> > I remember hearing a talk a very long time ago by someone
> > who had tried to estimate the costs and benefits to
>Britain
> > of the empire, and concluded that on net it cost more than
> > it was worth.
> > David Friedman
I had also sent my second question to the "Ask the Professor" service at
EH.net. THe professor on duty turned out to be Robert Whaples of Wake Forest
University, who actually teaches the Industrial Revolution. He sent me the
following:
_______________________________________________________
Probably the best work on this subject is
Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire: The Political Economy of British
Imperialism, 1860-1912 by Lance E. Davis, Robert A. Huttenback, Susan
Gray Davis.
Their evidence shows that Britain generally transfered resource _to_ its
self-governing colonies. Very few economic historians would accept the
notion that British capitalism depended much on its imperial activities,
which were probably a net drain on the economy.
This book is packed full of information and discusses India at length.
R. Whaples
Wake Forest University
________________________________________________________
He also clarified later that "self-governing" colonies was not an oxymoron
and was actually part of the classification used in the book. Places like
India, which had partially a local government.
-- Chirag
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
