Paper presented at International Studies Association

Chicago Annual Meetings, Feb. 20-24, 2001

Note: This is a more topically organized and abbreviated version of the more chronologically organized historical account in ReORIENT THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, which is a still incomplete first draft of an intended sequel to my book ReORIENT, whose account stopped with 1800.

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION TO DISSIPATE AND ABSORB ENTROPY

In The Nineteenth Century World Economy

by

ANDRE GUNDER FRANK

Department of History, University of Nebraska at Lincoln

.E-mail: franka@fiu.edu Home Web Page: csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/

Formerly the things which happened in the world had no connection among themselves....But since then all events are united in a common bundle.

UNIVERSAL HISTORY

by Polybus [204 -122 B.C.]

Modern civilization is based on a world economy which functions through a system of multilateral trade of a specific pattern that embraces the whole world....Cases of triangular or multilateral settlement within small groups of countries were relatively unimportant and ... almost all balances belonged to a single world-wide system which also provided the transfer, along round about routes ... [of income and wealth] to particularly the United Kingdom ... by the much less adequately understood system of multilateral settlements of all classes of international accounts.

THE NETWORK OF WORLD TRADE

by Folke Hildgert, League of Nations [1942: 10,9,6]

The conventional interpretation of the nineteenth-century [British] empire continues to rest on the study of the formal empire alone, which is rather like judging the character of icebergs solely from the parts above the water-line....British policy followed the principle of extending control informally if possible and formally if necessary....A concept of informal empire which fails to bring out the underlying unity between it and the formal empire is sterile. Only within the framework of expansion is nineteenth-century empire intelligible.

THEM IMPERIALISM OF FREE TRADE

by John Gallagher & Ronald Robinson [1953:142,150,159]

Dissipative structures...this term, coined by Ilya Priogine, refers to the ability of complex systems to transfer their entropic costs to other parts [of the system]....

[We] lose sight of the fact that every system in the social order must be paid for by someone, somewhere, sometime. This essential reality is hidden from our view because human beings are very skillful at exporting the costs of their own behavior to others via dissipative structures...[through which] dissipation of entropy occurs when one system has the will and the ability to force others to absorb the costs of its own growth and prosperity...[which] is one of the defining characteristics of colonial systems, which suggests that the absorption of entropic costs is one of the functions a colony performs for its metropole... [but also] through impersonal market mechanisms so the victims on the periphery are not aware of what is being done to them.

THE GLOBAL IMPERATIVE

by Robert P. Clark [1997:5,10]

John F. Kennedy told us that "the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth -persistent, persuasive and unrealistic [Frank 1998:x]. If that is true, then it has certainly been persistently and persuasively so, to meld the titles of two books, about THE INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH AND POVERTY OF NATIONS [Smith 1776/1937 & Landes 1997]. For the received and still persistent mythological 'explanations' of how THE GREAT DIVERGENCE, as Pomeranz [2000] calls it, are altogether wide of the mark. For they almost entirely fail to see and much less to analyze the structure, function and transformation of the world economy in the nineteenth century that really gave rise to this divergence. Indeed, "the single world-wide system which also provided the transfer, along round about routes ... [of income and wealth] to particularly the United Kingdom ... by the much less adequately understood system of multilateral settlements of all classes of international accounts" is if anything even less understood today than it was when Folke Hildgert [quoted more fully in the epigraph above] analyzed it for the League of Nations in 1943. The intervening six decades of additional mythology served further to obscure both the structural nature of the world that itself causes both its wealth and its poverty.

In a work in progress tentatively entitled REORIENT THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, I intend to elaborate on how the structure, process and transformation of this inadequately if at all understood, "single world-wide system," itself generated the new wealth and poverty of nations. This work is a sequel to my ReORIENT: THE GLOBAL ECONOMY IN THE ASIAN AGE [Frank 1998], which argued that there was a single globally structured and functioning world economy certainly since A.D. 1500, and that within it not Europe but Asia and particularly China were dominant until AT LEAST 1750/1800. If that situation ceased to be the case since then, it behooves us to explain how and why that was so. The GREAT DIVERGENCE and even more so the great reversal of place between Asia and Europe [and later the United States and other 'regions of recent settlement] occurred within "the single world-wide system" of the global economy. Therefore, it would seem as obvious as it is neglected to inquire if and how these changes may have come about at the very least also through the transformation of the system, which would therefore also require an analysis of the structure and functioning of this global political economic system itself. The work in progress intends to re-examine the nature of the global system at the end of the eighteenth century as laid out in ReORIENT, and to identify and delineate the structure and process that would seem to have been the systemic causes of the apparent reversal of place and role of the various parts of this system during the nineteenth [and eventually also the twentieth] century. Herein and for now however, I limit myself primarily to outlining the conceptual framework for the theoretical argument and the empirical evidence within which the more extensive work is proceeding, and to introduce it with a number misconceptions that warrant rejections with 'NOT SO'.

