A thread on how capitalism led to imperialism in the long nineteenth century, but not in the way that you think. 1/

19th-century globalisation led to a long terms-of-trade boom across the non-European world, which encouraged specialisation in export-oriented agriculture, as I outlined in a previous thread. 2/ https://twitter.com/joefrancis505/status/1389895038587572226

Land-abundant countries benefited more because there was surplus land that could be brought into production, at least once the native populations had been pacified, displaced, and/or exterminated. I'm referring to you, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the United States. 3/

These countries were substantially decolonised. They also democratised, leading to states that were capable of providing significant public goods, such as education, sanitation, etc. 4/

Democratisation was facilitated in these countries by the consensus around the need to expand the frontier. The indigenous populations also provided a convenient ‘external other’ that national identifies could be defined against. 5/

In land-scarce countries, on the other hand, there were less gains to be made from specialisation in export-oriented agriculture, since there was little surplus land. 6/

Consequently, as the terms-of-trade improved and export-oriented agriculture became more profitable, there were increasing conflicts over scarce land resources, so local elites appealed to European powers to intervene to support them. 7/

European powers supported local elites in converting their countries to export-oriented agriculture, and then shared in the profits. They collected taxes and built railways and other infrastructure that paid dividends to their shareholders in Europe. 8/

India is the classic case study. As the terms of trade improved in the early 19th century, there were increasing struggles over scarce land resources. 9/

Landowners clashed with the East India Company over taxes, landlords with tenants over rents, and peasants with tribal peoples over access to land. Eventually this growing discontent culminated in the mutiny of the Company’s army in 1857. 10/

Subsequently, the Company was abolished and India was formally colonised by the British government, with direct rule used to continue India’s conversion into an exporter of agricultural staples. 11/

Railways were built to connect the interior to the ports, which allowed exports of cotton, opium, tea, jute, rice, and even wheat to expand massively – often at the expense of food production, contributing to the famines of the 1870s and ’90s. 12/

British shareholders in Indian railways benefited from this export expansion, but so did the Indian landowners who had helped stop the mutiny of 1857, allowing British direct rule to be established. 13/

India thus illustrates why Europeans colonised land-scarce countries: improved terms-of-trade generated incentives for specialisation in agriculture, which increased conflicts over scarce land resources, leading local elites to call for the support of the Europeans. 14/

From this perspective, capitalism – the pursuit of profit – did lead to colonisation, but it was due to both the local capitalisms of the colonised countries as well as the capitalisms of the colonisers. Together, they were becoming global capitalism. Fin/