Author's Keywords: Schizophrenic governance Global inequalities British Empire India, 1858-1947 Nigeria, 1862-1960 Kenya, 1895-1963 Tanganyika, 1920-1961 Colonial constitutions Public expenditure analysis	Convention Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote! Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p61046_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Subrahmanyam, Gita. "Schizophrenic Governance and Fostering Global Inequalities in the British Empire: The UK Domestic State Versus the Indian and African Colonies, 1890-1960" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, Sep 02, 2004 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p61046_index.html>

Subrahmanyam, G. , 2004-09-02 "Schizophrenic Governance and Fostering Global Inequalities in the British Empire: The UK Domestic State Versus the Indian and African Colonies, 1890-1960" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p61046_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: It has long been acknowledged that the British Empire played a role in fostering global inequalities. However, the extent to which the Empire was characterised by deeply contrasting administrative arrangements and developmental goals between the domestic state and the non-white colonies has not been fully explored. In this paper, I analyse institutional structures and budgetary data pertaining to the UK, India and three African colonies (Nigeria, Kenya and Tanganyika) between 1890 and 1960. The results of the analysis highlight a few major trends. First, while UK domestic politics became more inclusive over the seventy years, with new groups being granted full citizenship rights, in Britain’s non-white colonies political participation rights remained restrictive until very late in the period. This was especially the case in British Africa, where the basis of Crown rule was autocracy rather than representative government and where Africans were excluded from substantive participation in central government bodies until the 1950s. Africans were not adequately prepared for self-government and independence, which affected their country’s global position post-independence. Second, whereas in the UK government spending on welfare expanded substantially between 1890 and 1960, in Britain’s Indian and African colonies public outlays on social development were both non-growing and scant relative to other programmes of the state. Until after the Second World War, Indian and African public expenditures were concentrated in the agencies of control – that is, military, law and order, general administration, and transportation infrastructure. The British contention of having developed the colonies beyond the military and commercial requirements demanded of any imperial power appears unsupported by the budget analysis. Because the British Empire pursued schizophrenic goals – one set for the domestic arena and another for the non-white colonies – it fostered inequalities between the two sectors during the colonial era. The legacy of those policies has extended beyond the Empire itself.

Democratic Deficits, Culture Conflicts, and Economic Malaise in Modern African States Hegemony and Hybridization in Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya

Ruling Continuities: Colonial Rule, Social Forces and Path Dependence in British India and Africa