How did UK, from the first nation to industralize, fall behind in economic growth?

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That's clear enough, since it's terribly sourced. You're a fine scholar, and I'm sure you would do a better job with a wiki page you cared about.

It's also clear, since you apparently didn't bother to read it. :D It states that the upper-middle-class includes the professions (as expected) and that for further details on the upper class you should see the dedicated article in which we find (amid better writing and actual sourcing)



[emphasis added]

Beyond which, again, it wasn't a matter of my misunderstanding some overly traditional Brit's post. It was you intentionally misunderstanding and mistakenly 'correcting' mine. It's an international thread in the 21st century: you're welcome to resist Americanisms or use your own peculiar definitions in your own writing, but you'd still do better to understand how other people use words and just roll with it to address the substantive points.

I would disagree with that. That statement seems to rest solely on a book written in German on the "old Upper Class", there is no supporting quote.

Super-rich people just don't fit into the British class system and in any case, billionaires were rather thin on the ground in the 20th century until Thatcher came along.

edit: I can only presume that they are referring to the way that advertisers break-up consumers by letter into income groups. This is something different from the traditional class system.
 
Last edited:
3 main factors, each of which have been touched on in this thread:

1) Poor labour relations where unions and management were antagonistic and wages in industry were set by free collective bargaining with strikes often used
2) Sclerotic management culture, i.e. a "jobs for the boys" amateurist mentality where you got on by getting a first at Oxbridge in Classics rather than modern business or technical training
3) In the postwar period investment in public health and welfare provision + spending on maintaining British military commitments globally took precedence over investment in industry

As for the timeframe: compared to yer Germanys and yer Frances Britain was out ahead until WW2, then it fell behind over the course of the 50s-80s and came back in the 90s (but with much of the wealth concentrated in London and the South East).
 
As for the timeframe: compared to yer Germanys and yer Frances Britain was out ahead until WW2, then it fell behind over the course of the 50s-80s and came back in the 90s (but with much of the wealth concentrated in London and the South East).

Handy chart illustrating this:

EOSfsF_UUAE6GUi
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
UK at one Point being on soviet level is pretty crazy to even think about.

PPP isn't perfect and Soviet statistics might be unreliable.

Soviet citizens may have had plenty of money on paper but could they spend it? Theoretically toilet paper might have been only X Roubles but did the shops have any? GDP at black market prices would have been a more realistic measure of Soviet economic well being.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
PPP isn't perfect and Soviet statistics might be unreliable.
True for example here Sweden get a higher GDP per capita than USA https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=US-SE but switching over to PPP suddenly USA get higher https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locations=US-SE

Russia is poor if you look at GDP per capita, less than 1960 USA by quite far, but it do somewhat better in PPP (which is often the case with poor countries).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
UK at one Point being on soviet level is pretty crazy to even think about.

Not really. You probably project current state of UK to the past, but in reality it had a lot of issues in 70s which drove it to bad times. Meanwhile, USSR actually exploded from being able to sell oil and gas to Western Europe and it built a lot of housing, rapidly urbanized and in general it grew much much better than UK. Obviously it wasn't all healthy economic growth as we understand, but the amoung of wealth USSR made was significant.

It's not a coincidence that many people adore USSR from late 60s to early 80s, the golden age of the soviet system on the surface. If you ask many families from Soviet countries when they or their parents got apartments, it would be those times too when mass housing was built and solved issue of multiple families living in one communal apartment.
 
True for example here Sweden get a higher GDP per capita than USA https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=US-SE but switching over to PPP suddenly USA get higher https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locations=US-SE

Russia is poor if you look at GDP per capita, less than 1960 USA by quite far, but it do somewhat better in PPP (which is often the case with poor countries).

I think you missed my point. My point was that with communist countries, the official cost of living is very different from the real cost of living because of the necessity of buying from the black market that which is not available in shops but these PPP calculations will have used the official statistics.
 
Not really. You probably project current state of UK to the past, but in reality it had a lot of issues in 70s which drove it to bad times. Meanwhile, USSR actually exploded from being able to sell oil and gas to Western Europe and it built a lot of housing, rapidly urbanized and in general it grew much much better than UK. Obviously it wasn't all healthy economic growth as we understand, but the amoung of wealth USSR made was significant.

It's not a coincidence that many people adore USSR from late 60s to early 80s, the golden age of the soviet system on the surface. If you ask many families from Soviet countries when they or their parents got apartments, it would be those times too when mass housing was built and solved issue of multiple families living in one communal apartment.

