You are on page 1of 8

Submission of Political and Economic Interests before the British State: Review of Martin Dauntons State and Market

in Victorian Britain Scott Abel Fearing the wrath of bloodthirsty mobs bent on vengeance for imprisonment in hellish factories or the frightening evaporation of savings accounts and the dreadful loss of social status, British policymakers developed policies that favored a plurality of interests rather than a few powerful groups. Great Britain depended on the prevention of any particular interest group seizing control of the state and forcing its population into servitude through creating national policy that of entrenched interests that permitted complacent descendants lives of luxury and decadence. According to Dauntons thesis in State and Market in Victorian Britain: War, Welfare and Capitalism, the British government made Great Britain the most prosperous nation in the world through a delicate balancing act between the various that developed special interests through public policy. The creation of a balanced economy with proper infrastructure and weakening of particular special interests for the sake of social stability through legislative and judicial action constructed the framework for industrialization in the 19th century. Dauntons argument explained many of Great Britains political stability and economic successes within the 19th century, but it neglected some aspects of recent historiography regarding free trade. Although the submission of economic and political interests before the state was critical to national success, the work failed in a complete explanation of industrialization, along with the oversimplification of early 19th century trade and public policies.

Daunton drew heavily on John Brewer for the establishment of the perception the British states legitimacy, along with the balancing of various interests through political means. Prior to the Victorian Era, Great Britain possessed a tradition of maintaining few tax exemptions unlike its neighbor France, which sold tax exemptions and government positions for short-term revenue.1 In regard to British government debt, bondholders and creditors held Parliament in well-regard for the repayment of loans and bonds in the future. Meanwhile, Parliament balanced the tax burden more fairly than their French counterparts resulting in the general public often viewing the state and taxation with greater legitimacy than their rivals. Enough people of status within the British state required good national credit for their own prosperity who advocated for the protection of Great Britains financial reputation.2 Aside from good credit, Great Britains strength required elites meeting with the interests of the state for the development of public trust.3 Daunton placed significance on a strong system of finance and the balance of various private interests as the foundations for industrialization into the 19th century. For Daunton the balance of public policys favor between pluralities of interest groups became important for the overall success of the British economy. The City of London, the financial hub for the British Empire possessed only limited influence, rather than the dominance as suggested by Cain and Hopkins, over public policy as industrialists also possessed significant political clout. Various interests succeed and failed depending on the ebb and flow of political and economic fortunes.4 Daunton contended protectionism permitted the growth of domestic industries until Great Britain
1

Martin Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain: War, Welfare and Capitalism, (Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2008), 43-42. 2 Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 47-49, 55. 3 Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 61. [Something missing in the early 21st Century USA]. 4 Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 13-14, 16.

was competitive throughout the global market while the parliamentary system of governance reinforced the legitimacy of the state and its taxation according to his argument. The textile industry supported free trade policies throughout the 1830s and 1840s for the expansion of their markets as an overall trend away from indirect taxation in public policy.5 However, Williamson and ORourke established a general reduction in overall tariffs from 1815 to 1827 of 70%, 1828 to 1841 dropping 50%, and only dropping 7% from 1842 to 1845. Under the influence of liberal economists, policymakers permitted the migration of skilled workers in 1825. William and ORourke revealed a reduction in protectionist policies before the 1830s as a three decades long transition from protectionism, which Daunton neglected in addressing despite the importance of early 19th century trade policy to his argument.6 Dauntons oversimplification of the shifts in political economy in Great Britain missed an earlier liberalization trend that interfered with his overall narrative. Daunton selected, perhaps understandably, a limited amount of instances of state intervention within the early 19th century while neglecting important state interventionist policies during that era. The elimination of monopolies drove a part of Dauntons argument because monopolies obstructed free trade and free association, which challenged the notion of the disinterested state.7 Robert Millward asked why Daunton neglected increased regulation regarding the conditions of factories especially regarding child labor.8 Daunton addressed some social issues such as courts balancing between

5 6

Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 2, 75. Jefferey Williamson and Kevin ORourke, Globalization and History: The Evolution of a 19th Century Atlantic Economy, (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2001), 37-38. 7 Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 11, 37. 8 Robert Millward, review of State and Market in Victorian Britain: War, Welfare and Captialism, by Martin Daunton, Journal of British Studies 48, No. 3 (2009): 786-787.

communities rights for a healthy environment and the economic rights of businesses,9 but ultimately skipped much of the social elements in the development of the Industrial Era. Rather, the work focused mostly on the survivability of the British aristocracy and their greater wealth in comparison to their continental counterparts because of their integration with the economy beyond agriculture.10 Daunton simplified the social issues of Great Britain with the implication that the elites success was critical to the development of British prosperity rather than the characteristics and input of other classes except as a marginal check to the elite. Daunton challenged the notions raised by economic historians regarding the power of the City of Londons financiers over the policies of Westminster. Daunton challenged the notion that the return of fiscal responsibility of the British state before the development of industrial capitalism permitted a financial elite to survive politically the development of the industrialist. The fusion of the traditional elite with the financiers in Great Britain allowed for greater influence over national policy until 1910 when the Liberal Party in alliance with northern industrialists broke the power of the House of Lords and the southern leisure class reliant on tariffs. Daunton rejected that narrative, arguing that the records of wealth of the industrialists through probates or financial records at death appeared smaller than they actually were because of the ways in which the government counted wealth by neglecting fixed assets in particular such as shipyards.11 Daunton rejected ideas regarding splits in the upper classes that permitted the City of London to act as the main power brokers with the industrialists in the political background, because the industrialist possessed more wealth than previously believed.
9

Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 101. Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 149, 151. 11 Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 153-156.
10

The 19th century witnessed the enactment of laws that weakened the traditional aristocracy and powerbrokers in Great Britain, which Daunton interpreted as series of constant shifts in the British power structure that historians often exaggerated as differences between financiers and the industrialists. Daunton highlighted the loss of power by the aristocracy over local governance, which placed an alliance of individuals against traditional landowners. He illustrated the change in the culture of gentlemanly capitalists from an emphasis on virtue to character, which placed greater standards of the practices of business elites. Also, the distinctions between the financial elite and the industrialists existed but various elements connecting the groups. For example, the financial market offered short term credit to the industrialists and provided them with liquidity when needed. Though the financiers and industrialists differed socially, their business required practical association and this resulted in a complementary relationship rather than a contradictory one.12 Daunton depicted the financier elite of the City as connected with the industrialists, rejecting the division of the two as merely separate social groups. Though the financiers possessed political clout, they fit into a constantly shifting balance of power within British politics. Great Britains tax and political system throughout much of 19th century generally employed a variety of instruments for policy enactment and focused on tax policy without significant favoritism. Daunton argued that despite the comparatively small size of the British state, it was remarkably effective through, for example, investments and inspections regarding public health and infectious diseases. The state relied on professional bodies or civil societies for the delegation of certain tasks, which received a significant amount of autonomy. Political decentralization regarding education permitted
12

Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 158-164.

certain areas with religious particular religious ideals independent policies with publically funded education. The political system excluded special interests groups from policymaking through the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the treasury officials obligation to create a budget, resulting in a lessening of tax breaks to particular groups. Policymakers rejected the idea the employment of tax policy to encourage growth in particular areas.13 The neutrality of the state in regard to special interests further legitimized the British state.14 Dauntons argument regarding the objectiveness of policymakers about special interests was a political and economic strength of the British political system and an effective part of his argument. Although such policies reinforced aristocratic power through patronage or direct control, it maintained the fiscal health of the state by avoiding special tax breaks. Great Britains commitment to free trade and the gold standard upheld globalization until the advent of World War I. British political economy during the latter half of the 19th century focused on free trade as a moral obligation. Great Britains status as an essential element of the global economy cost the Bank of England the ability to administer nationally autonomous monetary policy because foreigners sat on the board of directors.15 The mobility of labor allowed for a degree of social stability through higher wages in the Old World as their competitors sought careers in the New World. In the fifty years before World War I, globalization meant fewer restrictions on migration and free trade while domestic monetary policies remained dormant. The cooperation of central bankers during that period meant the employment of the gold standard that prevented speculation, permitted transnational trade, maintained peace, promoted
13 14

Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 80-86. Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 87-88. 15 Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 221, 224.

civilization, and allowed high wages for organized labor as the major ideals in 19th century global political economy.16 The decades of globalization leading up to World War I witnessed a global trading system based on relatively fixed monetary policy and an aversion toward increased protectionism. Dauntons argument explained the maintenance power of the British state throughout the latter half of the 19th century with the emergence of other global powers, but neglected important aspects in development of the British economy during the beginning of the 19th century. He explained that Great Britain possessed a greater balance of the political elite between the traditional landed elite, the financiers, and the industrialists during the 19th century in contrast to previous historiography. The balance of the British political order and the support for free trade ideals maintained the global financial and trade system and the legitimacy of the British state. State and Market in Victorian Britain backed the public policies of British free trade throughout the 19th century because made Great Britain efficient and prosperous.

16

Daunton, State and Market in Victorian Britain, 225-228.

Works Cited: Daunton, Martin. State and Market in Victorian Britain: War, Welfare and Capitalism. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2008. Millward, Robert. Review of State and Market in Victorian Britain: War, Welfare and Captialism, by Martin Daunton, Journal of British Studies 48, No. 3 (2009): 786-787. Williamson, Jefferey and ORourke, Kevin. Globalization and History: The Evolution of a 19th Century Atlantic Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2001.

You might also like