The argument will be based on and developed along two main conceptual red threads that run parallel, or nearly so, and yet are also so intimately related as to intersect at important junctures. These to main concepts should be as obvious and are as simple as they are neglected or if they are rarely recognized, it is only to deny them. One of them is multilateralism and the other is entropy. Entropy is dissipated from the more 'ordered' regions and sectors of the global world economy to other therefore less 'ordered' ones that are obliged to absorb the entropy dissipated in their direction by the more 'ordered' ones. Therefore, as per the epigraph above, much of the order can continue or even be constructed among those who have it if they can dissipate and transfer the disorder that they generate to others who are obliged to absorb and thereby themselves become less orderly than they were. This process of dissipation occurs along lines that are both more and less easily visible. The more visible ones are unidirectional along a single vector from A to B. A glaring but illustrative example [and this has happened!] is the export of the nuclear waste sub products from the nuclear power stations of A in Europe and Japan, which therefore and otherwise have relatively much power, to B in Africa who have little power [in more than one sense of the word] and are paid a pittance [for the North but not for the South] to absorb this entropy from the North.

Other perhaps less obvious but more frequent examples are how the consequences and costs of global warming and depletion of the ozone layer generated by A's burning of coal and oil [much of it now from imported from B] are in turn [re] exported to B, where they cause flooding, soon perhaps also to sink low level areas into the rising sea, and massive destruction of virgin rain forests to maintain industries and consumption in A. These examples become even more glaring of course if part of the higher income in A is the result of prior or present transfers of income from B to A.

However, dissipation of entropy and the transfer income from A to B also occurs as along multilateral paths and networks. These may be less obvious or even invisible, but they are even more used and important. Regarding world trade [incorrectly often still called 'international' trade], in the second epigraph above Folke Hildgert observes that "cases of triangular or multilateral [not to mention bilateral] settlement within small groups of countries were relatively unimportant and ... almost all balances belonged to a single world-wide system which also provided the transfer, along round about routes." The same can go for the dissipation and transfer of entropy from A to B, but via C,D,E and so on. As Hildgert put it, "the development of the system of multilateral trade...was similar to the unfolding of a fan: more and more countries became involved, and their insertion took place in a given order, each country being farther way from the United Kingdom on the transfer routes to that country from its debtors." I would add that countries need not have been inserted into the for Britain charmed circle one by one but also as participants also of previously existing bi- or tri- or other incipiently multi-lateral systems.

As we will observe in greater detail below, the long existing 'triangular trade' - in reality itself already composed of several sets of intersecting triangles, [diagramed in Frank 1978, 1998] - was joined by the China-India-Britain opium based triangle at the end of the eighteenth century, which survived through the entire nineteenth century into the twentieth. This triangle, which as we will further observe below, was vitally important to Britain; was soon complemented by a China-United States-Britain triangle, and so on to other triangles, all of which had a common angle in Britain. Hildgert [1943:88] makes another very important observations: "for these and other reasons, the significance of such trade can by no means be gauged by its percentage share in total trade." The same must be said for the dissipation and adsorption of entropy, which can also take a circuitous route around the globe. Each of these observations taken singly and their intersection and combination all the more so underline the vital importance of inquiry into the nature and causes of how this 'inadequately understood system', as per the epigraph above, in turn contributes vitally to the nature and causes of the wealth and poverty of nations. Therefore as we will also see below, the umpteen calculations of why the percentage and importance of bilateral exchange between B and A 'proves' that A did quite well thank you without B and C and so on are not only completely wide of the mark but don't even address the central issue.

