Colonialism and Access to Trans-Atlantic Trade - Essay Example

TITLE by Name of author Name of class Name of Professor Name of school Location of school Date ABSTRACT In the medieval ages, Asia had in its possession different industrial techniques long before the occurrence of industrial revolution. Asia’s riches and economic growth placed it in a unique position as a commercial centre in world trade. Although Western Europe had its own inventions too, Asia thrived because European communities had regressed greatly to an extent that the probability of a European global supremacy was next to zero. In the tenth century Western Europe had lost grip of its scientific power and its economy had retreated into autarky due to invasion and pillage by enemies. However, in the nineteenth century, despite the privileges Asia had enjoyed for centuries Western Europe arose with technological developments identified by historians as the Industrial Revolution. The question thus arises: if Asia had such a huge mileage in its technological advancement, economy and social institutions, and given that in the 18th century the standards of living in Asia were at the same level as those of Western Europe, why did Industrial Revolution take off earlier than Asia. Over the past decade social scientists, historians and economists alike, have attempted to answer this question and this has consequently given rise to the spawning of literature centering on the “Great Divergence” theme (Frank 2001). The perspective taken by this theme is that Western Europe had enjoyed excellent economic conditions and stable social institutions in the eighteenth century. However, a few Asian historians have come forward and contested this view by providing evidence to the effect that Asia’s and Western Europe development level were at per up to the eighteenth century. This is because Asia’s technological developments in did not stagnate at some point. They attribute the tilt in economic equilibrium to ‘chance effects’ in the form of Western Europe’s invasion of the old world and the new world and the coal discovery. The answer to this question might therefore lie in historical occurrences and impacts that were lacking in Asia which favoured the advancement of Western Europe both technologically and economically (Romano 2010). Social scientists have proposed several explanations to this effect; readily available raw materials; massive wealth from colonies and global trade; investments in technology and machinery; stable government that supported scientific development; its geographic location far away from wars (Pomeranz 2000). Historians have focused on only three of these factors as the main reasons why Western Europe industrialized earlier and they are: Colonialism and access to Trans-Atlantic trade as the main source of wealth. Institutional changes so as to advocate for freedom and rights to property. Proximity to Natural Resources Colonialism and Access to Trans-Atlantic trade World historians agree that colonialism has always been one of world history’s very important exponents (Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson 2005). Voyages were so common in the fifteenth century and their main aims were to expand colonies and to find substitute trade routes leading to Asia. Accomplishment of these two objectives gave rise to the Old world, majorly Western Europe. It is worthy to note that in the Afro-Asian global trade system, China was a very important economic actor, while Europe played only a peripheral role as it was only linked to this system by the trade route on the Mediterranean. At the dawn of the 15th century, before European voyages took off, ships carrying thousands of men made way to the East African and Arabian Peninsula coastlines and these expeditions were direct sponsorships from the Chinese government (Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson 2005). On the other hand, while Western Europe states’ trade policies were supported by monarchs, Asian expeditions did not receive any form of government backing and this was echoed by the Ming Dynasty in the 15th century when it halted all maritime activities. During this period, any Asian merchants who attempted to set themselves up outside Asia missed state benefits. Additionally, there existed no support systems for Asian colonies both overseas and in its peripheries. Historians attribute this to Asia’s centrality and this led to the region’s failure to emerge as a maritime power (Fergusson 2003). Land constraints in Western Europe were another reason why the states decided to go overseas and as a result, the region gained massive control of the Atlantic trade with huge colonies. In contrast, Asia was unable replicate what Western Europe did with its land peripheries overseas. The land periphery owned by Asian empires was not the same as that owned by Western Europe empires in that in Asia, it was a land-based periphery whereby the land was occupied by peasants who cultivated mainly for subsistence with less food being exported to the New World (Goldstone 2002). Western Europe’s’ expansionist policy from 1500 resulted in the creation of a new world system, consequently pushing Asia to the fringes of the global trade system. Global control of trade routes in the Atlantic and expansion of its colonies guaranteed Western Europe’s domination further fuelling its superiority, economically and politically, worldwide (Zanden and Luiten 2005). This unique position enabled Western Europe to take advantage of available infinite resources from colonies overseas and brought back home a lot of wealth. Given European emperors’ support for foreign trade, the threat of domestic economic stand still was tackled thus improving greatly communication systems and the military industry. Colonialism thus played a key role in the Western Europe’s development as they we ready to gather wealth and make overseas expeditions in order to meet domestic consumption. Asia’s centrality nature hampered its development, economically and technologically, allowing Europe to industrialize at their expense (Goldstone 2002). Institutional Changes Western Europe had well-structured institutions as early as the late medieval ages. The economic growth and stability in the region was not accidental but was the consequence of efficient institutions (Pomeranz 2002). It is important to note that in the states in Europe were not under an empire, but rather under a system and that states found in Western Europe were structured and administrated over in a different way from empires found around the world. The government in Western Europe states was extremely cautious when it came to private commerce initiatives and it tried as much as possible not to intervene in such matters. This was made possible by the ability of the government to separate powers between the central government and the local authority. As Landes (2006) states, “fragmentation gave rise to competition which in turn favoured good care of good subjects.” This kind of system was in great contrast to Asia’s institutions. Empires in Asia did not allow institutions to develop further so as to reciprocate the strides made by a well-functioning economy. The efficiencies of free trade practices were non-existent as were institutions to champion for the protection of personal property. The Asian empires were more interested taking over lucrative activities and influencing price changes thereby controlling domestic production as well as privately owned enterprises (Vries 2002). Additionally, Asian empires mainly targeted maritime trade and forced merchants to abandon it as they believed it was a source of income inequality. Although Asian empires were opposed to changes that they felt could lead to social upheavals, there was still a missing link between the empires and institutions. According to Vries (2002) this missing link was the merchant class that could champion for a mercantilist policy to be Asian institution’s driving force towards development. Another milestone in institutional changes was the need by Western Europe government to create credit institutions since they solely depended on merchants and at some point in time, needed these merchants to loan them money. In contrast, Asian empires were in no position to borrow these merchants money and did not find it urgent to find alternative sources of revenues. Since Confucianism permitted taxation only to a modest level, the central authority and local government relationship was conflict free (Romano 2010). Western Europe governments found it prudent to maintain the efficiency of their institutions so as to safeguard their position; this was not the case in Asia. In Western Europe, institutional changes were brought about by conflicts that arose between merchant interested in the profitable Atlantic trade and the monarchs. These conflicts brought about a shift in power balance thus fortifying commercial interests beyond the royal circle (Pomeranz 2000). With their commercial interests strengthened, Merchants began fighting for institutional changes since the immense wealth they had gathered from the Atlantic trade needed to be protected. They advocated for strong institution that could guarantee peace internally and also protect them from any foreign threats. As stated earlier, the government needed money from the very same merchants thereby making theirs an interdependent relationship. This interdependence led to the creation of efficient institutions between the 16th and 17th century, promising the protection of merchants properties (Pomeranz 2002). Therefore, institutional changes played a role in the transformation of Western Europe economy, from that of self-sufficiency to that of an urban economy. The government provided merchants with their much needed basic needs as the 17th century came to an end. These changes led to an increase number of influential merchants who heard a voice in state politics, paving way for the Industrial Revolution. Proximity to Natural Resources (Coal) As much as it may sound true that coal alone was not the determining factor for Western Europe’s Industrial Revolution, one cannot deny the fact that the existence of readily available coal did, in fact, prove to be one important factor to the region’s development, more so technologically (Zanden and Luiten 2008). Not only was it the only source of energy in all Western Europe industries, it was a source of employment to over 500,000 men as it was an industry in its own right. The ease of access to local coal deposits is one of the main factors that could explain Western Europe’s early industrialization. Coal deposits in most of Western Europe were found in close proximity to major settlement, manufacturing and industrial regions. This led to the emergence of a wealthy and needy market in addition to a group of craftsmen who specialized in improving machinery such as steam engines (Buck 1999). In contrast, coal deposits in Asia were found far away from industrial and manufacturing centres making it hard for its possible use in the generation of power, such that the gradual rise in deforestation in a bid to change from firewood to coal did not make economic sense (Goldstone 2002). Furthermore, transport through canals and road were still relatively cheaper and more efficient compared to the outlying deposits of coal. Distance from coal deposits may have been a reasonable factor explaining Asia’s failure to industrialize together with Western Europe. However, despite this, the lack of government interest coupled with absence of a mercantilist group to drive development forward is to blame. If these two factors were available, then the Asian empires would have been able to provide adequate energy resources, distance notwithstanding (Marks 2007). This in mind, it is again crucially important to note that with the exception of cotton, other determinants that paved way for the Industrial Revolution such as steel, iron and the railway, were solely dependent on coal and with the advancement in Industrial Revolution, coal consumption in industries had by far surpassed domestic consumption (Landes 2006). Conclusion Many social scientists have published literatures that try to explain the reasons why the Western Europe industrialized earlier. Although each has a different opinion the reasons they all give fall under the three factors analyzed in the paper. The three factors, I believe, were the key contributors to Western Europe’s advancement in Industrial Revolution and subsequently Asia’s failure to capitalize on its unique position before the 19th century. Put together, colonialism and the Atlantic trade, institutional changes and readily available coal were the driving force behind Western Europe’s early industrialization and economic and political stability. References Acemoglu, D, Johnson, S, & Robinson, J. 2005. The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change, and Economic Growth. The American Economic Review. 95(3): 546-579. Buck, D. 1999. Was It Pluck or Luck that Made the West Grow Rich? Journal of World History, 10(2): 413-430 Fergusson, N. 2003. Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. England: PENGUIN BOOKS Romano, M. 2010. European History. Canada: Wiley Publishing Inc. Goldstone, J. 2002. Efflorescences and Economic Growth in World History: Rethinking the “Rise of the West” and the Industrial Revolution. Journal of World History. 13(2): 323-389 Landes, David S. 2006. Why Europe and the West? Why Not China? Journal of Economic Perspectives. 20(2): 3-22 Marks, R. 2007. The Origins of the Modern World: Fate and Fortune in the Rise of the West. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Pomeranz, K. 2002. Political Economy and Ecology on the Eve of Industrialization: Europe, China, and the Global Conjuncture. The American Historical Review. 107(2): 425-446 Vries, P. 2002. Governing Growth: A Comparative Analysis of the Role of the State in the Rise of the West. Journal of World History, 13(1): 67-138 Zanden, J., and Luiten, V. 2008. The Road to The Industrial Revolution: Hypotheses and Conjectures about the Medieval Origins of the “European Miracle.” Journal of Global History. 3(4): 14-30 Pomeranz, K. 2000. The Great Divergence: China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Read More