Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T22:36:00.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hegemony and the structure of international trade reassessed: a view from Arabia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Fred H. Lawson
Fred H. Lawson
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Government at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts.
Get access

Abstract

Mercantilist explanations for the development of international trading orders have assumed that changes in peripheral areas during the 19th century corresponded with developments among the largest and most advanced countries of the period. Relatively free trade, however, was not the rule at three important ports along the Arabian coast when Great Britain was in a hegemonic position in the area. Rather, British predominance in this part of the world was generally associated with increasing closure in commercial affairs at these three ports. This finding throws doubt on both the collective goods logic and the notions of “the imperialism of free trade” that have been appropriated by writers such as Gilpin, Kindleberger, Krasner, and Keohane. Two alternative ways of explaining the pattern of trading relations at these three ports are sketched, and three ways of amending the mercantilist position to account for these data are suggested.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , Spring 1983 , pp. 317 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

David Laitin, Peter Katzenstein, and David Lake suggested several ways in which a preliminary version of this essay could be significantly improved.

1. See Frohlich, Norman, Oppenheimer, Joe A., and Young, Oran R., Political Leadership and Collective Goods (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

2. Gilpin, Robert, U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation (New York: Basic, 1975), p. 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Calleo, David P. and Rowland, Benjamin M., America and the World Political Economy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973), p. 12Google Scholar.

3. Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 145 and 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Kindleberger, Charles P., The World in Depression 1929–1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), p. 28Google Scholar. Kindleberger's position on the overall importance of international leadership as an adequate explanation for economic relations among countries is not entirely consistent; see his “The Rise of Free Trade in Western Europe, 1820–1875,” Journal of Economic History 35 (03 1975)Google Scholar.

5. Keohane, Robert O., “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967–1977,” in Holsti, Ole R., Siverson, Randolph M., and George, Alexander L., eds., Change in the International System (Boulder: Westview, 1980), p. 136Google Scholar; Krasner, Stephen D., “State Power and the Structure of International Trade,” World Politics 28 (04 1976), p. 323CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Gilpin, , U.S. Power, pp. 84–85Google Scholar.

7. Gilpin, , “Economic Interdependence and National Security in Historical Perspective,” in Knorr, Klaus and Trager, Frank N., eds., Economic Issues and National Security (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1977), p. 38Google Scholar; Krasner, , “State Power,” p. 327Google Scholar.

8. Krasner, , “State Power,” pp. 335–36Google Scholar.

9. Gilpin, , “Economic Interdependence,” p. 35Google Scholar.

10. Gallagher, J. and Robinson, R., “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” Economic History Review, 2d series, 6 (1953–1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. See Moore, R. J., “Imperialism and ‘Free Trade’ Policy in India, 1853–1854,” Economic History Review, 2d series, 17 (1964–1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mathew, W. M., “The Imperialism of Free Trade: Peru, 1820–70,” Economic History Review, 2d series, 21 (12 1968)Google Scholar; MacDonagh, Oliver, “The Anti-Imperialism of Free Trade,” Economic History Review, 2d series, 14 (08 1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Platt, D. C. M., “The Imperialism of Free Trade: Some Reservations,” Economic History Review, 2d series, 21 (08 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Platt, , “Further Objections to an ‘Imperialism of Free Trade,’ 1830–1860,” Economic History Review, 2d series, 26 (02 1973)Google Scholar.

12. See Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), chap. 1Google Scholar; Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Relations (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979)Google Scholar.

13. Laitin, David D. of the University of California, San Diego, inspired this study through discussions of preliminary drafts of his “Capitalism and Hegemony: Yorubaland and the International Economy,” International Organization 36 (Autumn 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. This more detailed presentation appears as “International Regimes and Commercial Hegemony: Control of the Arabian Littoral between 1800 and 1905,” International History Review (forthcoming 1983).

15. Milburn, William, Oriental Commerce (London: Black, Parry, 1813), 1:99, 160–61 and 11:143, 210Google Scholar.

16. All references except those for direct quotations included here can be found in my “International Regimes and Commercial Hegemony.”

17. Graham, Gerald S., Great Britain in the Indian Ocean (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), p. 169Google Scholar.

18. Kelly, J. B., Britain and the Persian Gulf (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), p. 107Google Scholar.

19. Graham, , Great Britain, p. 169Google Scholar.

20. Allen, Calvin H., “The Indian Merchant Community of Masqat,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 44 (1981), p. 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. Ibid., pp. 46–47.

22. Krasner, , “State Power,” p. 324Google Scholar.

23. Allen, , “Indian Merchant Community,” p. 47Google Scholar.

24. Hurewitz, J. C., ed., The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), pp. 464–65Google Scholar.

25. Tuson, Penelope, The Records of the British Residency and Agencies in the Persian Gulf (London: India Office Records, 1979), p. 154Google Scholar.

26. Pankhurst, Richard, “Indian Trade with Ethiopia, the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines 55 (1974), p. 454Google Scholar.

27. Gavin, R. J., Aden under British Rule (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1975), pp. 37–38Google Scholar; Waterfield, Gordon, Sultans of Aden (London: John Murray, 1968), p. 78Google Scholar; Pankhurst, , “Indian Trade,” p. 455Google Scholar.

28. Hunter, Frederick M., An Account of the British Settlement of Aden in Arabia (London: Frank Cass, 1968), p. 89Google Scholar.

29. Marston, Thomas E., Britain's Imperial Role in the Red Sea Area 1800–1878 (Hamden, Conn.: Shoe String, 1961), pp. 38–39Google Scholar; Graham, , Great Britain, pp. 288–89Google Scholar; el-Batrik, Abdel Hamid, “Egyptian-Yemeni Relations (1819–1840) and Their Implications for British Policy in the Red Sea,” in Holt, P. M., ed, Political and Social Change in Modern Egypt (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 282Google Scholar.

30. Marston, , Britain's Imperial Role, p. 105Google Scholar.

31. Ibid., p. 107.

32. For the distinction between regional and global indicators of British predominance during the 19th century, see my “International Regimes and Commercial Hegemony.”

33. Krasner, , “State Power,” pp. 321–23Google Scholar.

34. Ibid., pp. 336–37.

35. Laitin, , “Capitalism and Hegemony,“ p. 704Google Scholar.

36. In addition to the works cited in note 11, see Hopkins, A. G., An Economic History of West Africa (New York: Columbia University Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Flint, John E., “Britain and the Partition of West Africa,” in Flint, and Williams, Glyndwr, eds., Perspectives of Empire (London: Longman, 1973)Google Scholar; Dike, K. Onwuka, Trade and Politics in the Niger Delta, 1830–1885 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956)Google Scholar; Latham, A. J. H., Old Calabar, 1600–1891 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Reynolds, Edward, Trade and Economic Change on the Gold Coast, 1807–1874 (Burnt Mill, Essex: Longman, 1974)Google Scholar; Manchester, Alan K., British Preeminence in Brazil (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1933)Google Scholar; Ferns, Henry S., Britain and Agentina in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Graham, Richard, “Sepoys and Imperialists: Techniques of British Power in Nineteenth-Century Brazil,” Inter-American Economic Affairs 23 (08 1969)Google Scholar; Bolland, O. Nigel, The Formation of a Colonial Society: Belize (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Mathew, W. M., The House of Gibbs and the Peruvian Guano Monopoly (London: Royal Historical Society, 1981)Google Scholar.

37. Ingram, Edward, The Beginning of the Great Game in Asia, 1828–1834 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979)Google Scholar.

38. Ibid., p. 12.

39. Laitin, , “Capitalism and Hegemony,” pp. 693–96Google Scholar; Hopkins, , “Economic Imperialism in West Africa: Lagos, 1880–92,” Economic History Review, 2d series, 211 (12 1968)Google Scholar.

40. On this complex issue, see my review of Wallerstein's, I.The Modern World-system in Western Political Quarterly 31 (06 1978)Google Scholar; Gourevitch, Peter, “The International System and Regime Formation,” Comparative Politics, 04 1978Google Scholar; Clarke, Simon, “Marxism, Sociology and Poulantzas' Theory of the State,” Capital and Class 2 (Summer 1977)Google Scholar; Banaji, Jairus, “Modes of Production in a Materialist Conception of History,” Capital and Class 3 (Autumn 1977)Google Scholar; Brenner, Robert, “The Origins of Capitalist Developmen,” New Left Review no. 104 (07–08 1977)Google Scholar; Meyer, Alfred G., Marxism: The Unity of Theory and Practice (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

41. Hart, Jeffrey, “Three Approaches to the Measurement of Power in International Relations,” International Organization 30 (Spring 1976), pp. 289–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. Gilpin, , U.S. Power, pp. 48–51 and 81–84Google Scholar; cf. Plan, D. C. M., “British Portfolio Investment Overseas before 1870: Some Doubts,” Economic History Review, 2d series, 33 (02 1980)Google Scholar.

43. Krasner, , “State Power,” p. 332Google Scholar.

44. Gramsci, Antonio, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971)Google Scholar. Despite the increasing attention being paid to the ideological components of international economic regimes, Gramsci does not receive a single reference in the special issue of International Organization devoted to this subject (International Organization 36 [Spring 1982]Google Scholar).

45. See Strange, Susan, “Cave! hie dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis,” International Organization 36 (Spring 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46. Ingram, Edward, Commitment to Empire: Prophecies of the Great Game in Asia 1797–1800 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981)Google Scholar.

47. Keohane, , “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability,” p. 144Google Scholar.

48. Krasner, , “State Power,” pp. 341–43Google Scholar; Krasner, “Domestic Constraints on International Economic Leverage,” in Knorr and Trager, Economic Issues and National Security.

49. Keohane, , “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability,” p. 154Google Scholar.

50. Kindleberger, , “Rise of Free Trade,” p. 35Google Scholar.

51. See the essays by D. K. Fieldhouse, David S. Landes, and Mark Blaug reprinted in Kenneth E. Boulding and Tapan Mukerjee, eds., Economic Imperialism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972).