MT3 EH101 Essential Readings
What evidence does Roy use to discredit the idea of a world divided into a dominant core and a dependent
periphery?
Abstract
Roy does not see the state in colonial and post-colonial India as exploitative, and developmental, but
rather that colonial Indian state focussed on global market integration and post-colonial focused on
nationalism.
“Interpretations of the role of the state in economic change in colonial (1858-1947) and post-colonial India
(1947-) tend to presume that the colonial was an exploitative and the post-colonial a developmental state…
The difference was that British colonial policy was framed with reference to global market integration,
whereas post-colonial policy was framed with reference to nationalism.”
Introduction
The idea of a core-periphery does work but was broken off by the idea of extracting the surplus. The
core and periphery (Britain and India) focussed on economic interests which helped drive the free
market in commodities and factors of production and so the good and bad outcomes of the state
were produced as a result of this joint economic interest of Indian capitalists and the British
Government, not because of the quality of the British gov.
“Core-periphery approach does work for India, but only when shorn of the rhetoric of surplus extraction. The
relationship between the core (Britain) and the periphery (India) was driven by an overriding aim to maintain
free markets in commodities and factors of production. British economic interest was an important force
behind this project, but the goal was shared by many Indian capitalists as well… The successes and the failures
of the state stemmed from the manner in which this aim was pursued, rather than from the quality of
institutions it created.”
Conclusion
Proving the point in the introduction: London’s isolation of the funding in developmental concerns
ultimately brought down the Empire because the Indian capitalists didn’t like it.
“the means used to maintain openness — London’s control of monetary and military policy, and a neglect of
developmental expenditure — became controversial and eventually brought the Empire down by making it
unattractive to Indian capitalists.”
The source of power is within the core (Britain) because it made significant economic choices for
India. Settlers of periphery were irrelevant.
“Settlement, in fact, was a more or less irrelevant fact in this case. The core was the clear source of power.
London did make key economic decisions for India, and tried to monopolise its control over these decisions.”
Britain ruled India so that there would be free trade with no trade barriers not by exploiting them and
their resources. They did not rule with unfair economic laws but controlled the money of India
(monetary system) so they would not be at risk of currency fluctuations in exchanges.
“The core ruled in order to sustain economic integration. The core ruled not by means of unequal laws, but by
taking the reins of the monetary system, and indirectly, the fiscal system. It wielded these instruments in order
to stabilise trade and currency, reduce risks of exchange and maintain the Indian state’s payments to Britain. In
short, it ruled to sustain openness…”
What evidence does Roy use to discredit the idea of a world divided into a dominant core and a dependent
periphery?
Abstract
Roy does not see the state in colonial and post-colonial India as exploitative, and developmental, but
rather that colonial Indian state focussed on global market integration and post-colonial focused on
nationalism.
“Interpretations of the role of the state in economic change in colonial (1858-1947) and post-colonial India
(1947-) tend to presume that the colonial was an exploitative and the post-colonial a developmental state…
The difference was that British colonial policy was framed with reference to global market integration,
whereas post-colonial policy was framed with reference to nationalism.”
Introduction
The idea of a core-periphery does work but was broken off by the idea of extracting the surplus. The
core and periphery (Britain and India) focussed on economic interests which helped drive the free
market in commodities and factors of production and so the good and bad outcomes of the state
were produced as a result of this joint economic interest of Indian capitalists and the British
Government, not because of the quality of the British gov.
“Core-periphery approach does work for India, but only when shorn of the rhetoric of surplus extraction. The
relationship between the core (Britain) and the periphery (India) was driven by an overriding aim to maintain
free markets in commodities and factors of production. British economic interest was an important force
behind this project, but the goal was shared by many Indian capitalists as well… The successes and the failures
of the state stemmed from the manner in which this aim was pursued, rather than from the quality of
institutions it created.”
Conclusion
Proving the point in the introduction: London’s isolation of the funding in developmental concerns
ultimately brought down the Empire because the Indian capitalists didn’t like it.
“the means used to maintain openness — London’s control of monetary and military policy, and a neglect of
developmental expenditure — became controversial and eventually brought the Empire down by making it
unattractive to Indian capitalists.”
The source of power is within the core (Britain) because it made significant economic choices for
India. Settlers of periphery were irrelevant.
“Settlement, in fact, was a more or less irrelevant fact in this case. The core was the clear source of power.
London did make key economic decisions for India, and tried to monopolise its control over these decisions.”
Britain ruled India so that there would be free trade with no trade barriers not by exploiting them and
their resources. They did not rule with unfair economic laws but controlled the money of India
(monetary system) so they would not be at risk of currency fluctuations in exchanges.
“The core ruled in order to sustain economic integration. The core ruled not by means of unequal laws, but by
taking the reins of the monetary system, and indirectly, the fiscal system. It wielded these instruments in order
to stabilise trade and currency, reduce risks of exchange and maintain the Indian state’s payments to Britain. In
short, it ruled to sustain openness…”
