Coping with the Contradictions: The Development of the Colonial State in Kenya, 1895–1914

Abstract

By drawing on the current Marxist debate about the nature of the capitalist state, this article argues that the colonial state was obliged to be more interventionist than the mature capitalist state in its attempts to manage the economy, since colonies were distinguished by the way in which they articulated capitalism to local modes of production. This posed severe problems of social control, since the capitalist sector required the preservation of indigenous social institutions while also extracting resources from them. In early colonial Kenya this problem was mitigated by a rough compatibility between the needs of settler capital and the patronage exercised by African chiefs within a peasant sector which was expanded to solve the colonial administration's initial need for peace and revenue. The peasant sector was not destroyed, rather it was represented in the state, which never ceased thereafter to be plagued by the conflicts between the two modes of production over which it presided.

Colonial and post-colonial changes and impact on pastoral women’s roles and status

“…Although there was no full-scale application of the system, in the case of Africa, the policy was guided by the postulation that African and European cultures varied greatly and communities that had developed institutions were best ruled indirectly. In Kenya, the history and process of British colonial consolidation and rule has been discussed in detail by Lonsdale and Berman 1979;Mungeam 1966). 66 However, it is important to note that British administration was based on the general British principals, where the colony was divided into provinces led by the provincial commissioner helped by the district commissioners.…”

State Extraction and Anti-Colonial Rebellion Quantitative Evidence from the Former German East Africa

“…In return for their acceptance of the state's authority, their support for tax collection, and their provision of labor, local strongmen received shares of taxes, new rents to distribute, or preferential access to economic goods (Lonsdale and Berman 1979;Trotha 1994). Once they are integrated into the state's extractive system, nonstate elites do not necessarily suffer from intensified extraction.…”

“…Similarly, in many colonial states the expansion of taxation effectively threatened local elites, as mere state presence evolved into effective state penetration. Elites lost their economic independence as well as an essential attribute of local power (Trotha 1994 the fulfillment of demands for forced labor were seen by the population as the ultimate evidence of obedience to alien authority and control (Lonsdale and Berman 1979;Callahan 2002). Such consequences of a state's expanding extractive authority can motivate local elites into resistance and thereby increase the likelihood of effective mobilization (Brustein and Levi 1987;Lamborn 1983).…”

The Making of Middle Indonesia

“…In Africa, state formation actually stimulated communalism. To maintain order within pre-capitalist economies 'the [colonial African] state had to convert its superior coercive force over Africans into a legitimate authority accepted by Africans and therefore mediated through their own preexisting or emergent relations of power' (Lonsdale and Berman 1979). Something similar was happening in Timor.…”