METROPOLITAN EXPORTS LOST THROUGH DECOLONIZATION—A COMMENT
| Author | IAN LIVINGSTONE |
| Published date | 01 August 1978 |
| Date | 01 August 1978 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.1978.mp40003007.x |
METROPOLITAN EXPORTS LOST THROUGH
DECOLONIZATION-A COMMENT
By IAN LIVINGSTONE
I welcome Dr. Kleiman's comments on my recent paper, which will allow
readers, particularly through its explicit algebraic formulations, to see more clearly
the relation between my calculations and those of Dr. Kleiman in the Economic
Journal.1
The most important difference is that Kleiman measures two effects of de-
colonization, the market share effect and the import growth effect, the effect on the
absolute level of imports in the ex-colonial countries. My own paper deliberately
concentrated on direct market share effects, to which I wished to draw attention
(together with the interesting difference in market share level and changes as
between Britain and France). As I stated at the outset, 'There will, of course, be
other effects or gains to the colonial power besides this (market share effect).'
Colonization will have affected the level of savings and domestic/foreign investment
and aid, as well as in various ways the level of productivity and output in the
colonies, some of which might have indirect effects on British exports.
Effects on the level of imports are the most closely connected with the market
share effect, but here it is more difficult to estimate 'what might have been' in
the absence of colonization or with continued colonial domination in order to make
comparisons.
There are a number of difficulties. While it is true that the imports of ex-
British and French colonies grew less rapidly in the period after their independence
than those of other L.D.C.'s, this may have been due to factors not related to their
ex-colonial status. In particular, there could be a difference between Latin
America on the one hand and ex-colonies in Africa and Asia on the other, related to
the stage reached in import substitution in 1960. The most rapid rate of industrial
development is to be expected in the first 'easy' phase of import substitution, and
this makes it difficult to use the rate of industrial development and import growth
in other developing areas as a benchmark. There is also a problem in applying a
common import substitution factor to all the ex-colonies despite differing sizes of
domestic market affecting ease of import substitution.
Moreover, while it is plausible to suppose that if colonial power had been main-
tained, the metropolitan countries concerned could have retained their share of the
colonies' markets at the expense of competitors, it is less so to suppose that Britain
would have kept the degree of import substitution in, say, the Nigeria of 1970 down
to the 1960 level, and this in order to profit from only a ar of the resultant larger
imports: even if it would not have pushed import substitution at the same rate as
an independent government.
A related point is that what is measured may not be a permanent effect of
1J Livingstone, o. cit., and E. Kleiman, op. cit.
279
To continue reading
Request your trial