 |
Schizophrenic Governance and Fostering Global Inequalities in the British Empire: The UK Domestic State Versus the Indian and African Colonies, 1890-1960
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Copyright
©
2004 [American Political Science Association]
Schizophrenic Governance and Fostering Global Inequalities in the British Empire:
The UK Domestic State Versus the Indian and African Colonies, 1890-1960
*
Gita Subrahmanyam
Government Department
London School of Economics
London WC2A 2AE
Tel: 020 7405 7686
g.## email not listed ##
Paper presented to the ‘Victory, Occupation, and Identity in International History’ panel
(International History and Politics division) at the annual meeting of the American Political
Science Association, Hilton Chicago and Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, 2 September 2004
Draft Version. Please do not cite without permission.
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.
*
I would like to thank Patrick Dunleavy and Stephen Howe for their helpful comments and advice.
|
| | Authors: Subrahmanyam, Gita. |
|
| |
|
|
Copyright
©
2004 [American Political Science Association]
Schizophrenic Governance and Fostering Global Inequalities in the British Empire:
The UK Domestic State Versus the Indian and African Colonies, 1890-1960
*
Gita Subrahmanyam
Government Department
London School of Economics
London WC2A 2AE
Tel: 020 7405 7686
g.## email not listed ##
Paper presented to the ‘Victory, Occupation, and Identity in International History’ panel
(International History and Politics division) at the annual meeting of the American Political
Science Association, Hilton Chicago and Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, 2 September 2004
Draft Version. Please do not cite without permission.
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.
*
I would like to thank Patrick Dunleavy and Stephen Howe for their helpful comments and advice.
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 20 