The UK had a lot of issues in the 70s but we weren't that poor back then. I would imagine that exchange rates just make the data seem that way. There was a lot of inflation at that time and of course the oil crisis.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The UK had a lot of issues in the 70s but we weren't that poor back then. I would imagine that exchange rates just make the data seem that way. There was a lot of inflation at that time and of course the oil crisis.

Technically, USSR had no unemployment, paid consistently well for which you could buy food (maybe not always good, but still) and it gave away housing to many millions. It kinda screws up with comparison to market countries because of it, USSR just was on paper very good.
Except that instead of butter you had guns and anything close to luxury was off-limits. But working class? Probably not really worse off at the time of peak USSR.
 
Technically, USSR had no unemployment, paid consistently well for which you could buy food (maybe not always good, but still) and it gave away housing to many millions. It kinda screws up with comparison to market countries because of it, USSR just was on paper very good.
Except that instead of butter you had guns and anything close to luxury was off-limits. But working class? Probably not really worse off at the time of peak USSR.

You could buy food if you didn't mind waiting for hours in a long queue and there was any available to buy. Otherwise you would have to pay black market rates. And why were there so few good in the shops? Well, partly, because the shopkeepers were the ones running the black market stalls.

Granted things weren't as bad in the USSR as they eventually became but it's naive to take the official numbers at face value.
 
Statistically GDP in commie economics was usually on sterides: they used to dig coal out to make steel to produce machinery to mine more coal to make more steel to produce machinery to mine...
... to eventually produce the anormous stock of tanks :)
 
I've done a bit of reading and watched a few documentaries but there never seems to be a clear answer. In my opinion countries like India and China were in a far better position to Industrialise.
 
I'm not qualified to speak to the larger question, though I would like to jump in to correct come misconceptions some people seem to be having on the economic effects of colonialism/decolonization. Economic studies of colonialism have found that in almost every case, colonies were a net loss for the colonizer in economic terms. The idea that colonies are the reason for economic success is a confusion of correlation and causation.

Nations did not become economically successful because they had colonies, they had colonies because they were economically successful.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
How can it be a net loss? I mean, seriously, do we assume that for all goods shipped and resources imported dirt cheap there were more administration expenses?

Like I said, look up some economic studies (the one linked is a framework for analysis that answers your question). You're not going to get a full discussion of the topic with robust analysis of good data on an internet forum.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, look up some economic studies (the one linked is a framework for analysis that answers your question). You're not going to be able to get a full discussion of the topic with robust analysis of good data on an internet forum.

But what you say, "net loss", is a huge generalization.
The economic study is also that kind of model that only generally describes it - but ultimately, doesn't draw lines in how colonies were profitable. There are quite a few caveats, one of them being the fact that administratively colonies were able and did press locals in forced/lower paid labour or outright imported works (Africans to America, Indians to South Africa) to lower price of labour.

Moreover, "net loss" is still quite not perceptable from that data. You can argue that state had to pay for colonies quite a bit, but it also had returns from capitals that operated in colonies and paid taxes in London; in fact, the profits of private capital that later returned as even bigger investments in Britain was what carried it's industry even when it wasn't most competative in the world.

Not just that. Exactly because the colonies were "net profitable" and were both markets for consumption and resources wells, they bloated directly and indirectly GDP of metropolitan area, increasing it substantially.

I mean, come on, the latter was a reason why for example German Empire wanted the colonial pie.

The very reason why the colonialism fell apart was essentially because Eureopean colonizing powers lost a few things:
  • Industry that would be able to profit from exports to colonies. It was seriously in grieve state after WWII and it was a reason why India was no longer an asset they could hold and benefit from, but they still kept rest of territorial possesions and considered holding into them.
  • Investments. As the economic model implies, the lack of investments due to near-bancrupt state of Empire (and probably very poor finances in private sector) as well as high taxes heavily limited ability to invest into colonies, thus making returns from them rather limited.
  • Cost of Upkeep. Now, British Empire was quite effective in keeping colonial administrations. Even with transportation, it didn't cost too much to run most colonies to justify their abandonment. What mattered was an ability to deter threats. British Empire could no longer deter threats of local population in British Raj going rebel, protesting and simply keeping intact their rule in any kind of long run. However, in Africa for example they felt rather confident until much later it became apparent to British Empire that dangers created by external factors (US and USSR) were no longer surmountable and would cost more in upkeep and struggle. Thus, they had to retreat from there.
The World Wars were the major issues for these factors. Arguably, it all boils down to economic capability of UK that was rather crushed in World Wars. First one clearly didn't destroy the colonial system, even if the other powers could easily rival British Empire or try to surmount it (Germany, US). In a way, you could say that WWII was an attempt by Germany to crush the colonial monopoly, again, and even though Germany lost war it effectively reached the desired goal of crushing colonial system, which benefitted most world economics and greatly cost British Empire in terms of it's GDP and economy size.

