, and the water frame. He also argued that the implementation of new innovations were essential in England’s dominance over France (Rostow 611). Rostow disagreed with the notion that England’s achievement of the first industrial revolution was “inevitable.” He argued that there were indeed many factors which enabled England’s probability of industrial revolution (Rostow 611) to be higher than France.
Crafts argued that, the comparative approach Crouzet employed to answer the question of “Why was England first to experience the onset of the Industrial revolution?” was non-applicable because literature had changed. Current literature offers three types of answers. First is that, there were studies that singled out one crucial reason. Secondly, that the English industrial revolution was as a result of previous periods of general economic growth, citing Hartwell as saying that, there should not be an explanation for economic growth; that it is an outcome of a process of balanced growth. Thirdly, Kranzberg’s proposal, that a number of favorable factors were responsible for England’s dominance, i.e., technological, economic, social, political). In short, the advantage Britain had over France was qualitative, not quantitative (Crafts 431). Craft asserted that the invention of the Spinning Jenny by Hargreaves, and the water frame by Arkwright ( Both English inventions) were responsible in spear heading the industrial revolution. He argued that Rostow’s attempt to enumerate socio-economic factors as reasons for England’s dominance is deterministic, and not provable.
The prominent economists all agree on one thing, and that is the fact that labor and raw materials were very important in the quest for industrialization. How these resources were obtained and processed is important as well. Another important thing to note is the availability of markets for these resources. Assimilation and indirect rule show two different approaches to the obtaining, use and processing of raw materials and labor. Assimilation required that, majority of the resources were to be used in developing the colonies, while indirect rule required that, the resources were to be used by the colonial power to develop it.
Colonial Ruling Styles of Britain and France
The colonial ruling style of the French differed from that of the British in Africa. These differences in rule could attribute to the reason why one country resource-wise, had an advantage over the other during the period of industrialization.
Policy of Assimilation by the French
The French approach to colonialism was based on integrating its colonial people into a “Greater France through cultural assimilation and administrative centralization” (Blanton 478). Every aspect of the French colonial rule reflected the determination for a centralized state with a single social system, which encompassed individuals from different regions and ethnic groups. The French used language as a primary tool of assimilation. The French language was integrated into commerce and government. The French strived to “create a system of control modeled after the centralized bureaucracy of the French state” (Blanton 478). All power to enact legislations was in the hands of the government in Paris, but the ordinances enacted by the colonial governor.
The colonial state replaced the traditional institutions. African chiefs were required to be subservient to French directives. Measures such as “taxation, land tenure laws, and mandatory labor dues on public –works projects” were essential in the assimilation of the colonial subjects.
The French invested in the infrastructure of their colonies. The transportation industries were considered very important. Railway lines were built not only for the transportation of goods, but for public transport. The French envisioned each colony and its people to someday live like French people, in a place that resembled Paris in terms of infrastructure. It is argued that assimilation was a costly form of colonialism compared to indirect rule.
Policy of Indirect Rule by the British
Indirect rule was characteristic of the British rule in Africa during the 18th and 19th century. Not all British colonies were under indirect rule. Burma for example experienced direct rule. Indirect rule was a system where external military and tax control was operated by the British, while almost every other aspect of life was left to local pre-colonial aristocracies who had sided with the British during the conquest.
Local political elites enjoyed considerable autonomy, although they still had to keep in accord with the interests of the colonial power. Also, the number of title chief holders was typically reduced in order to weaken the ruler’s patronage. The British policy was not to reach down directly to each individual African subject. Indirect rule was adopted on grounds of its cheapness and to allow for independent cultural development, but was increasingly criticized for its failure to modernize its colonial administration. I believe it is safe to say, British indirect rule in Africa was synonymous to running a puppet government.
Raw Materials and Labor
The two most important resources required for industrialization were labor and Raw materials. Without these resources, machinery could not be built or operated, cash crop plantations could not have been tended to. In the 18th and 19th century, during the scramble for Africa, colonial powers focused on securing colonies that were rich in resources. Sub-Saharan Africa, one of the last regions of the world largely untouched by "informal imperialism" and "civilization", was also attractive to Europe's ruling elites for economic reasons. Raw materials unavailable in Europe, especially copper, steel, cotton, rubber, tea, and tin, to which European consumers had grown accustomed and upon which European industry had grown dependent, were the focus of colonial powers.
Labor in the European colonies, in Africa, during the 17th, 18th , and 19th centuries, were more or less free labor. British and French needed individuals to mine resources, work on cash crop plantations, and operate machinery in manufacturing industries, for example the textile and steel industries. Free labor from slaves ensured a maximization of revenue hence profit. Many colonial powers situated their manufacturing industries near the sources of the raw material, in order to minimize transportation cost and time, which was important in surpassing the competition from other colonial powers.
France: Raw Materials from the colonies
France had colonial possessions, in various forms, from the beginning of the 17th century until the 1960’s. In the 19th centuries, its global colonial empire was the second largest behind the British Empire. Assimilation was a costly system which was run in about 80 percent of the French colonies. It entailed the modernization of the colonies with technology that was common in France. The French considered their colonies as an extension of their provinces overseas. Consequently, just as much as they invested in provinces in France, they put the same effort in their colonies. The Economic historian, Hargreaves mentions that, the French in Senegal invested in the transportation industry by developing railway lines not just for the transportation of resources, but also for the transportation of the local people. The French modified the housing industry, the health industry, the educational sector, the legislative system, and the economy. All these efforts required funds. The French, through their system of assimilation, used significant amounts of revenue obtained from trading resources to develop the sectors mentioned above. That is to say, the surplus revenue was used in France to spur their effort to industrialize. Hargreaves (Hargreaves 184) writes that, in Senegal, African’s were drawn to French colonial community through employment, education, trade, marriage, and concubinage.
Britain: Raw Materials from the colonies
Britain on the other hand operated the indirect rule system, where they invested mainly in avenues of British interest. Railroads constructed were primarily for the transport of resources from mines or farms, directly to the port. Originally, the Gold Coast did not have any natural harbors that could provide for ocean going vessels. The large surf boats, made from the hardwoods of the rain forest, could hold up to about forty men, or the equivalent in cargo. They offloaded goods coming from overseas and loaded cocoa and other products to go overseas. The British built large ports in Tema and Takoradi that merchant ships could use as a harbor. It is important to note that many of the railways in the Gold coast passed through major resource producing towns such as Sekondi Takoradi, Koforidua, and Kumasi. Railway lines from these hubs led directly to British ports on the coast. Health sector was improved in the capital Accra, but was only accessible by the British. In relation to housing, British style houses were occupied by British expatriates. In east cantonments, Accra, the influence is evident. The educational system was primarily for children of these expatriates. The common entrance system was eventually accepted, but due to lack of immersion into that system, it has been currently replaced by a national system slightly similar, but with local examination standards. Using data on the british raw material imports from their colonies between the 18th and 19th century, it is evident that nearly 80 percent of british raw material imports were retained. Twenty percent of the imports were exported to markets world-wide.
Source:Joseph E. Inikori, Africans and the Industrial Revolution in England: A Study in International Trade and Economic Development
Britain had significant amount of raw materials, compared to France, from exploiting their colonies, to further their determination of industrialization.
Britain and France: Labor from the colonies
I mentioned earlier on that the British had more resources to use in their pursuit for industrial resolution. With the availability of free labor, profits were maximized. The French also maximized their profits, but still fell short of the sum the British amassed by virtue of the fact that assimilation was more costly, hence using the equation Revenue minus Cost equals Profit, the overall profit of the French was less compared to the British. The slaves were destined primarily for emerging New World plantation economies. Demand for labor is what contributed to an environment in which the capture and transfer of African peoples became a dominant economic activity for Europeans and some segments of the African population in West Africa, who were involved in the capture and transport of captives to the markets.
Statistics of the number of slaves imported between the 17th and 18th century, shows that Britain on annually imported an average of 38,000 Slave Trade Statistics slaves. France imported 20,000, which was about half the British number.This disparity in the volume of slaves imported may be seen as a manifestation of the ruling styles of both colonial powers.
Assimilation was focused on the education and development of the colonies. French education was spread throughout colonies. Even till this present day, many French colonies still run the French educational system. Evidence shows that the French discouraged the transportation of individuals in their colonies overseas. Labor in the colonies was to enhance development in the colonies. The number of individuals from French colonies running assimilation who were under slavery was not as many as those under British indirect rule for two hypothetical reasons. Firstly is that the British had more colonies than the French. The British had the most colonies of all European nations involved in the era of colonialisation. An easy validation of this is the reason why English is the most spoken language worldwide (not including Chinese). By having the most colonies, and practicing the indirect rule system, it is fair to assert that Britain had more individuals under the indirect rule system. Secondly, with that many colonies, the British had access to more free labor than the French. The French paid workers provided them with similar benefits as available in France, hence portraying a less exploitative form of colonialism. That being said, it is fair to assume that the number of slave workers from French colonies were lower than those from British colonies.
By virtue of the fact that the British overall had cheaper/free labor in abundance, it is fair to say that it served as an aid in increasing the size of its manufacturing and producing industries.
Conclusion
The British used slaves for manufacturing, and plantation work. Slaves were shipped from West Africa to the West Indies and where there was ample land for farming, and the soil was rich with nutrients. Banana, sugar, coffee and cocoa plantations were setup to cater for the domestic and trade related needs of Britain. Food processing factories in these islands were supervised by slave masters but fueled by free slave labor. With the ample supply of free labor available, coupled with the easy availability of resources thanks to indirect rule, the British had both the resources and man-power to develop their industries and increase trade with other nations.
Inventions might have well been discovered in the colonies. One can argue that with the policy of assimilation focusing on the education of the people in the colonies, it may have aided in the development of inventions by the colonized people. That being said, indirect rule which focuses on just the governance and acquisition of resources lacked and intellectual support from slaves from their colonies. Unfortunately, information to make this assertion is difficult to obtain, and also, it may be argued that education of the populace in the colonies in no way affected the number of inventions created since all one needs to do is, come across something new and different, see how it works, and reproduce it in Europe as a patent and invention.
Cited Works
Deane, Phyllis. “The First Industrial Revolution.” Cambridge Press, Second Edition 1979.
Rostow, W.W. “No Random Walk: A comment on ‘Why was England First?’”
Crafts, N.F.R. “Industrial Revolution in England and France: Some Thoughts on the Question, “Why was England First?”
Kevin Shillington, History of Africa: Revised Second Edition, (New York: Macmillian Publishers Limited, 2005)
Michael Crowder, Senegal: A Study in French Assimilation Policy
John D. Hargreaves, The Journal of African History, Vol. 6, No. 2. (1965), pp. 177-184.
Joseph E. Inikori, Africans and the Industrial Revolution in England: A Study in International Trade and Economic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. xxi + 576 pp. £55 or $75 (hardcover), ISBN: 0-521-81193-7; £19.95 or $29 (paperback), ISBN: 0-521-01079-9. THIS IS NOTHING IMPORTANT IT IS THE MOST BORING THING EVER