Better to visualize this multilateral system, imagine a global game of multiple chairs in which players sit around a circle that chain links A,B,C,D,E,... n around the globe. However relations among the players are also established criss-cross among players sitting on and scurrying from chairs in different paces around the circle. Moreover, some chairs are visibly better and others worse, and even among the latter some chairs are more equal than others. However the quality assigned to the chairs is in only small part due to the 'essence' of their construction and appearance. Instead, the goodness or badness of the chairs is measured substantially by their position or location in the global circle, which in turn also generates much of the observed and/or real quality of the chairs. Now imagine additionally that this game of musical chairs is played, as are most real world games, on a NOT 'level playing field'. So when the music stops, the players scuttle not only around the circle but also criss-cross through it. They also move on paths that emerge out of previously established bilateral but also multilateral strategic or simply momentary tactical relations of alliance and conflict among the players. Indeed, the alliances conflict among but also within themselves and are formed to further accession by each member to a better position in the overall conflictive game of musical chairs. Or the other way around, the whole game is a Hobbesian game of all against all in which, even if each player is only out for him/herself, the formation and membership of bi- or multi- lateral alliances can be of advantage to member players relative to those who play only on their own. So now everything is set up for the temporal [cyclical?] and temporary cessation of the music. Then, the scuttle and shuffle results in somebody being likely not only to get a better or a worse chair, but also none at all, while perhaps the rest of the players end up in this round again to sit on chairs some of which are more equal than others. [Also important, but for now disregarded here, is that any 'domestic' musical chair supports more than one also unequally seated real live player, and how the 'international' inequalities and the 'domestic' ones are in turn interrelated].

All this long winded stuff about games of musical chairs is there to illustrate a short winded point that should be obvious but is still very rarely observed: World economic development is a global game in which the players scuttle around and some manage to change positions when the cyclical music stops. Moreover, the PLACE that each player has in the game is probably the most determinant factor in the players' wealth and income and their opportunities of placement for and in the next round. Any player's location also determines his ability or not to pass his entropy off, not just to his neighbor in the circle, but to one or many on any of many possible chairs around or across the circle. And they in turn are more often than not obliged to absorb this entropy to their own cost. And all that and even more is so, as Hildgert explained in the epigraph above, because we are living in a "world economy which functions through a system of multilateral trade of a specific pattern that embraces the whole world...[and its] much less adequately understood system of multilateral settlements of all classes of international accounts." Moreover, this round world of ours is anything but a 'level playing field'. The 'specific pattern' and one's all determinant place in the 'less adequately understood system', translated into understandable plain English, is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION.

Below briefly [and in the manuscript in process extensively] I intend to apply this simple [simplistic?] scheme of multilateral im/balances in the trade of goods, payments, power and the entropy to which they give rise to an explanation of the systemic structure, process and transformation into THE INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH AND POVERTY OF NATIONS in the nineteenth century. Since my explanation is rather different from the received wisdom and the many myths about the nineteenth century that still have wide currency at the beginning of the twenty-first, we may suitably begin by challenging a few of these myths that can not stand up to the evidence. Of course in this brief paper, it is possible to confront these myths only with a limited amount of evidence. The bulk of the evidence to bury these myths, as well as to support an alternative explanation, can be presented only in the much longer manuscript still in preparation [Frank 2001]. However, even the limited amount of evidence brought below can be used at least to begin to apply by the explanatory scheme of things alluded to above.

The tired old mythology about the 'European miracle' [Jones 1981], recently resurrected and popularized by Landes [1997], has already been duly laid to rest R.I.P. by among others Blaut [1993] Goody [1996] and Frank [1998]. Its 'scientific' basis in Western historical political and economic social theory, from Marx to Weber and their followers and even in Wallerstein [1974] and Frank [1978] especially regarding the period before 1800 deserves the same fate and is not, at least here, even worthy of further attention.

However about the nineteenth century, there are also quite a few myths with still widespread currency. Perhaps the most widespread and still firmly held among these myths are the following:

- There was not even any one world economy yet. Many economic historians implicitly and some explicitly claim that there was NO 'world' economy before 1846-1850. Two examples are Patrick O'Brien on the 'right' and Eric Hobsbawm on the 'left'. O'Brien [1997], on the second page of his article begins with the subtitle "1. The Formation of a Global Economy, 1846-1914" as though there was none before his starting date. Eric Hobsbawm [1975:49-50] tries to assure us in THE AGE OF CAPITAL, which for him begins only in 1848, that still at that date there was not ONE world given the mutual ignorance and the "weakness of economic links" among its inhabitants. A more recent variation on the same theme is that by O'Rourke and & Williamson [2001] who argue that if there had then been a single world economy, it would also to have had to have a single price for any agricultural or industrial product and sector [but not including labor?] all around the world. NOT SO.

