Abstract
The concept of ‘gentlemanly capitalism’, a term that was coined by P.J. Cain and A.G. Hopkins to characterize the nature of British capitalism, has been at the centre of scholarly debate for some time. In British Imperialism, first published in two volumes in 1993 (the second edition was published in a single volume in 2001, with foreword and afterword), the authors have attempted to provide a comprehensive analysis of the history of British imperialism. It is based on the reading of a vast amount of secondary literature, covering three centuries and key British colonies and spheres of influence, and deals with a number of major issues on modern British history. Naturally, many empirical and methodological points have been taken up and debated by British and imperial historians since its publication. However, the themes and issues involved are so wide-ranging that there is room for further discussion on possible thematic links with various literatures which neither authors nor critics have so far considered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Some main Japanese-language publications in the more recent period include: Takeshi Hamashita, Kindai Chugoku no Kokusaiteki Keiki: Choko Boeki Shisutemu to Kindai Ajia (International Factors Affecting Modern China: Tributary Trade System and Modern Asia) (Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, Tokyo, 1990);
Heita Kawakatsu, Nihon Bunmei to Kindai Seiyo: ‘Sakoku’ Saiko (Japanese Civilization and the Modern West: ‘Seclusion’ Reconsidered) (Nihon Hoso Shuppan Kyokai, Tokyo, 1991);
Takeshi Hamashita and Heita Kawakatsu (eds), Ajia Koekiken to Nihon Kogyoka: 1500–1900 (Asian Trading Networks and Japan’s Industrialization) (new edition, Fujiwara Shoten, Tokyo, 2001);
Kaoru Sugihara, Ajia-kan Boeki no Keisei to Kozo (Patterns and Development of Intra-Asian Trade) (Mineruva Shobo, Kyoto, 1996);
Takeshi Hamashita, Choko Shisutemu to Kindai Ajia (Tributary Trade System and Modern Asia) (Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, 1997);
Shinya Sugiyama and Linda Grove (eds), Kinndai Ajia no Ryutsu Nettowaku (Distribution Networks in Modern Asia) (Sobunsha, Tokyo, 1999);
Naoto Kagotani, Ajia Kokusai Tsusho Chitsujo to Kindai Nihon (The Asian International Trading Order and Modern Japan) (Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai, Nagoya, 2000);
Kazuko Furuta, Shanhai Nettowaku to Kindai Higashi Ajia (Shanghai Networks and Modern East Asia) (Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, Tokyo, 2000);
Shigeru Akita and Naoto Kagotani (eds), 1930-nendai no Ajia Kokusai Chitsujo (The Asian International Order in the 1930s) (Keisuisha, Hiroshima, 2001).
Main English-language publications other than those cited in the following footnotes include: Heita Kawakatsu, ‘International Competition in Cotton Goods in the Late Nineteenth Century: Britain versus India and East Asia’, in Wolfram Fischer et al. (eds), The Emergence of a World Economy, 1500–1914, Beitrage zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, Band 33, 2 (Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1986);
Takeshi Hamashita, ‘The Tribute Trade System and Modern Asia’, Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, 46, 1988, pp. 7–25;
A.J.H. Latham and Heita Kawakatsu (eds), Japanese Industrialization and the Asian Economy (Routledge, London, 1994);
Satoshi Ikeda, ‘The History of the Capitalist World-System vs. the History of East-Southeast Asia’, Review, 19–1, winter 1996, pp. 49–77; Kaoru Sugihara (ed.), The Growth of the Asian International Economy: the Chinese Dimension (forthcoming).
Kenzo Mori, Jiyu Boeki Teikokushugi (Imperialism of Free Trade) (Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, Tokyo, 1978).
See Kaoru Sugihara, ‘The Japanese Capitalism Debate, 1927–1937’, in Peter Robb (ed.), Agrarian Structure and Economic Development, Occasional Papers in Third-World Economic History 4, SOAS, London, 1992, pp. 24–33.
Shigeru Akita, ‘“Gentlemanly Capitalism”, Intra-Asian Trade and Japanese Industrialization at the Turn of the Last Century’, Japan Forum, 8–1, March 1996, pp. 51–65.
Kaoru Sugihara, ‘Patterns of Asia’s Integration into the World Economy, 1880–1913’, in Wolfram Fischer et al. (eds) The Emergence of a World Economy, 1500–1914, Beitrage zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, Band 33, 2 (Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1986)
(reprinted in C.K. Harley (ed.), The Integration of the World Economy, 1800–1914, Vol. 2 (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1996); Kaoru Sugihara, ‘Intra-Asian Trade and East Asia’s Industrialization, 1919–1939’, in Gareth Austin (ed.), Industrial Growth in the Third World, c. 1870—c. 1990: Depressions, Intra-regional Trade, and Ethnic Networks, LSE Working Papers in Economic History, 44/98, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, 1998, pp. 25–57.
For a brief list of references, see Kaoru Sugihara, ‘Japan as an Engine of the Asian International Economy, c. 1880–1936’, Japan Forum, 2–1, April 1990, pp. 141–2.
As far as the authors’ treatment of the relative strengths of the United States and Britain is concerned, they acknowledge general changes in the balance of power, and bring them into the narrative in an effective way. However, their understanding of the relative strengths of American and British influence in East Asia may be questioned to some degree, along the line of the argument here. See Shigeru Akita, ‘British Informal Empire in East Asia, 1880–1939: a Japanese Perspective’, in Raymond E. Dumett (ed.), Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Imperialism: the New Debate on Empire, Longman, London, 1999.
For a more general discussion on the effects on colonial development, see Kaoru Sugihara, ‘Trade Statistics of British India, 1834–1947’, Discussion Papers in Economics and Business, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University (2002).
Kaoru Sugihara, ‘Japan’s Industrial Recovery, 1931–1936’, in Ian Brown (ed.), The Economies of Africa and Asia during the Interwar Depression, Routledge, London, 1989.
For the role of Japan in this process, see Nobuko Nagasaki, Indo Dokuritsu: Gyakko no naka no Chandora Bosu (India’s Independence: a Perspective from the Study of Subhas Chandra Bose) (Asahi Shinbunsha, Tokyo, 1989).
Most authors, including Cain and Hopkins, have not regarded East Asia as part of the ‘sterling area’, but the usage here is consistent with the spirit of those who tried to understand the depth of its global influence. See, for instance, Ragnar Nurkse, International Currency Experience: Lessons of the Inter-War Period, Geneva, 1944, ch. 3.
Kaoru Sugihara, ‘The Economic Motivations behind Japanese Aggression in the late 1930s: the Perspectives of Freda Utley and Nawa Toichi’, Journal of Contemporary History, 32–2, April 1997, pp. 259–80.
Kaoru Sugihara, Ajia-Taiheiyo Keizai-ken no Koiyu (The Rise of the Asia-Pacific Economy) (Osaka Daigaku Shuppankai, Osaka 2002).
Jagdish Bhagwati, ‘The Capital Myth: the Difference between Trade in Widgets and Dollars’, Foreign Affairs, 77–3, May—June 1998, pp. 7–12.
Kaom Sugihara, ‘The East Asian Path of Economic Development: a Longterm Perspective’, Discussion Papers in Economics and Business, 00–17, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, Oct. 2000.
I have argued that Hamashita’s work has this tendency, although we are in complete agreement in our determination to correct the Eurocentric bias in our historiography. See Kaoru Sugihara, ‘Kindai Ajia Keizaishi ni okeru Renzoku to Danzetsu: Kawakatsu Heita, Hamashita Takeshi-shi no Shosetsu o megutte’ (Continuity and Discontinuity in Modern Asian Economic History: a Critique of the Works of Heita Kawakatsu and Takeshi Hamashita), Shakai Keizai Shigaku, 62–3, Aug.–Sep. 1996, pp. 80–102.
Andre Gunder Frank, Re-Orient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1998).
Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000. For an exchange of views, see pp. 12–13 in his comments on my work and my response in Sugihara, ‘The East Asian Pattern of Economic Development’.
In the Japanese case too, industrialization crucially depended on the support of economic interests outside manufacturing. For example, following the Sino-Japanese War victory of 1894–95, the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce staged a series of supra-ministerial conferences, meeting three times between 1896 and 1898, and approving a number of important industrial policy proposals. As most export industries were small-scale at that time, the main supporters that helped the implementation of this policy were export-related business interests led by shipping, banking, insurance and storehouse sectors as well as by large trading companies. This was the case, in spite of the fact that the Japanese strategy was firmly on the promotion of industrial exports rather than of internationally competitive financial and service sectors. Kaoru Sugihara, ‘Keiei Hatten no Kiban Seibi’ (The Development of an Institutional Infrastnzcture for Modern Business), Matao Miyamoto and Takeshi Abe (eds), Nihon Keieishi 2: Keiei Kcikushin to Kogyoka (Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, 1995), p. 57.
Copyright information
© 2002 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sugihara, K. (2002). British Imperialism, the City of London and Global Industrialization. In: Gentlemanly Capitalism, Imperialism and Global History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403919403_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403919403_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43183-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4039-1940-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)