Black man's burden, white man's welfare: control, devolution and development in the British Empire, 1880-1914

Accominotti, Olivier; Flandreau, Marc; Rezzik, Riad; Zumer, Frédéric

doi:10.1017/s1361491609990025

Cited by 34 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Flandreau (2006) argues that colonies' cheap rates owed to what he calls ''enforcement technologies'' operated by metropolitan governments. Accominotti et al (2009) study the range of colonial enforcement technologies available to Britain. Obstfeld and Taylor (2003), Ferguson and Schularick (2006) estimate a model of borrowing spreads which they apply to both sovereign and colonial countries and report conflicting results.…”

Section: Silver Risk and Foreign Bondsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Was the emergence of the international gold standard expected? Evidence from Indian Government securities

Flandreau

Oosterlinck

2012

Journal of Monetary Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Silver Risk and Foreign Bondsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Was the emergence of the international gold standard expected? Evidence from Indian Government securities

Flandreau

Oosterlinck

2012

Journal of Monetary Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…13 13 For a preliminary elaboration of these ideas, see Accominotti, Flandreau, Rezzik, and Zumer, ‘Black man's burden, white man's welfare’. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The spread of empire: Clio and the measurement of colonial borrowing costs1

Accominotti

Flandreau

Rezzik

2010

The Economic History Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern cliometric studies use dummy variables to measure the effects of institutions. The dummy variable approach can be misleading, as illustrated by recent research on the impact of colonial rule on borrowing terms. We show how trying to measure a 'colonial effect' without an analysis of the financial consequences of political subjection can be misleading. The main effect of the British Empire was to remove the default risk. Establishing how this was done, and with what effects, should take us closer to a proper understanding of the effect of empire.e hr_536 385..407 I don't care to be part of a club that accepts people such as myself.Groucho Marx T he goal of this article is to provide an assessment of methodological pitfalls in works aimed at measuring the economic benefits of the British Empire. Due to the increasing interest that economists have taken in institutions, the study of colonial legacy has attracted renewed attention in recent years. Thanks to contributions by Acemoglu et al., research has recently revived, in the language of formal models and with the tools of modern econometrics, issues that have occupied historians' minds for a long time, such as the influence of imperial institutions on countries' long-run economic performance. 2 These questions had been discussed in the past, in a different but related guise, not least in Davis and Huttenback's seminal book on the political economy of the British Empire. 3 Among the varied issues raised in their work was the influence of empire subjection on borrowing costs. Computing average borrowing rates in British colonies and in sovereign countries, Davis and Huttenback found that colonies tended to have much lower interest rates than sovereign nations and suggested that this was a benefit of colonization. Combining this number with the amount of capital transferred to colonies provided a measurement of the social surplus that colonies secured. Social surpluses have traditionally been used to compute the effect of switching to a 'superior' technology (such as railways) and abandoning an 'inferior' technology 1 Frédéric Zumer was closely involved in related and earlier work and is gratefully thanked for the time and insight he contributed to this spin-off from our earlier collaborative research. We are grateful to Knick Harley, Larry Neal, and conference participants in Oxford, Paris, and Edinburgh for their comments and suggestions.We also thank Jane Humphries and four referees for their advice in preparing the final draft. All misinterpretations remain ours.2 Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, 'Colonial origins'.

show abstract

“…The economics of empire, both formal and informal, proved a popular subject this year. Challenging the idea that an unofficial imperialism followed British capital abroad, Dilley finds that the City's influence over borrowers in Australia and Canada was weaker than has been claimed, while Accominotti et al. argue that financial repression accompanied political repression in the ‘dependent’ colonies, but not in the self‐governing dominions, race playing a major factor in economic decisions. Howkins explores the decline of Britain's informal empire in Argentina from the 1930s, drawing attention to the importance of what he calls ‘environmental nationalism’: challenges to Britain's claims of being able to assert control over nature, which had been central to its close relationship with the nation's land‐owning elites.…”

Section: University Of Kent; Lancaster Universitymentioning

confidence: 97%