To begin with the last idea, even one of the authors had to agree to my objection by e-mail that their criterion of 'one-worldness' is more than questionable. For even still at the time of their writing, most traded products still do not have a single price internationally or even domestically. So we would have to say that even in the much touted era of 'globalization' which anyway too place long ago, we still have no world economy. Since that is absurd, their laborious calculation of prices sector by sector to show that in fact there were inequalities around the world still in the middle of the nineteenth century are largely irrelevant to their stated purpose. The other objections to the world-economy thesis are belied by the evidence brought to bear on it in ReORIENT and were already observed and much analyzed by Adam Smith in 1776. As to the first half of the nineteenth century, pundits from Marx on them left to almost all twentieth century economic historians want us to believe that Britain already was 'the workshop for the world' [which incidentally it was not as we will observe below]. But if it were true, it would contradict the opposite thesis that there was no such world economy.

However, ewe must search for the world economic watch under another street light altogether. We need to look under a light that can illuminate whether there was or not an 'international division of labor' and world-wide competition for markets, and whether the im/balances of trade and payments were world wide or not. On the evidence, the answer to both questions is decidedly YES. But for the existence or not of one globe encircling world economy it would be enough to meet either, not to mention both, of the following two criteria: [1] a single commodity - silver - was both exchangeable for some good/s everywhere and for all goods anywhere. Similarly, [2] it is enough that various regional triangular systems of trade and payments im/balances be linked through one single angle that is common to all of them. Britain was the one that was at an angle of each of the following 'regional' triangles: the infamous opium based China-India-Britain triangle, the various already interlinked Atlantic 'triangular trade' ones, the Britain-Continental Europe-Americas ones, the incipient United States-China-Britain one, etc.] So, each of these condition for the existence of a world economy was satisfied in the first half of the nineteenth century already, as well as indeed also earlier. But even more importantly, all of these conditions that were already met individually were also interlinked among each other: There was indeed a single, if also multi-regional and multi-sectoral, world economic system of multilaterally settled trade and payments im/balances each of which moreover could be and was also settled in silver. So all the data and calculations of percentages of trade and income, or equality or not of prices are largely irrelevant to the issue because they have been examined under the theoretically wrong and empirically obfuscating streetlight. They all miss the essential point, and what's worse even impede the analysis and documentation, of multi laterality, not to mention also multilateral dissipation and absorption of entropy.

- The previously existing world economic landscape, if not already after 1500 as many
claim, including Wallerstein [1974] and Frank [1978], was qualitatively	transformed in the period 1750-1800, and certainly soon after 1800, as asserted among many	others still by [Wolf 1982] and Frank [1998]. NOT SO.

Upon further examination of the evidence, in the first half of the nineteenth century until 1848/50, previously existing world economic relations still survived and even expanded, but then so did those of entropy, with the notable and important exception of the place and role of India. The Chinese domestic market remained in Chinese hands then and still now, although it has also been supplied by exports of goods and capital and other remissions by overseas Chinese, particularly but not exclusively in Southeast Asia. Nonetheless, Chinese consumption of cotton and textile goods continued to be almost exclusively from national production - then and ever since, including now. Chinese import of cotton goods was mostly from India and consisted primarily of raw cotton to supply the still growing textile industry, although China also increasingly imported textiles, whose amounts exceeded its textile exports after 1834, when China temporarily also became a net exporter instead of the usual importer of silver. Nonetheless, China continued to be the world's largest import of silver and remained on the silver standard through the entire nineteenth century.

Other than in India and to a much lesser extent in West Asia, it increasingly [re]appears that fundamental change from the Asian status quo ante was slow in coming elsewhere as well. Thus in Southeast Asia, agricultural and related production, income, and trade recovered from their temporary slump around 1800 and continued to grow and increasingly to export to and import from China, with whom trade was preponderantly in Chinese and Malay hands. Under the title THE LAST STAND OF ASIAN AUTONOMIES: RESPONSES TO MODERNITY IN THE DIVERSE STATES OF SOUTHEAST ASIA AND KOREA, 1750-1900, edited by Anthony Reid [1997], a dozen authors also document the survival and indeed [renewed] expansion of Southeast and some East Asian economies especially between 1820 and 1840, and importantly so also with the intermediation of Chinese traders and settlers. Admittedly by then, the transit trade in and some local consumption of opium had a role as well. Nonetheless, Reid himself notes that "the modern period of rapid export growth and commercialization began not in the late nineteenth century but in the period when European monopolies collapsed at the end of the eighteenth century. The period 1780-1850 marked a rapid export growth, in excess of 4 per cent a year, at a time that population growth was still below 1 per cent overall. This means that there must have been substantial growth of export income per capita....Southeast Asia appears to have experienced a higher rate of growth in per capita exports over the period 176-
1850 than in 1850-1950, or even in the triumphant period of colonial capitalism in 1870- 1929 [Reid 1997: 78]. The period 1740-1840 was the 'Chinese century' in Southeast Asia in which most remarkable growth of trade was in vessels under Chinese and Malay captains [ibid. 65]. British naval and commercial power was not the crucial variable in this period, which "the literature in European languages has hitherto ignored" [ibid. 14]; but "there are plenty of indications that these negative attitudes have begun to change, both among historians and political decision makers" in the area [ibid.8].