So, in my humble opinion, colonies were not a net loss. There are little reasons for them to be and, after all, it doesn't make much sense. They inflated GDP immensively (and not even in a financial bubble way), which is naturally a great gain for economy. It could be argued that colonial system made little incentive for economics to be competative, which is indeed the case, but it wasn't any kind of "net loss" thing. Even the linked economic study doesn't say that and it pretty much supports the idea that only when British Empire was hit by train called Germany, twice, the system became way less sustainable.

Way bigger reason was the fact that they invested in military build-up and attempt to be third superpower, creating nuclear capabilities from nearly zero, expanding naval bases, trying to keep up navy and so on - all in order to surmount threats of keeping up their economic empire which thrived on colonies and that could live on even without British Raj. That bet didn't play well, Suez happened and all investment in Imperial Grandeur was for naught, the Empire entered it's political nadir and was forced to acknowledge that it could not protect the colonial system that was one of bulwarks of it's power. All while France, Germany, Italy, Spain focused on rebuilding their economies and which paid off in making them way more competative in global market.

If British Empire somehow succeeded in securing position of third superpower and "won" Suez crisis, colonialism would hardly fall so easily at least for UK. Not just that, but even military expenses that killed British economy in late 40s and 50s would be seen akin to "glorius Stalin's deeds" where it would be justified for interests of Empire. If it succeeded... which in my opinion had some chance, depending on a number of factors.

You could buy food if you didn't mind waiting for hours in a long queue and there was any available to buy. Otherwise you would have to pay black market rates. And why were there so few good in the shops? Well, partly, because the shopkeepers were the ones running the black market stalls.

Granted things weren't as bad in the USSR as they eventually became but it's naive to take the official numbers at face value.

What I meant was that USSR did have a huge period of growth after WWII as it was forced to invest into economics and not just tanks. It grew significantly. People moved from mere villages and apartments where 2-10 families lived to actual personal apartments. And made goddamn too many tanks.

I don't say that USSR was that good as economy. But objectively grew during 50s and 60s not just as a resource exporting country, but industrially and in other ways, all unlike UK. It managed to develop relatively more I would say for sure. And, ironically, UK made way more "tanks" than USSR in later 40s and early 50s with enormous military budget which was not sustained by communist steroids and administrative measures.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
But what you say, "net loss", is a huge generalization.
The economic study is also that kind of model that only generally describes it - but ultimately, doesn't draw lines in how colonies were profitable. There are quite a few caveats, one of them being the fact that administratively colonies were able and did press locals in forced/lower paid labour or outright imported works (Africans to America, Indians to South Africa) to lower price of labour.

Moreover, "net loss" is still quite not perceptable from that data. You can argue that state had to pay for colonies quite a bit, but it also had returns from capitals that operated in colonies and paid taxes in London; in fact, the profits of private capital that later returned as even bigger investments in Britain was what carried it's industry even when it wasn't most competative in the world.

Not just that. Exactly because the colonies were "net profitable" and were both markets for consumption and resources wells, they bloated directly and indirectly GDP of metropolitan area, increasing it substantially.

I mean, come on, the latter was a reason why for example German Empire wanted the colonial pie.

The very reason why the colonialism fell apart was essentially because Eureopean colonizing powers lost a few things:
  • Industry that would be able to profit from exports to colonies. It was seriously in grieve state after WWII and it was a reason why India was no longer an asset they could hold and benefit from, but they still kept rest of territorial possesions and considered holding into them.
  • Investments. As the economic model implies, the lack of investments due to near-bancrupt state of Empire (and probably very poor finances in private sector) as well as high taxes heavily limited ability to invest into colonies, thus making returns from them rather limited.
  • Cost of Upkeep. Now, British Empire was quite effective in keeping colonial administrations. Even with transportation, it didn't cost too much to run most colonies to justify their abandonment. What mattered was an ability to deter threats. British Empire could no longer deter threats of local population in British Raj going rebel, protesting and simply keeping intact their rule in any kind of long run. However, in Africa for example they felt rather confident until much later it became apparent to British Empire that dangers created by external factors (US and USSR) were no longer surmountable and would cost more in upkeep and struggle. Thus, they had to retreat from there.
The World Wars were the major issues for these factors. Arguably, it all boils down to economic capability of UK that was rather crushed in World Wars. First one clearly didn't destroy the colonial system, even if the other powers could easily rival British Empire or try to surmount it (Germany, US). In a way, you could say that WWII was an attempt by Germany to crush the colonial monopoly, again, and even though Germany lost war it effectively reached the desired goal of crushing colonial system, which benefitted most world economics and greatly cost British Empire in terms of it's GDP and economy size.

