The Colonial State: Theory and Practice by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya

Author:Sabyasachi Bhattacharya [Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi]
Language: eng
Format: epub, pdf
Publisher: Primus Books
Published: 2017-02-08T00:00:00+00:00

NOTES

1.François Perroux, ‘The Domination Effect and Modern Economic Theory’, Social Research, vol. XVII, 1950, p. 188. The terms ‘monopoly’ or ‘monopsony’ have also been frequently used, e.g. N.K. Sinha has described the system that emerged by 1793 as a ‘monopoly’ in Economic History of Bengal, vol. III, Calcutta, 1967, p. 105. Of course, in the period he refers to till 1813, the Company retained its monopoly. I have used the term ‘domination’ in order to stress the fact that this ‘monopoly’ does not emanate from the market alone but also from extra market non-economic factors.

2.Rene Sandretto, ‘Francois Perroux, a Predecessor of the Current Analysis of Power’, Journal of World Economic Review, vol. 5, no. I, 2010, pp.13–24.

3.Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, ‘Eastern India’, in Cambridge Economic History of India, ed. Dharma Kumar and Meghnad Desai, vol. II, Cambridge, 1983, chap. 3.2.

4.J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, London, 1848; repr., London, 1902, Book V, pp. 590–1. One must remember that Mill is only discussing the exceptional case of a backward economy; ‘he made modifications in classical economics, but he did not stray far from the conviction that individual enterprise rather than governmental supervision and control was preferable in economic affairs’. George D. Bearce, British Attitudes Towards India 1784—1858, London and New York, 1961, p. 286. Mill, according to Myrdal, illustrates a crisis in economic liberalism. Gunnar Myrdal, The Political Element in The Development of Economic Theory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1961, p. 127f.

5.Vide J.S. Mill, Representative Government, London, 1861; repr., London, 1912, pp. 190–211.

6.Joseph J. Spengler, ‘John Stuart Mill on Economic Development’, in Theories of Economic Growth, ed. Bert F. Hoselitz, Chicago, 1960, p. 144.

7.On Bentham and McCulloch’s ideas about the economic functions of the state, see Lionel Robbins, The Theory of Economic Policy in English Classical Political Economy, London, 1961, pp. 39–43.

8.‘The principle of laissez-faire may be safely trusted to in some things but in many more it is wholly inapplicable; and to appeal to it on all occasions savours more of the policy of a parrot than of a statesman or a philosopher.’ A Treatise on the Succession to Property Vacant by Death, 1848, p. 156, cited in Robbins, The Theory of Economic Policy, p. 39.

9.John Strachey, India: Its Administration and Progress, London, 1903, p. 209.

10.Strachey, India, p. 209.

11.J.B. Brebner, ‘Laissez faire and State Interventionism in Nineteenth Century Britain’, Journal of Economic History, vol. VII, 1948, p. 59. The new entrepreneurs in England, Brebner points out, obtained new freedoms as well as new services from the state. Laissez-faire was ‘a political and economic myth’ or ‘a war cry employed by new forms of enterprise in their political-economical war against the landed oligarchy’.

12.Frederick Clairmonte, Economic Liberalism and Underdevelopment, Bombay, 1960, p. 126; Eli F. Heckscher, Mercantilism, ed. E.F. Soderlund, London, 1955, vol. II, p. 338.

13.Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, The Financial Foundations of the British Raj, 1858–1872, Simla, 1971; revd. edn., Delhi, 2005, pp. 102–11.

14.Amales Tripathi, Trade and Finance in Bengal Presidency 1703–1833, Calcutta, 1956; S.B. Singh, European Agency Houses in Bengal 1783–1833, Calcutta, 1966; Radhey Shyam Rungta,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.