Regarding West Asia and its penetration by European capital and political/ military power, revisionist history and political economic analysis is also reinterpreting the timing and extent of decline, to make it now appear slower and less penetrating than heretofore supposed. [more xxx]

The transformation of the structure and operation of the world economy, including within it the absolute and relative places of the "North' and the 'South' really did not begin until 1850; and it has not been as extensive and as profound as we have substantially been led to believe. That is, more careful examination of nineteenth century reality, as proposed below, belies the now popular beliefs and still most 'scientific' opinion about the supposed Western penetration particularly of the Asian economy in most of the nineteenth century. Without trying in by any means morally to justify or politically to support any and all imperialism and colonialism nor any of its consequences, the time has come to review and where appropriate to revise the substantially ideological dogma of Western triumphalism over alleged 'traditionalism' elsewhere and simultaneously of much of the nationalist appeal to and 'defenses' of 'traditional' values and also its exaggeration of the deformation of 'Third World' economies. To do so in no way negates the critique of ideologically inspired classical, neo-classical and Keynesian 'scientific' analysis and political propaganda by dependence and world-system theory and their alternative analyses. The re-examination of reality and its still other alternative analysis proposed below may also parallel the denunciation of the received wisdom of both now 'traditional,' and the new dependence as well as world-system theory by their denunciation by recent post-
modernist, post-colonial, and sub-altern textual 'analysis' as far as the latter go, which is not much. For they offer no examination and much less analysis of any political economic reality and its history. Most importantly they have and offer no global perspective, examination, nor political economic history and analysis of the one world economy and system whose own whole globe encompassing structure and dynamic is so determinant of the possibilities, options and therefore successes and failures of its ever changing geographic, political economic, social and cultural parts.

- Differentials of per capita income, including that of the masses, grew rapidly in
the first half the nineteenth century and became substantial already by 1850. NOT SO.

If the 'pessimists' are right that the distribution of income became more unequal during this period of rising per capita income in Britain [and by extension then in Western Europe and also in the United States?], and if it became more equal with declining income in India throughout and in China later, then the relative increase of income in Europe and America and its simultaneous decline in India and then China belie the widespread supposition and standard per capita income calculations that in this period the majority of people became better off in the West but remained or became worse off in the East. Even if the optimists are right, that there was an improvement in per capita and majority income in this period in Britain [but only later elsewhere in Western but still not in Eastern or much of Southern Europe], any such increased income may have been of micro importance to those who received it; but it still does not change much on the European, Asian and even less so world economic macro scale. And if moreover per capita income was about equal in the East and the West, with a lead by China over Europe, as the early calculations by Bairoch and Maddison suggest and those by Pomeranz and others now confirm, then at the end of this period still at mid-nineteenth century, the income of the large majority of Chinese and even of Indians may well have continued to equal or exceed that of the British and a fortiori of other Europeans.

xxx others

- Britain was the 'workshop of/for the world'. NOT SO:

Britain had a structural and permanent merchandise trade deficit in EVERY year from, which rose from 10 million pound sterling in 1816 to 160 million in 1913. That is, in no year during that century was Britain even able or required to export as much merchandise, primarily manufactures except for coal, as it imported. [Also see below in re exports]

.

- Textiles that were the advance guard of British and then Continental European
industrial and technological 'revolution' that transformed the world economy early	in the nineteenth century. NOT SO:

During most of the period to mid-century, handlooms still outnumbered power looms, and most of these were still driven by water rather than by steam. Moreover, manufacture of much textile machinery was just that, it was still made by hand. Machines were not yet built by other machines until the end of this period and the beginning of the next. The real key to industrialization, that is machine tooling, was still a long ways away. Moreover, the textile industry had only weak and very few forward and backward linkages, other than to raw cotton itself, which had to be imported primarily from the southern United States, much less so, as their own textile industries declined, from India, Anatolia and later also from Egypt, which replaced the American South during the Civil War.

