The UK's economic success is down to "British ingenuity and industry", not colonialism, says Cabinet minister Kemi Badenoch
She made the comments in praising a book published by the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs think tank, in which political economist Kristian Niemietz said that Britain's growth wasn't financed by slavery or imperial possessions.
Badenoch, viewed as a top contender for Conservative leadership should they lose the upcoming election, described the book as "a welcome counterweight to simplistic narratives that exaggerate the significance of empire and slavery to Britain's economic development".
She said: "This paper... shows it was British ingenuity and industry, unleashed by free markets and liberal institutions, that powered the Industrial Revolution and our modern economy. It is these factors that we should focus on, rather than blaming the West and colonialism for economic difficulties and holding back growth with misguided policies."
Mr Niemietz says that colonialism only delivered a "minor contribution" to Britain's economic evolution, "and quite possibly none at all", arguing that the benefits were overshadowed by the costs of maintaining an empire. He also says that the trans-Atlantic slave trade held no more significance to the British economy than sheep-farming or brewing, and that the majority of trade was conducted with North America and Western Europe rather than the colonies.
Britain faces the worst recession among G7 partners, economists predict
He acknowledged that some individuals did become "very rich" from "overseas engagement". However, these claims have been met with criticism from specialist historians who argue they are based on "cherry-picked" data and "straw man" arguments.
Alan Lester, a professor of historical geography at the University of Sussex, countered these claims in a blog post: "Historians have demonstrated in thousands of research publications that British investors' ability to appropriate land and subordinate people in some 40 overseas colonies, ensuring a supply of commodities such as tea, cotton, opium, rubber, meat and wool produced with free or low-cost labour, made a significant contribution to Britain's economic growth."
He added: "Because this is so self-evident, to challenge it would be absurd." Prof Lester also dismissed the claim that military costs of empire outweighed the economic benefits as "risible".
He noted that while the Government occasionally considered the cost of empire too high, they mostly "adjudged that the returns to British investors and settlers made such expenses worthwhile".
He added: "If Britons had continued to invest in the maintenance of colonial rule and the denial of self-determination to their colonial subjects against their own aggregate material interests for over 300 years, what does that say about the spirit of British entrepreneurship."
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
