Sunday, January 22, 2006
PNM AND BRITISH EGYPT
Chirol has finished Part III of his series on PNM Theory and British domination of Egypt:
"According to Barnett’s criteria for the effectiveness of a military intervention, creating enough security to attract substantial FDI, the British occupation was successful. In terms of increasing the flows of globalization (relevant to that time), it also succeeded. However, as soon as the English finally left, the country succumbed to a coup in 1952 which has lasted to this day. Whether the British can be blamed for that remains open because they did not truly aim to create the a constitutional monarch that would last but rather one that they could manipulate, ultimately leading to the nationalist backlash which ruined the country and doomed it to one man rule."
An interesting follow-up for Chirol would be the subsequent and bloody British intervention against the Mahdist state in Sudan, undertaken to punish the destruction of the force that had been commanded by Charles "Chinese" Gordon at Khartoum. A young Winston Churchill accompanied that expedition to watch the undaunted cavalry of the Mahdi, swords in one hand and Qurans in the other, charge headlong into the guns of Kitchener's army. ¶ 8:42 PM
Chirol has finished Part III of his series on PNM Theory and British domination of Egypt:
"According to Barnett’s criteria for the effectiveness of a military intervention, creating enough security to attract substantial FDI, the British occupation was successful. In terms of increasing the flows of globalization (relevant to that time), it also succeeded. However, as soon as the English finally left, the country succumbed to a coup in 1952 which has lasted to this day. Whether the British can be blamed for that remains open because they did not truly aim to create the a constitutional monarch that would last but rather one that they could manipulate, ultimately leading to the nationalist backlash which ruined the country and doomed it to one man rule."
An interesting follow-up for Chirol would be the subsequent and bloody British intervention against the Mahdist state in Sudan, undertaken to punish the destruction of the force that had been commanded by Charles "Chinese" Gordon at Khartoum. A young Winston Churchill accompanied that expedition to watch the undaunted cavalry of the Mahdi, swords in one hand and Qurans in the other, charge headlong into the guns of Kitchener's army. ¶ 8:42 PM
Comments:
<< Home
I'll look into your suggestions on the Sudan! Give me a few days! I see Barnett has also picked up PNM and British Egypt, thanks to you.
Zenpundit, publicist extraordinaire indeed!
Zenpundit, publicist extraordinaire indeed!
# posted by 
: Monday, 23 January, 2006
: Monday, 23 January, 2006
The Gutenberg Project has the text of Chuchill's book The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan online:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/7rivr10.txt
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/7rivr10.txt
# posted by : Monday, 23 January, 2006
: Monday, 23 January, 2006
A fatally flawed commentary I am afraid that really ends up being near worthless for its superficiality, above all in the conception of global cap flows and impact in the colonies (at least in my stomping grounds).
If this is what this 'theory' leads to, I am afraid one should give it a miss.
If this is what this 'theory' leads to, I am afraid one should give it a miss.
# posted by : Monday, 23 January, 2006
: Monday, 23 January, 2006
"... above all in the conception of global cap flows and impact in the colonies (at least in my stomping grounds)."
Well, viewing colonialism ( or intra-European relations in this time period) from the perspective of the City, the Bourse and major investment houses and so on paints a different picture of events, admittedly.
An esoteric subfield of history though Col, one I did not encounter until I was a grad student and one that almost never makes its way into popular history or the media ( Niall Ferguson excepted and there he had the "name" angle of Rothschild as a hook for the publisher). Most undergrad students, if they get any econ for this period at all are still served up Hobson, usually not very critically either.
Why don't you lay out a critique ?
Well, viewing colonialism ( or intra-European relations in this time period) from the perspective of the City, the Bourse and major investment houses and so on paints a different picture of events, admittedly.
An esoteric subfield of history though Col, one I did not encounter until I was a grad student and one that almost never makes its way into popular history or the media ( Niall Ferguson excepted and there he had the "name" angle of Rothschild as a hook for the publisher). Most undergrad students, if they get any econ for this period at all are still served up Hobson, usually not very critically either.
Why don't you lay out a critique ?
Well, viewing colonialism ( or intra-European relations in this time period) from the perspective of the City, the Bourse and major investment houses and so on paints a different picture of events, admittedly.
Depends.
If one is looking at it with a trading mentality, or if one is understanding the inevement climate as a long term investor.
The colonial system was fundamentally bad for the long-term positive development of the markets - the way the development occured directly contributed to and was a fundamental cause for decolonisation and post-colonial failure.
The post-colonial reaction was a disaster but had legitimate roots. The discrediting of liberal economics in the colonial world has much to do with the illiberal and often rentier nature of colonial investment. It rarely built domestic capacity, often deliberately and systematically excluded domestic talent and enabled colon rent and indeed expropriation.