- British exports particularly of textiles quickly conquered the world market, and
battered down the Great Wall of China, as Marx put it. NOT SO:

It is true that in quantitative terms, all British exports did increase quite fast, by nearly 8 times in the period from 1816 to 1845 , and during the 1830s alone by more than half [Imlah 1958:94-
95]. In the 1830s also British exports, of which textiles still accounted for the largest share, were worth 94 million pounds sterling in total. Of these however, 36 million went to Europe, 15 million to the United States,13 million to the West Indies, 10 million to Latin America, and only 13 million to all of Asia, including the world's largest but still also in this regard most self-
sufficient countries, China and India, and in the case of the latter, despite British colonial efforts and advantages [Imlah 1958:129].

Even in the period of economic boom and British leadership after 1850, Britain was able to take only scant advantage of the opportunity to upgrade its other exports to ones of higher value added. Thus in 1850, textiles and their yarn and other components accounted for 62 percent of Britain's total domestically produced exports; and by 1870 from this by now old industry, they still amounted to 55 percent of British exports. Meanwhile, exports of iron, steel, machinery and vehicles rose from only 13 percent in 1850 to still only 17 percent of total British exports in 1870 [Hobsbawm 1968: 110]. Moreover, the large bulk of British textile exports were destined to now underdeveloped and other countries, of which in turn 30 percent in 1850 and 60 percent in 1873 were exported to Britain's Indian 'captive audience' colony. So much for ' laissez faire' with 'free trade'! Only the remaining 30 percent of textile exports in 1840, 20 percent in 1860, and 10 percent in 1880 went to the major expanding markets of Europe and North America who were increasingly producing textiles for their own markets and some also for export [Hobsbawm 1968: 146-147].

Moreover, of all these British exports, re-exports continued still to make a substantial and even a sharply rising real contribution to British 'exports' and foreign earnings. While in the 1830s and 1840s annual values of re-exports hovered around 10 million pounds, they rose to 20 million in 1854, and then reached a maximum of 60 million pounds in 1865, after which they leveled off around 50 million pounds. As a percentage of all exports, in this period re-exports hovered around 15 percent, rising to 20 percent in 1865, and then leveling off again to about 17 percent [Imlah 1958: 33-35]. What kind of 'workshop of the world' was that in the heyday of 'Pax Britannia' ?

- The driving force of the new industries was steam from early on. NOT SO:

Steam power made its way still rather slowly in and through manufacturing. In spinning, but not yet in weaving and knitting whose mechanization was more difficult, by 1835, in about a thousand mills, 30 thousand horse power [h.p.] were derived from steam and 10 thousand h.p. were still derived from water. But at the same time in 1833, of 350 thousand looms in Britain, 100 thousand were power looms and 250 thousand were still handlooms. Moreover, these figures are relative, since many looms were only power ASSISTED [Chapman 1972: 19,26]. By 1851, still only 11 percent of the occupied population in Britain was in the textile industry, and none of downstream clothing was as yet made in factories. Only after 1830 did wool textiles begin to come out of factories. Agriculture, with 21 percent of the British workforce still remained by far the largest employer [Ashworth 1962:8-9]. What bearing this and other rather slow more narrowly economic development has on the formation of entropy in Britain remains to be seen.

- New means of especially steam powered railroads quickly transformed
the British and North Atlantic economies. NOT SO:

In that land of their birth in the early-mid 1830s, the yearly number of railway miles opened was only 40 to 50, rising to an average of about 200 miles in the late 1830s and early 1840s, before rising to 800 miles in the late 1840s and 1851, after which it declined again to little more than the level of the 1830s [Rostow 1978:143]. Railroads were also complemented by new canals.

