------------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------
Published by EH.NET (September 2005)
Mario Tiberi, _The Accounts of the British Empire: Capital Flows from
1799 to 1914_. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2005. ix + 183 pp.
$99.95 (hardcover), ISBN: 0-7546-3916-9.
Reviewed for EH.NET by Elise S. Brezis, Department of Economics, KNU
(Korea) and BIU (Israel).
This book presents a synthesis of research on the quantitative
estimates of the foreign investments of Great Britain during the
nineteenth century. Given the limited data available on stocks and
flows of capital during the nineteenth century, the various scholars
who have focused their attention on this topic have reconstructed
either the balance of payments or the annual income earned overseas.
Aptly covering the principal results of those who have researched the
subject, _Accounts of the British Empire_ is an important compilation
of the work done in this field.
Mario Tiberi has done a remarkable job of collecting the various
studies and presenting the various methods used by the researchers.
The book emphasizes the three main methods of estimating capital
flows. The first, the indirect method, measures the various elements
of the balance of payments, and capital flows are obtained as a
residual. The second method makes use of the capitalization of annual
income earned from British financial and real investment abroad. The
third method does not properly estimate capital flows, but rather
concentrates on finding information on foreign assets owned by
British citizens.
_Accounts of the British Empire_ is divided into four chapters. The
first chapter presents the research of those who have used the
indirect method; the second chapter presents the other two methods;
the third chapter presents critiques on the various methods; and
chapter four is a summary.
The first chapter presents the works of Seyd, Shaw-Lefevre, Hobson,
Schooling, Jenks, Caincross, Feinstein, myself, and of course Imlah,
all of whom use the indirect method, i.e., they measure the various
elements of the balance of payments. As Tiberi reminds us, this
method can be fraught with errors regarding each of the various
elements.
The second chapter is devoted to researchers who have used the two
other methods. Those who use the capitalization method, particularly
Giffen, Hirst, Crammond, and Paish, start by identifying the flows of
various types of income (profits, dividends, interest, and rent) that
can accrue from capital invested overseas. With some guesses
regarding the year of purchases of the various components, it is
possible to capitalize these flows and to estimate the stock of
capital invested overseas.
The third method is based on the collection of information on foreign
assets, both financial and real, owned by British residents overseas.
This method consists of identifying, from all available sources, the
flows of financial assets purchased by residents of Great Britain as
investments abroad. This method is called the direct method, and was
mainly used by Nash, Harris, Ayres, and Simon, but also by Crammond
and Paish.
The third chapter focuses on scholars who have criticized the
research presented in the two previous chapters. These critiques,
particularly those of Arnd and Platt, focus on the general
characteristics of the direct method. They claim that information on
the financial market regarding so-called portfolio investments cannot
accurately represent the wealth accumulated abroad by U.K. residents.
They also suggest downward revisions of the values attributed to the
flows and stock of Britain's foreign investment proposed by Imlah and
Paish.
The final and most interesting chapter is a summary of the
aforementioned studies. Since pre-1870 estimates are particularly
problematic, Tiberi divides his critiques into two periods: pre-1870,
and 1870-1914. On the one hand, this chapter is an objective summary
of all of the research; in it, Tiberi summarizes all of the estimates
in one table (table 4.1, pp. 158-159), which allows us to compare the
various results, making it a very useful table. On the other hand, he
finally permits himself to be subjective and tells us which research
and which estimates he prefers. It seems that his preference tends
toward the capitalization method; despite the fact that in Chapter 3
he defended Imlah, in this chapter he raises some reservations
regarding the indirect method.
However, it is clear that Tiberi's preference is related to the
objective of the research. For Tiberi, foreign investments are
related to power and prestige, and therefore he does not place much
importance on flows, but rather on the stocks of overseas capital. My
own preference, of course, is the indirect method, since by checking
the balance of payments, I could prove that foreign capital inflows
from overseas were almost as important as savings in paving the way
to the Industrial Revolution. It can therefore be stated that
preferences are actually related to goals. On the whole, _Accounts of
the British Empire_ presents the research objectively.
My main critique of this book is that Tiberi is himself not critical
enough, though he is critical of the critics. Defending Imlah, he
writes, "Unless an author can be proved unreliable, any attempt on
his part to verify the quality of his own work through comparisons of
hypotheses, methods and results of other scholars should be
considered positively" (p. 128). Yet he states, "Every method of
evaluation of the flows and stock of foreign investments needs both
reliable data and plausible assumptions in order to obtain empirical
results that are sufficiently representative of the real facts" (p.
99).
Since _Accounts of the British Empire_ is about the estimation of
capital flows, I would like to have seen more on the problem of
evaluation. When one considers Tiberi's summary in table 4.1, what is
striking is that the estimates, using quite different methods, yield
very similar results. For example, the results of the indirect method
(?1,190 million for Imlah) and the direct method (?1,250 million for
Nash) for the year 1880 are incredibly close. This is even truer for
the year 1913, where the difference between Paish and Imlah is
negligible. Except for the first guess at the beginning of the
nineteenth century (where Imlah has a preference for ?10 million and
Beeke and Seyd for ?100 million), the differences are small during
the rest of the period.
Does this similarity mean that the probability that the "true" data
is not far from these estimates is almost one? It would be if all of
the various studies were independent, but the similarity of the
estimates is also due to the fact that the studies are interrelated.
For instance, Imlah quotes most of the works written before him,
particularly Jenks and Seyd. So in formulating his own data, he
incorporates the previous estimates, which is why the data do not
differ widely. This phenomenon points to a comment of mine on
Maddison (2000), suggesting that creating data for the first time has
a strong impact:
"The theoretical question that should be asked [regarding estimation]
is: Does the first move, i.e., the first estimate, influence the
entire ensuing quest for the 'true' data? In other words, does the
first guess influence the data estimated even after many corrections?
If the first guess can affect the ensuing research, then despite the
fact that Maddison is the best candidate for 'casting the die and
creating' the data, then -- like every monopoly -- this one is also
undesirable" (Brezis, 2001).
Probably, Tiberi should have raised more questions regarding the
estimates, emphasizing which are the outcomes of the creation of new
data and which are improvements on previous work. Yet for scholars
researching the balance of payments of the U.K., _Accounts of the
British Empire_ is a must: a formidable synthesis of all that has
been done in this field.
References:
Elise S. Brezis, "Review of Angus Maddison _The World Economy: A
Millennial Perspective_" Economic History Services, Nov 26, 2001,
http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0418.shtml
Angus Maddison, _The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective_ (OECD, 2000).
Elise S. Brezis is editor (with Peter Temin) of _Elites, Minorities
and Economic Growth_ (Elsevier, 1999) and author of "Mercantilism" in
_The Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History_ (2003) and "The Role of
Higher Education Institutions: Recruitment of Elites and Economic
Growth" (with Francois Crouzet) in T. Eicher, ed., _Institutions and
Economic Growth_ (MIT Press, forthcoming). She will contribute on
"elites and economic outcomes" in the _New Palgrave Dictionary of
Economics_ (forthcoming).
Copyright (c) 2005 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be
copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to
the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the
EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]; Telephone: 513-529-2229).
Published by EH.Net (September 2005). All EH.Net reviews are archived
at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
-------------- FOOTER TO EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------
EH.Net-Review mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://eh.net/mailman/listinfo/eh.net-review
|