None of this helped built sustainable devleopment or capital flows - it was predicated on vampire state type behaviour, better governed than post-colonial systems to be sure, but only in a degree.
An esoteric subfield of history though Col, one I did not encounter until I was a grad student and one that almost never makes its way into popular history or the media ( Niall Ferguson excepted and there he had the "name" angle of Rothschild as a hook for the publisher). Most undergrad students, if they get any econ for this period at all are still served up Hobson, usually not very critically either.
I'm sure you're right. Were I not deeply interested in the MENA region.
Why don't you lay out a critique ?
Because I am mapping out lots of stuff from the annual report of Bank al-Istithmaar of a certain place, and its all in bloody Arabic.
When I have time, I will do so, meanwhile deadlines call.
Depends.
If one is looking at it with a trading mentality, or if one is understanding the inevement climate as a long term investor.
The colonial system was fundamentally bad for the long-term positive development of the markets - the way the development occured directly contributed to and was a fundamental cause for decolonisation and post-colonial failure.
The post-colonial reaction was a disaster but had legitimate roots. The discrediting of liberal economics in the colonial world has much to do with the illiberal and often rentier nature of colonial investment. It rarely built domestic capacity, often deliberately and systematically excluded domestic talent and enabled colon rent and indeed expropriation.
None of this helped built sustainable devleopment or capital flows - it was predicated on vampire state type behaviour, better governed than post-colonial systems to be sure, but only in a degree.
An esoteric subfield of history though Col, one I did not encounter until I was a grad student and one that almost never makes its way into popular history or the media ( Niall Ferguson excepted and there he had the "name" angle of Rothschild as a hook for the publisher). Most undergrad students, if they get any econ for this period at all are still served up Hobson, usually not very critically either.
I'm sure you're right. Were I not deeply interested in the MENA region.
Why don't you lay out a critique ?
Because I am mapping out lots of stuff from the annual report of Bank al-Istithmaar of a certain place, and its all in bloody Arabic.
When I have time, I will do so, meanwhile deadlines call.
# posted by : Monday, 23 January, 2006
: Monday, 23 January, 2006
Hi Col
" The colonial system was fundamentally bad for the long-term positive development of the markets - the way the development occured directly contributed to and was a fundamental cause for decolonisation and post-colonial failure"
I agree. The Brits took a bad turn here away from the free trade and economic liberalism, ironically as they reached the zenith of their imperial influence, that had been one of several critical factors in making such a small island nation a dynamic world power." Imperial Preference" and at at times irrational, state guided, colonial investment policies wasn't merely bad for the colonies - I'd argue it was bad for Britain's industrial edge.
"The post-colonial reaction was a disaster but had legitimate roots. The discrediting of liberal economics in the colonial world has much to do with the illiberal and often rentier nature of colonial investment. It rarely built domestic capacity, often deliberately and systematically excluded domestic talent and enabled colon rent and indeed expropriation."
Again I agree here. Prior to the French, Indochina boasted a prosperous (relatively) small-producer economy, high general literacy for a peasant society and established and complex economic/merchant networks. The French destroyed all that and expropriated land for export crop production for absentee European landlords and a tiny, native Viet Francophile Mandarin class.
"When I have time, I will do so, meanwhile deadlines call."
Excellent. Take your time Col.
" The colonial system was fundamentally bad for the long-term positive development of the markets - the way the development occured directly contributed to and was a fundamental cause for decolonisation and post-colonial failure"
I agree. The Brits took a bad turn here away from the free trade and economic liberalism, ironically as they reached the zenith of their imperial influence, that had been one of several critical factors in making such a small island nation a dynamic world power." Imperial Preference" and at at times irrational, state guided, colonial investment policies wasn't merely bad for the colonies - I'd argue it was bad for Britain's industrial edge.
"The post-colonial reaction was a disaster but had legitimate roots. The discrediting of liberal economics in the colonial world has much to do with the illiberal and often rentier nature of colonial investment. It rarely built domestic capacity, often deliberately and systematically excluded domestic talent and enabled colon rent and indeed expropriation."
Again I agree here. Prior to the French, Indochina boasted a prosperous (relatively) small-producer economy, high general literacy for a peasant society and established and complex economic/merchant networks. The French destroyed all that and expropriated land for export crop production for absentee European landlords and a tiny, native Viet Francophile Mandarin class.
"When I have time, I will do so, meanwhile deadlines call."
Excellent. Take your time Col.
The Brits took a bad turn here away from the free trade and economic liberalism
Free trade and economic liberalism rarely applied to the English colonies. Colonial rule was never liberal (although the English settlement colonies acquired liberalism via the colonists).
Post a Comment
Free trade and economic liberalism rarely applied to the English colonies. Colonial rule was never liberal (although the English settlement colonies acquired liberalism via the colonists).
# posted by : Tuesday, 24 January, 2006
: Tuesday, 24 January, 2006<< Home
