IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/110453.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

West Indies technologies in the East Indies: imperial preference and sugar business in Bihar, 1800-1850s

Author

Listed:
  • Hutkova, Karolina

Abstract

Today India is among the major sugar producers and sugar-making has a long tradition, yet the adoption of modern sugar technologies was delayed. Which factors underpinned this? This article examines the attempts of European sugar entrepreneurs to adopt new sugar technologies in 1830s–1840s Bihar. Its findings correspond with recent literature on Indian economic development which emphasises the role of declining agricultural productivity in economic stagnation in the colonial period. This article supports the conclusions that low agricultural productivity was the outcome of inadequate investment on the part of the British Empire. It also highlights that in the case of commercial crops–such as sugar–investment into new technologies with potential for increasing productivity was hindered by British trade policies. As British imperial policies gave preference to the welfare of the British consumer, lacked consideration for colonial manufacturing, they did not create a beneficial environment for long-run investment projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Hutkova, Karolina, 2021. "West Indies technologies in the East Indies: imperial preference and sugar business in Bihar, 1800-1850s," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110453, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:110453
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/110453/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dave Donaldson, 2018. "Railroads of the Raj: Estimating the Impact of Transportation Infrastructure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(4-5), pages 899-934, April.
    2. Broadberry, Stephen & Custodis, Johann & Gupta, Bishnupriya, 2015. "India and the great divergence: An Anglo-Indian comparison of GDP per capita, 1600–1871," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 58-75.
    3. Bishnupriya Gupta, 2019. "Falling behind and catching up: India's transition from a colonial economy," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 72(3), pages 803-827, August.
    4. David, Paul A, 1990. "The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 355-361, May.
    5. Aldous, Michael, 2015. "Avoiding Negligence and Profusion: The Failure of the Joint-Stock Form in the Anglo-Indian Tea Trade, 1840–1870," Enterprise & Society, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 648-685, September.
    6. repec:cup:cbooks:9781107039698 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Tirthankar Roy, 2007. "A delayed revolution: environment and agrarian change in India," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(2), pages 239-250, Summer.
    8. Prebisch, Raúl, 1950. "The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems," Sede de la CEPAL en Santiago (Estudios e Investigaciones) 29973, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fenske, James & Kala, Namrata & Wei, Jinlin, 2023. "Railways and cities in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Silva, Ester G. & Teixeira, Aurora A.C., 2008. "Surveying structural change: Seminal contributions and a bibliometric account," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 273-300, December.
    3. Roy, Tirthankar, 2021. "Why geography matters to the economic history of India," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120698, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Tirthankar Roy, 2021. "Why geography matters to the economic history of India," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(3), pages 273-289, November.
    5. Carolina Castaldi & Mario Cimoli & Nelson Correa & Giovanni Dosi, 2004. "Technological Learning, Policy Regimes and Growth in a `Globalized' Economy: General Patterns and the Latin American Experience," LEM Papers Series 2004/01, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    6. Andreoni, Antonio & Chang, Ha-Joon, 2019. "The political economy of industrial policy: Structural interdependencies, policy alignment and conflict management," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 136-150.
    7. Waterbury, John, 1999. "The Long Gestation and Brief Triumph of Import-Substituting Industrialization," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 323-341, February.
    8. Raouf Boucekkine & Fernando Del Río & Omar Licandro, 2003. "Embodied Technological Change, Learning‐by‐doing and the Productivity Slowdown," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 105(1), pages 87-98, March.
    9. Diane Coyle & Marianne Sensier, 2020. "The imperial treasury: appraisal methodology and regional economic performance in the UK," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 283-295, March.
    10. Kutuk, Yasin, 2022. "Inequality convergence: A world-systems theory approach," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 150-165.
    11. Antonin BERGEAUD & Gilbert Cette & Rémy Lecat, 2017. "What role did education, equipment age and technology play in 20th century productivity growth?," Rue de la Banque, Banque de France, issue 43, may..
    12. Justin Yifu Lin, 2017. "Industrial policies for avoiding the middle-income trap: a new structural economics perspective," Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 5-18, January.
    13. Blanco, Luisa & Grier, Robin, 2012. "Natural resource dependence and the accumulation of physical and human capital in Latin America," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 281-295.
    14. Kiley, Michael T., 2001. "Computers and growth with frictions: aggregate and disaggregate evidence," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 171-215, December.
    15. David Colman, 2010. "Agriculture's terms of trade: issues and implications," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 1-15, November.
    16. Stephan Heblich & Stephen J Redding & Daniel M Sturm, 2020. "The Making of the Modern Metropolis: Evidence from London," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(4), pages 2059-2133.
    17. Justin Yifu Lin & David Rosenblatt, 2012. "Shifting patterns of economic growth and rethinking development," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 171-194, September.
    18. Evgeny N. SMIRNOV & Sergey A. LUKYANOV, 2019. "Assessment of the transforming impact of global value chains on international trade," Upravlenets, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 10(3), pages 36-46, July.
    19. Andrew Reeson & Lachlan Rudd, 2016. "ICT Activity, Innovation and Productivity: An Analysis of Data From Australian Businesses," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 35(3), pages 245-255, September.
    20. Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee & Tsangyao Chang & Zahra (Mila) Elmi & Omid Ranjbar, 2018. "Re-testing Prebisch–Singer hypothesis: new evidence using Fourier quantile unit root test," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 441-454, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:110453. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.