We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 June 2011
Until recently, when it ceased to be an important pastime, scholars engaged in debate over the motives behind, and the nature of, European imperial enterprise in the colonial territories of Africa. Opinion was divided between those who stressed the altruistic goals and the positive impact of the European ‘civilising’ mission in Africa and others who highlighted the ulterior motives behind, and the uncomplimentary features of, colonial rule. One issue in contention as far as British imperialism was concerned, was the policy of ‘free trade’ in the colonies. It was held by some that Britain operated the ‘imperialism of Free Trade’, that is, it hid under the espousal of that policy in order to acquire colonies and to gain advantage over its rivals in the contest for colonial trade. On the other hand, much was made of Britain's ‘open door’ policy in its colonies as contrasted with the French, for example, who were for the most part protectionists. Yet, as a number of studies have shown, the British were no less protectionist given certain circumstances, and this case study provides further examples of this tendency in inter-war Nigeria. To place the discussion in a proper context, we shall clarify the nature of the fiscal system in British colonies, for this was the linchpin of the administration and the key to understanding economic policy.
1 For contrasting views on European imperialism, see Rodney, Walter, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (New York 1972)Google ScholarMcPhee, Alan, The Economic Revolution in British West Africa (London 1926).Google Scholar An overview is presented in Cooper, Fred, ‘Africa and the World Economy’, African Studies Review 24 (1981) 1–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 The quest for ‘free trade’ in Nigeria is studied in Ayodeji Olukoju, ‘The Politics of Free Trade between Lagos and the Hinterland, 1861-1907’ in: Adefuye, Ade, Agiri, Babatunde and Osuntokun, jide eds, History of the Peoples of Lagos State (Lagos 1987) 85–103Google Scholar.
3 For the imperialism of free trade, see Robinson, R. and Gallagher, J., ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, Economic History Review, second series, 6/1 (1953) 1–15.Google Scholar This seminal article has provoked a lot of debate on the motives behind and the methods of British overseas expansion in the nineteenth century. A good collection on this topic is Shaw, A.G.L. ed., Great Britain and the Colonies, 1815-1865 (London 1970)Google Scholar.
4 British ‘open door’ policy is extolled in studies by McPhee, ; and Robinson, and Gallagher, Crowder, Michael, West Africa under Colonial Rule (London 1968) 305,Google Scholar claimed that the ‘general policy’ of British administrations ‘was to leave commerce to itself’. Hopkins, A.G., An Economic History of West Africa (London 1975) 189,Google Scholar also referred to ‘Great White Umpires’, that is, non-interventionist colonial governments in the colonies. This view is negated by this study and by the authoritative article by Ehrlich, Cyril, ‘Building and Caretaking: Economic Policy in British Tropical Africa, 1890-1960’, Economic History Review 26 (1973) 649–667.Google Scholar For a case of French protectionism, see Newbury, C.W., ‘The Protectionist Revival in French Colonial Trade: The Case of Senegal’, Economic History Review 21 (1968) 337–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 For an example of British protectionism, see Johnson, Marion, ‘Cotton Imperialism in West Africa’, African Affairs 73/291 (1974) 178–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also, Smith, Sheila, ‘Colonialism in Economic Theory: The Experience of Nigeria’, Journal of Development Studies 15 (1979) 38–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 For general studies on British imperialism with particular reference to economic policy in the colonies, see Ehrlich, ‘Building and Caretaking’; Meredith, David, ‘The British Government and Colonial Economic Policy, 1919-1939’, Economic History Review, second series, 28/2 (1975) 484–499Google Scholar and Cain, P.J. and Hopkins, A.G., British Imperialism (London 1993)Google Scholar.
7 See, Lawal, A.A., ‘Sharing Profits with Subjects: Anatomy of Colonial Fiscal Policy’ in: Falola, Toyin ed., Britain and Nigeria: Exploitation or Development? (London 1987) 186–199Google Scholar and Olukoju, Ayodeji, ‘The Lugardian Concept of “Class Taxation” in Nigeria, c. 1900-1916’, OYE: Ogan Journal of Arts 1 (1988) 111–123 andGoogle ScholarIdem, ‘Rotgut and Revenue: Fiscal Aspects of the Liquor Trade in Southern Nigeria, 1890-1919’, Itinerario 21/2 (1997) 66- 81.
8 Hopkins, A.G., ‘An Economic History of Lagos, 1880-1914’ (PhD Thesis University of London, 1964) 137; andGoogle ScholarLeubuscher, Charlotte, ‘The Policy Governing External Trade’ in: Perham, Margery ed., Mining, Commerce and Finance in Nigeria (London 1948) 158Google Scholar noted that fiscal policy could be made to serve commercial purposes, as the examples in this study demonstrate.
9 The differential duty should not be confused with the export duties levied in 1916. First, it was imposed on one commodity only (palm kernels), whereas the latter were collected on all principal exports including kernels. Second, while the differential duty was meant primarily to achieve commercial goals, the export duties were intended to make up fora great shortfall in the revenue caused by the drastic reduction in returns from duty on imported liquor. Third, while the introduction of export duties ruptured Business-Govern-merit relations, the differential duty had the opposite effect. Fourth, the latter was shortlived but the export duties became a permanent feature of fiscal policy. On the export duties in particular, and Business-Government relations in general, see Olukoju, Ayodeji, ‘Anatomy of Business-Government Relations: Fiscal Policy and Mercantile Pressure Group Activity in Nigeria, 1916-1933’, African Studies Review 38/1 (1995) 23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 See, Osuntokun, Akinjide, Nigeria in the First World War (London, 1979) 21–63Google ScholarOlukoju, Ayodeji, ‘The Maritime Trade of Lagos during the First World War’, Lagos Notes and Records 7/1 (1996) 167–184 andGoogle ScholarIdem, ‘Elder Dempster and the Shipping Trade of Nigeria during the First World War’, Journal of African History 33/2 (1992) 255-271.
11 Details in Osuntokun, First World War, and Olukoju, ‘Lagos’.
12 Osuntokun, , First World War, 59 note 38Google Scholar.
13 Cd 8247, Committee on Edible and Oil-Producing Nuts and Seeds Report, June 1916, p. 23. The discussion on this subject relies upon this source.
14 Cd 8247 Report, Olukoju, Ayodeji, ‘Maritime Trade in Lagos, 1914-1950: Its Nature and Impact’ (PhD Thesis University of Ibadan, 1991) 138Google Scholar.
15 National Archives, Ibadan (hereafter, NAI), CSO 1/32/27 encl. in 965 of 11 December 1916: A. Alakija, Secretary, Lagos Auxiliary of the Aborigines Protection Society to Secretary, Southern Provinces, 9 October 1916.
16 Ibid, encl. 2: Cameron to Sec, LAAPS, 30 November 1916.
17 NAI CSO 20/6 NC 176/18 ‘Mr Long's Report on the Production and Export of Raw Materials’, Boyle to Milner, 21 January 1919.
18 Cmd 1600, Report of a Committee on Trade and Taxation for British West Africa (1922) 60Google Scholar.
19 Ibid.
20 Lagos Weekly Record (LWR), 28 February 1920, Weekly Notes and Comments (WN & C).
21 LWR, 17 July 1920.
22 NAI CSO 1/32/62 871 of 16 September 1921 Scott to Churchill, encl.: ‘Opinions and Suggestions of the Lagos Committee of the NCBWA on the Subject of Trade and Taxation in the West African Colonies’, 12 September 1921.
23 LWR, 17 January 1920.
24 Ibid, culled from The World, 29 November 1919.
25 LWR, 20 December 1919: ‘Making a New Trust: Milk, Margarine and the Consumer’ by Prester John. Culled from The Star, 18 November 1919.
26 NAI CSO 19/8 N3768/1920 ‘Report on Oils, Fats and Margarine Trades’, encl.: Cmd 982 Profiteering Acts, 1919 and 1920, Report on the Oils, Fats and Margarine Trades (1920) 5Google Scholar.
27 Details in Osuntokun, First World War, and Olukoju, ‘Lagos’. For the economic aftermath of the war, see, Ayedele (correctly, Ayodeji) Olukoju, , ‘Maritime Trade in Lagos in the Aftermath of the First World War’, African Economic History 20 (1992) 119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 LWR 28 February 1920, WN & C.
29 Nigerian Pioneer (Lagos) 20 February 1920, culled from The Times, 29 November 1919. All quotes in this paragraph are taken from this source.
30 NAI CSO 26/1 02794 Vol. 1 ‘Questions and Answers in Parliament relating to Nigerian Affairs, 1922’, Q 32: Mr Mosley, 14 February 1922.
31 LWR, 19 June 1920. Milner was responding to Lord Emmott's spirited attacks in the House of Lords.
32 NAI CSO 20/6 NC 176/18, Boyle to Milner, 21 January 1921.
33 Cmd 1600, Report, 63.
34 Ibid.
35 The Depression of 1929-1933 is studied in Milewski, Jan, ‘The Great Depression of the Early 1930s in a Colonial Country: A Case Study of Nigeria’, Africana Bulletin 23 (1975) 7–45;Google ScholarFaluyi, Kehinde, ‘The Impact of the Great Depression of 1929-33 on the Nigerian Economy’, Journal of Business and Social Studies 4/2 (1981) 31–44; andGoogle Scholar Olukoju, ‘Maritime Trade in Lagos, 1914-1950’, chapter 5. A study of anti-Japanese commercial policies in East and West Africa during the 1930s is Ampiah, Kweku, ‘British Commercial Policies Against Japanese Expansionism in East and West Africa, 1932-1935’, International Journal of African Historical Studies 23/4 (1990) 619–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It is significant that only two paragraphs (on pages 633-634) were devoted specifically to Nigeria. Besides, the author was more interested in the politico-strategic motives behind the anti-Japanese policies. For these reasons, the present study fills a gap that could not have been bridged by Ampiah's which had a wider scope and a different focus.
36 For studies of Business-Government relations, see, Olukoju, ‘Anatomy of Business-Government Relations’; Idem, ‘The Making of an “Expensive Port”: Shipping Lines, Government and Port Tariffs in Lagos, 1917-1949’, International Journal of Maritime History 6/1 (1994) 141-159; Idem, ‘Elder Dempster’; Idem, ‘Nigeria's Colonial Government, Commercial Banks, and the Currency Crisis of 1916-1920’, International Journal of African HistoricalStudies 30/2 (1997) 277-298; and Idem, ‘Government, the Business Community, and Quality Control Schemes in the Agricultural Export Trade of Nigeria 1889-1929’, African Economic History 26 (1998) 99-118.
37 NAI CSO 26 09419 ‘Manchester Chamber of Commerce: Annual Reports etc. of the Africa Section’, 41st Annual Report (1932) 7.
38 West Africa, 4 February 1933, 81Google Scholar.
39 West Africa, 6 May 1933, 426Google Scholar.
40 West Africa, 19 August 1933, 821Google Scholar.
41 West Africa, 14 April 1934, 382.
42 NAI CSO 1/32/124 104 of 1 February 1935, Cameron to Cunliffe-Lister.
43 West Africa, 14 April 1934, 382Google Scholar.
44 West Africa, 16 June 1934, 659Google Scholar.
45 NAI CSO 1/34/40 Confidential 27 May 1936, Bourdillon to Thomas.
46 West Africa, 12 January 1935, 16Google Scholar.
47 Leubuscher, ‘Policy Governing External Trade’, 160. Treaty obligations prevented the British from adopting the same measures in their East African colonies, where the Japanese had a field day. For this, and the contrasting situation in West Africa, see Ampiah, ‘British Commercial Policies’.
48 NAI CSO 1/34/40 Confidential 12 May 1936, Bourdillon to Thomas.
49 NAI CSO 1/34/40 Confidential ‘A’ 27 May 1936, Bourdillon to Thomas.
50 West Africa, 13 July 1935, 790.
51 West Africa, 26 October 1935, 1255.
52 West Africa, 2 November 1935, 1291.
53 NAI CSO 1/34/40 Confidential 8 July 1936, Bourdillon to Ormsby-Gore. The discussion and all quotes in this paragraph derive from this source.
54 NAI CSO 1/34/43 Confidential 31 August 1938, Hunt to MacDonald.
55 West Africa, 14 April 1934, 382.
56 NAI CSO 1/34/40 Confidential 12 May 1936, Bourdillon to Thomas.
57 NAI CSO 1/34/40 Confidential ‘A’ 27 May 1936, Bourdillon to Thomas.
58 NAI CSO 1/34/41 Confidential 22 July 1937, Bourdillon to Ormsby-Gore.
59 Ampiah, ‘British Commercial Policies’, 619 note 2, citing Michael French and Thomas Wilson, ‘Depression and Protection: The Early Thirties and the Early Eighties Compared’ in: Dore, Ronald and Sinha, Radha eds, Japan and World Depression (London 1987) 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar defines ‘neo-mercantilism’ as ‘a program of protection for economic recovery’. The fiscal policies considered in this study were, within the context of this definition, undoubtedly ‘neo-mercantilist’.