So, in my humble opinion, colonies were not a net loss. There are little reasons for them to be and, after all, it doesn't make much sense. They inflated GDP immensively (and not even in a financial bubble way), which is naturally a great gain for economy. It could be argued that colonial system made little incentive for economics to be competative, which is indeed the case, but it wasn't any kind of "net loss" thing. Even the linked economic study doesn't say that and it pretty much supports the idea that only when British Empire was hit by train called Germany, twice, the system became way less sustainable.

Way bigger reason was the fact that they invested in military build-up and attempt to be third superpower, creating nuclear capabilities from nearly zero, expanding naval bases, trying to keep up navy and so on - all in order to surmount threats of keeping up their economic empire which thrived on colonies and that could live on even without British Raj. That bet didn't play well, Suez happened and all investment in Imperial Grandeur was for naught, the Empire entered it's political nadir and was forced to acknowledge that it could not protect the colonial system that was one of bulwarks of it's power. All while France, Germany, Italy, Spain focused on rebuilding their economies and which paid off in making them way more competative in global market.

If British Empire somehow succeeded in securing position of third superpower and "won" Suez crisis, colonialism would hardly fall so easily at least for UK. Not just that, but even military expenses that killed British economy in late 40s and 50s would be seen akin to "glorius Stalin's deeds" where it would be justified for interests of Empire. If it succeeded... which in my opinion had some chance, depending on a number of factors.


Most of this isn't relevant to the point I'm making. The stuff that is relevant is accounted for in the model, which those authors and others have applied to other colonies. I'm giving you peer-reviewed studies by academics, you're giving some internet rando's opinion using vague assertions without evidence.

The thing is, the economic drain of colonialism is counterintuitive. You would think that it would be profitable. That's why academic studies are so useful, they demonstrate facts that are counterintuitive.

Again, like I said, do your own research but don't present vague generalizations as fact when I've provided a peer-reviewed source to the contrary. The one I provided is just a model but there are other models and other studies that apply those models to specific colonial situations. Research is your friend here.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Most of this isn't relevant to the point I'm making. The stuff that is relevant is accounted for in the model, which those authors and others have applied to other colonies. I'm giving you peer-reviewed studies by academics, you're giving some internet rando's opinion using vague assertions without evidence.

The thing is, the economic drain of colonialism is counterintuitive. You would think that it would be profitable. That's why academic studies are so useful, they demonstrate facts that are counterintuitive.

Again, like I said, do your own research but don't present vague generalizations as fact when I've provided a peer-reviewed source to the contrary. The one I provided is just a model but there are other models and other studies that apply those models to specific colonial situations. Research is your friend here.

Well, hello internet rando :)

Rather than that, even the models are reliant on key factors for stating what makes colonies not profitable (why is represented in studies, which are only a mathematic model in this case and not a study with answers). Which factors did break the profitability (and when)? Even in case of this study, you can deduct result only after knowing certain factors and pointing out how they affected the model.

Another issue is that a net loss means that money are lost. If private companies made a lot of money (and, well, they did, because they would go bancrupt otherwise) that means that state paid for colonies way more than private people earned from that + taxes from colonial region. Which clearly wasn't the case for the vast majority of time.
 
Well, hello internet rando :)

Rather than that, even the models are reliant on key factors for stating what makes colonies not profitable (why is represented in studies, which are only a mathematic model in this case and not a study with answers). Which factors did break the profitability (and when)? Even in case of this study, you can deduct result only after knowing certain factors and pointing out how they affected the model.

Another issue is that a net loss means that money are lost. If private companies made a lot of money (and, well, they did, because they would go bancrupt otherwise) that means that state paid for colonies way more than private people earned from that + taxes from colonial region. Which clearly wasn't the case for the vast majority of time.

You've studied private colonial ventures? So you surely know that bankruptcy was common and they were often very highly leveraged? You'll forgive me if I take actual academics' word for things and not yours.

Look, you can disagree all you want but I've done at least an iota of work here to point you in the direction of actual studies of this issue. I've met the burden of pointing out that things are more complicated than you make them out to be. Do your own research from this point.
 
Last edited: