ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index

Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive


International Socialism, Mid-June 1974

 

Jenny Fakes

The Economics of Colonialism

 

From International Socialism, No.70, Mid-June 1974, pp.31-32.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.

 

The Economics of Colonialism, Britain and Kenya 1870-1930
Richard D. Wolff
Yale University Press, £4.40.

BRITAIN’S ‘CIVILISING MISSION’ in Africa was a familiar theme in Victorian Britain, popularised above all by David Livingstone, who maintained that ‘Christianity and commerce, hand in hand’ would banish the slave trade from Africa and bring countless blessings to the African.

British governments of the day, although they may have publicly justified their colonial policies in similar terms, were not to be hustled into annexing territory just for the sake of African souls. They were moved to colonise only when they were convinced that there was something in it for Britain. So when the British government decided in 1895 to take over Kenya – or the East African Protectorate as it was called at first – it was a rational decision based on the calculation that there were profits to be made for British business.

It was becoming clear in the late 19th century that Britain was no longer the foremost industrial power. Competition from other countries, notably Germany and the USA, meant it was hard work selling in Britain’s traditional markets and that Britain often had to buy raw materials more expensively than before because prices were controlled by foreign competitors.

British businessmen put increasing pressure on the government to introduce protective tariffs and similar policies. Colonisation was a logical extension of these measures. A colony administered by Britain could give priority to British goods, while the colony could produce raw materials and foodstuffs, thereby lessening Britain’s dependence on foreign producers. Any surplus primary products could always be sold in the profitable re-export market.

Having decided that Kenya would yield good profits, they had to ‘open up’ the country and so generate these profits. The government’s policies flowed logically from the perspective that the colony’s economic development was to be geared to Britain’s needs. The idea of persuading the African peasants to produce cash crops for export was quickly rejected and the colonial administration looked to immigrants to build the new economy. A number of sources for such immigrants were considered, including the suggestion that parts of East Africa should become the promised land of the Jews. Eventually, however, the government agreed to the demands of the few British settlers who had already arrived, that the mainstay of the economy should be European-owned plantations.

The obvious outcome of this decision was the seizure of land from the Africans. Although Kenya is on the Equator, some of the land is at very high altitude with a temperate climate and fertile soil. These areas supported most of the population but, inevitably, they were set aside for the exclusive use of Europeans, and became known as the ‘White Highlands’. The resident peoples, notably the Kikuyu, the Masai and the Nandi, were moved to less fertile areas, or ‘reserves’. The good land was given to the newcomer either free of charge or at low cost.

The next step was the provision of cheap labour. This proved quite difficult during the early years because the African tribes had their own complex and fairly self-sufficient economic structure, so the African men could see no advantage in disrupting this to go and work for their uninvited guests. Indeed, when the railway through the territory to Uganda was being built in the first few years of British rule, the government was obliged to import labourers from India because it could not recruit them locally.

But the problem was overcome in a variety of ways. The move to the reserves lowered the standard of living of many Africans so much that they were driven to seek work on European land. The white settlers were constantly urging the administration to limit the reserves still further so that they did not provide even basic subsistence for an African family. Some settlers recruited their own labour by allowing Africans squatting rights in exchange for a certain amount of work.

A significant measure was the introduction of a compulsory hut tax, which had the dual purpose of providing revenue for the administration and forcing the African into the money economy – he had to become a wage labourer for at least part of the year to earn his taxes.

A pass system was introduced from South Africa so that all Africans had to carry certificates which included details of their employment record. The First World War provided an object lesson in recruitment and afterwards it was much easier to round up labourers for both farms and public works. The government-appointed headmen and chiefs were frequently given the job of supplying labourers.

These various measures succeeded in providing the settlers with ‘the cheapest labour force in the world’, so cheap that it was not worth their while to provide medical facilities: the mortality rate amongst labourers was extremely high.

The provision of land and labour were not the only ways the administration supported the settlers. All resources were put into European-owned agriculture. Thousands of cattle were confiscated from Africans who tried to resist the invasion of their land and sold cheaply to the settlers. Europeans were granted cheap freight rates on the railway. They paid lower customs duties on goods such as agricultural tools and supplies. The Department of Agriculture devoted all its energies to distributing seed and equipment to European farmers and setting up research stations.

Most of this was paid for by direct and indirect taxation on the African population but no resources went to improving African agriculture or preventing soil erosion on their depleted lands.

Throughout this book Richard Wolff argues that British policies in Kenya were a rational response to her economic needs. The British destroyed the existing economic structure of the area and transformed the Africans into wage labourers.

Unfortunately his analysis ends tantalisingly in 1930 and it would be interesting to follow the analysis through to the post-war period when the resistance of the African people and the changing needs of British capitalism prompted Britain to abandon the settlers and move her administration out. The economic relationships established by Britain still remain. Kenya’s economy is still geared to Britain’s needs and most of the population are still exploited by a land-owning elite.

 
Top of page


ISJ Index | Main Newspaper Index

Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive

Last updated on 7.2.2008