The merits of the Cain-Hopkins thesis

The two volumes, which are now available in a new, consolidated edition, are an extension of the authors' previous articles, and present the theory of 'gentlemanly capitalism' in great detail.

The main argument of the two earlier articles and these two books can therefore, crudely, be summed up in two propositions. First, the central fact of modern British economic development was less indus­trialization than the emergence of a financial and services sector which, unlike manufacturing, for long dominated the international economy and continued, or at least tried, to do so even after Britain had ceased to be a leading industrial power during the early twenti­eth century. Second, this sector was controlled by a network of capi­talists and those in the higher reaches of the public and services sectors, all of whom inherited and exemplified a code of conduct which had been established by the landed aristocracy and gentry. These gentlemanly capitalists dominated public policy, including international relations, because there was no division between busi­ness GCs (Gentlemanly Capitalists) and those in government who made policy decisions. Overseas imperialism expressed a consensual world view of the governing class.²

This summary gives a general idea of the books. Here only a few points need to be added. According to Cain and Hopkins, imperial expansion was promoted or determined by metropolitan forces. 'Gentlemanly capitalism' was the most dominant force in Britain and the most decisive factor in the policymaking of British imperial expan­sion. The interests of the 'gentlemanly capitalists' were the priority of governments in formulating British overseas policy. The interests of manufacturers would be sacrificed if they were inconsistent with those of the gentlemanly capitalists.

Cain and Hopkins undertook considerable work and their books undoubtedly have merits. First of all, their work has opened a new way of looking into the history of British imperialism. The theme of gentlemanly capitalism is certainly a valuable contribution to the study of the history of both Britain and the British Empire - at least in the sense that it has stimulated widespread discussion and further research. It is especially inspiring in understanding the internal class structure and power balance between different groups of capitalists in Britain. It also illuminates the relations between the British govern­ment and those social groups labelled 'gentlemanly capitalists'. Cain and Hopkins frequently stress that, in the making of overseas policies, British governments considered first the interests of the gentlemanly capitalists, quite often at the cost of industrial capitalism if the interests of the two were inconsistent. They emphasize, too, that policies designed to secure the benefits of gentlemanly capitalism overseas promoted the competitiveness of foreign or colonial manufacturing industries. This in turn placed pressure upon British industrial capitalists. Such arguments, no matter to what extent they are based on historical facts, have the effect of arousing a reconsideration of the causes of Britain's industrial decline.

The authors' most valuable contribution to the academic develop­ment of studies of British imperial history is surely their claim that imperial policies were oriented towards the economic needs of gentle­manly capitalism. This argument admits, indirectly or implicitly, that self-interest was the primary motivation of overseas expansion. This in turn points to bare historical realities which many historians have tended to ignore. Such an analysis, it can be said, is fairly close to the methodology of Marxist historical materialism, even if it is not, per se, a Marxist approach, for Cain and Hopkins frequently criticize Marx's views on the Industrial Revolution. This outlook is indeed an advance on the so-called 'peripheral thesis', which claims that the British Empire resulted from instability on distant frontiers.