- Steam ships rapidly conquered the oceans, and with them 'Britannia Ruled the
Waves'. NOT SO:

Although steam power was installed in some ships, shipping long continued still to rely on sails, some now complemented by machines. Of total maritime carrying capacity, steam accounted for only about 15 percent in 1840, and by 1870 still less than 50 percent [Hobsbawm 1075:58] was steam powered in 1870. Indeed the probably more reliable source Ashworth [1962:68] says that in 1870, only 12 percent of shipping tonnage was carried by steam ships and by 1880 still only 25 percent. Of these however, British tonnage multiplied sixteen fold from 1850 to 1880 and the rest of the world's tonnage increased only four and a half fold. Thereby, British tonnage grew from about a quarter of the world total in 1840-1850 to a third in 1870 and to one half in 1880 [Hobsbawm 1975:58]. The next largest shipping fleet in the world was American. Nonetheless, transport costs in this period declined very sharply from, e.g. from 0.5 pence per pound of cotton shipped from New York to Liverpool in 1823/25 to 0.16 pence in 1851/55. Cost reductions of 50 percent for some products were registered later in the 1850s alone [Kemp 1976:63]. In a sense during this period, it was ships and shipping that were Britain's most successful industrial export product.

- It was Western and particularly British science that permitted and accounted	for the
industrial and technological revolutions and their impacts in Britain and	the world.
NOT SO.

There was no 'seventeenth century scientific revolution' [Shapin 1996], it did not two centuries later drive the 'industrial revolution' in the nineteenth century. Detailed research, including industry by industry [Adams 1996] has show that science had no input into nor made any other even indirect contribution to technological progress before 1870, when it began to so primarily in and through the chemical industry, which was not even born before then [Rosenberg and Birdzell 1986, Frank 1998]. For a contrary view, see xx].

- Britain achieved its definitive 'take-off' in this period through the abrupt	acceleration of capital formation. NOT SO.

The claims to this effect by Walt Whitman Rostow's and others have long since been altogether disconfirmed by all evidence that the formation of capital in and by Britain, e.g. investment as a percentage of income, remained as slow and low as before. Deane [1969, 1972], Deane and Cole [1967], Habakkuk [19xx] have all shown that Rostow's magic 10-12 percent rare of [re]investment was not reached until the mid-nineteenth century if even then, although Pollard [1972] found high her percentages for ABSOLUTE investment, which still do not support the Rostowian and others' claims. As Francois Crouzet [1972 19] summarized in his introduction to a volume he edited on this debate, the contrary theses 'have been widely accepted in recent years by economic historians. Correspondingly the Rostowian hypothesis of a sharp and dramatic acceleration in capital formation during the 'take-off' has to be abandoned." Cruzet adds however that Rostow was wrong not in principle but only in timing, since higher rates of capital formation were reached later. However, that may be, Rostow has also shown to be mistaken in toto [xx, Frank] ; and if he is partly right about the rate of capital formation even if later in the nineteenth century, the question still comes, on what that investment was based if not on domestic saving.

If there was no notable growth in the rate of investment, nor of production, in Britain, and sill less so in Continental Europe, during the first half of the nineteenth century, then income, total or per capita, derived from them could not have risen more as claimed by the 'optimists' who say it did; or if it really did so, that increased income must have been derived from some other source.That, and the role of, that is the income derived from, multilateral trade by Britain at the expense of others, is one of the important parts of the inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. And, if investment grew in the second half of the nineteenth century, then as per the question above, how was that possible? The answer - again - must be sought not in domestic saving or anything else, but in multi laterality.

- If, and insofar as, not British and European industry was the battering ram that force open the walls and doors of the rest of the world, it was Western	availability and exercise of vastly superior military power over the East and South. NOT SO:

As correctly observed by Gallagher & Ronald Robinson [1953:150] and cited in the epigraphs above, "British [and we may add also other European] policy followed the principle of extending control informally if possible and formally if necessary." Yet on both counts, political excursion and intervention by European powers outside Europe never involved any use of major military force, although it was used against each other in the Crimean War and between the North and the South in the American Civil War. Nor was military power used especially to promote European industrial exports and trade, whose amount to Asia, Africa, and Latin America never amounted to all that much. What Europeans did do through most of the nineteenth century was to use relatively small shows of military force, and anyway much more they did not even have available out side of their European 'theater of operations'. Elsewhere, Europeans brought to bear relatively small military force in very selective military/political intervention at the nodes of nerve and circulatory points around the world where and when it was threatened at crucial times and places, both by the 'natives' and by rival other European powers. And these crucial nodes were precisely those that were essential to create or maintain this and that nexus of the world economic system of trade and payments im/balances on which both to the domestic welfare and the further foreign investment of Britain and a few other European powers depended so much. But to capture or defend these nodal points a military pin prick and band-
aid was often sufficient, and a scalpel not to say a major military operation was quite unnecessary, and in any case would have been impossible. Only in the last quarter of the century was there more frequent and greater military/political intervention and that was used especially to secure footholds here and there before rival European powers could do so. And that was largely in response to the long economic crisis from 1873 to 1895 in which demand declined and tariff barriers again rose in the North.

