Adaner Usmani
Why Some Are So Rich: What’s Imperialism Got to Do with It?
(Note: This is a bit of an odd paper for EPS, since there are no pretensions to original research, and no ambitions to publish it in an academic venue. What I’d like most, in terms of feedback, is suggestions about how this paper could be made more compelling for a lay (Left) audience–aside from abridging it. What sorts of doubts persist, about the thesis? Thanks in advance for reading.)
This paper puts forward two theses. First, I argue that imperialism is unimportant to explaining the initial take-off in European growth, which was a consequence, instead, of propitious but entirely endogenous transformations of its social structure. Second, it is clear that even through the modern heyday of European empire (ca. 1830 to 1914), none of the arguments highlighting the exceptional benefits of colonial possessions (the import of raw materials and the export of manufactured goods, the export of surplus labour, and the possibility of super-profits on capital exports) are empirically sustainable. Of course, even if imperialism can’t explain take-off, and did not bring exceptional benefits to European populations at-large, this does not mean that it was without economic consequences. Empire did benefit certain segments of the metropolitan population, which helps explain its persistence as policy. Moreover, the impact of imperialism on the periphery was certainly severe.
usmani.pdf