No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
European Expansion and Asian Economic Development Since 1850: India, Indonesia and Japan*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2010
Extract
The nature of the relationship between the metropolitan world and the colonies and of its impact on the economic development of each of the two sides has been the subject of intense debate and controversy over a very long period of time. As far as the role of the colonial relationship in the development of the West is concerned, an important viewpoint has been that it would be wrong to assign a significant role to this factor in explaining European industrialization. In some recent economic literature on ‘Modern Imperialism’ it has been argued that neither in the field of capital formation in the metropolitan countries, nor in that of finding a market for the foods manufactured there, can an important role be assigned to the colonial factor. Only in highly specific cases such as textile manufacturing in Britain during the nineteenth century could the export market in the colonial world have been of some significance.
- Type
- The Great Debate
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Research Institute for History, Leiden University 1988
References
Notes
1 H.L. Wesseling, ‘European Expansion and its Impact upon the “Third World”’, Lecture delivered at the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, 18 May 1988, forthcoming in print from the Institute.
2 Ibidem.
3 Naoroji, Dadabhai, Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (London 1901).Google Scholar
4 Dutt, R.C., Economic History of India (2 vols.; London 1901–1903).Google Scholar
5 Digby, William, ‘Prosperous’ British India. A Revelationjrom Official Records (London 1901) xiGoogle Scholar
6 vanSoest, G.H., Geschiedenis van het Kultuurstelsel (3 din. Rotterdam 1869–1891).Google Scholar
7 Quoted in Elson, R.E., ‘Peasant Poverty and Prosperity under the Cultivation System in Java’ (Paper presented to the Conference on Indonesian Economic History in the Dutch Colonial Era, Canberra, 12 1983) 2.Google Scholar
8 Raychaudhuri, T., ‘A Re-interpretation of Nineteenth Century Indian Economic History’, Indian Economic and Social History Review 5, 1 (1968) 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Geertz, Clifford, Agricultural Involution: The Process of Agricultural Change in Indonesia (Berkeley 1968) 140.Google Scholar
10 Ibidem, 141.
11 Heston, A., ‘National Income’, Cambridge Economic History of India II (Cambridge276–462.Google Scholar
12 Blyn, George, Agricultural Trends in India 1891–1947: Output, Availability and Productivity (Philadelphia 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Morris, Morris D., ‘The Growth of Large-scale Industry to 1947’ in: Kumar, Dharma (ed.), The Cambridge Economic History of India II (Cambridge 1983) 590.Google Scholar
14 Ibidem, 591.
15 Ibidem, 609.
16 Booth, Anne, ‘The Colonial Legacy and its Impact on Post-Independence Planning in India and Indonesia’, Itinerario 10, 1 (1986) 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Ibidem.
18 Ibidem, 3.
19 Ibidem, 4–5.
20 Kumar, Dharma, ‘The Taxation of Agriculture in British India and Dutch Indonesia’ in: Bayly, C.A. and Kolff, D.H.A. (eds.), Two Colonial Empires (Dordrecht 1986) 212.Google Scholar
21 Thorner, Daniel, ‘The Guaranteed Interest Railway Contract; Private Enterprise at Public Risk’, title of chapter 7 of Investment in Empire, British Railway and Steam Shipping Enterprise India 1825–1849 (Philadelphia 1950).Google Scholar
22 As John M. Hurd notes, ‘India's loss from the purchase policies of the railways was not limited to her lack of progress in developing heavy industry. She also failed to reap the benefits of the spread effects to industry which would have occurred. Instead, the spread effects stimulated the British economy’. Hurd, John M., ‘Railways’, The Cambridge Economic History ojIndia 11 749Google Scholar.
23 Krishnamurty, J., ‘Handicrafts in India and Indonesia in the Nineteenth Century: Some Tentative Observations’, Itinerario 11, 1 (1987) 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Kumar, ‘The Taxation of Agriculture’, 210.
25 Elson, ‘Peasant Poverty and Prosperity’, 17.
26 Booth,‘The Colonial Legacy’, 5.
27 Tomlinson, B.R., ‘Writing History Sideways: Lessons for Indian Economic Historians from Meiji Japan’, Modem Asian Studies 19, 3 (1985) 660–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar