Slavery did not make Britain an economic superpower, says expert
‘Transatlantic slave trade was no more important for the British economy than brewing or sheep farming’
SLAVERY and colonialism did not make Britain rich, and may even have made the nation poorer, a study has found.
The riches of the slave trade were concentrated in a few families while the nation footed the bill for extra military and administrative spending, according to Kristian Niemietz, at the Institute of Economic Affairs.
“Profits earned from overseas engagement were large enough to make some individuals very rich, but they were not large enough to seriously affect macroeconomic aggregates like Britain’s investment rate and capital formation,” he said. Mr Niemietz argued that that the slave trade had little overall impact on the economy or the country’s ability to industrialise.
He said: “The transatlantic slave trade was no more important for the British economy than brewing or sheep farming.” It comes as Caribbean states have demanded reparations, while more than 100 British families whose ancestors benefited from the slave trade, including former BBC broadcaster Laura Trevelyan, have pledged to seek ways to make financial amends.
By contrast, leading figures including Kemi Badenoch, the Business Secretary, have hit back to argue that Britain’s wealth was not built on imperialism.
She hailed the report as “a welcome counterweight to simplistic narratives that exaggerate the significance of empire and slavery to Britain’s economic development”.
She added: “It was British ingenuity and industry, unleashed by free markets and liberal institutions, that powered the Industrial Revolution and our modern economy.
“It is these factors that we should focus on, rather than blaming the West and colonialism for economic difficulties and holding back growth with misguided policies. The paper argues persuasively that colonialism played a minor role in Britain’s economy, and may have actually been a net negative after accounting for military and administrative costs.”
Mr Niemietz found that while the empire “did deliver some modest gains for the British economy, it came with eye-watering military and administrative costs and so may have failed any cost-benefit test”.
He said most nations appear to have benefited little from colonialism or slavery, with industrial development iinstead powered by other factors.
Germany industrialised before it established a significant empire, for example, while Japan only became rich in the latter half of the 20th century.
“The best predictors of how rich or poor a country is today are economic policy and governance indicators such as the Economic Freedom Index and the Ease of Doing Business Index,” Mr Niemietz said. “This tells us a lot more than whether or not a country was involved in the slave trade.”