That is, more careful examination of nineteenth century reality belies the now popular beliefs and still most 'scientific' opinion about the supposed Western penetration particularly of the Asian economy in most of the nineteenth century. Without trying in by any means morally to justify or politically to support any and all imperialism and colonialism nor any of its consequences, the time has come to review and where appropriate to revise the substantially ideological dogma of Western triumphalism over alleged 'traditionalism' elsewhere and simultaneously of much of the nationalist appeal to and 'defenses' of 'traditional' values and also its exaggeration of the deformation of 'Third World' economies. To do so in no way negates the critique of ideologically inspired classical, neo-classical and Keynesian 'scientific' analysis and political propaganda by dependence and world-system theory and their alternative analyses. The re-examination of reality and its still other alternative analysis proposed below may also parallel the denunciation of the received wisdom of both now 'traditional,' and the new dependence as well as world-system theory by their denunciation by recent post-
modernist, post-colonial, and sub-altern textual 'analysis' as far as the latter go, which is not much. For they offer no examination and much less analysis of any political economic reality and its history. Most importantly they have and offer no global perspective, examination, nor political economic history and analysis of the one world economy and system whose own whole globe encompassing structure and dynamic is so determinant of the possibilities, options and therefore successes and failures of its ever changing geographic, political economic, social and cultural parts.

- American economic development in the nineteenth century, and its move from near
the margin to near the center of the world economy, was indeed a marvel to witness,	but had its roots primarily also in the 'distinctive genius' of 'the American Way' to its	'Manifest Destiny'. NOT SO.

Since much of the emphasis about American economic development relates to its 'from-to' path within the world economy, it seem paradoxical that much examination

thereof, especially by American Historians of America, pay scant attention to the

global whole and still much less to its STRUCTURE WITHIN which the United Sates moved up and from here to there. Therefore also there has been virtually no acknowledgment of the resulting beneficial improvements of the position and role of the expanding American economy in the structure of the also expanding world system of trade and payments im/balances. The latter consequently gave a further largely unmentioned and even less acknowledged but very important boost to American domestic economic growth, income and other developments.

Immigration into the United States, as already observed above, increased from previous levels during this period to 610,000 people in the 1850s, 569,000 in the 1860s, and 655,000 in the 1870s. The number of arrivals declined cyclically during recessions in the United States, as well as during the Civil War. Over these three decades, these nearly two million new arrivals made an 8 percent increase over the 23 million inhabitants in the United States in 1850. However, since most of the new arrivals were in reproductive age, a generation later they had made a significantly greater contribution to the population. Moreover, since the new arrivals were also mostly, indeed at the beginning, of working age; they made a still greater contribution to American employable and productive labor power, the rearing and early education of which the United States had to devote no resources to. Between 1850 and 1880, population in North America [U.S. and Canada] more than doubled, from 25 million to 54 million. In the meantime population in North Atlantic Europe rose from 152 million to 182 million respectively, or by only 20 percent [ and including Russians and their migration to Siberia, from 212 million to 270 million or by 27 percent]. In Britain in particular, population grew from 27 million in 1850 to 35 million in 1880, or by only 30 percent, in Germany by 25 percent, Thus, while in 1850 North America had only 10 percent of this combined North Atlantic population, by 1880 it had risen to almost 30 percent, and correspondingly the European share had fallen from about 90 to 70 percent [numbers rounded by me from Woytinsky 1953:44].

The increase in population, domestic, by migration, and by the latter's offspring,

generated increased production of and generated demand for consumer goods and investment, particularly of economic infrastructure and housing. There was ever increasing construction of railroad track and its use to carry freight and passengers. The milage of existing railroad track rose from 3 thousand miles in 1840 to 9 thousand in 1850, 30 thousand in 1860, after which construction slowed down during the 1861-65 Civil War and resumed thereafter, to reach 53 thousand miles in 1870 and 93 thousand by 1880 [Chandler 1965:13]. In the meantime, the size and carrying capacity of freight cars increased and their number doubled [Woytinsky 1955:266]. The extension of the net and of its carrying capacity opened up and accelerated access to and among vast areas of the continent that now witnessed new settlement and production particularly of staples for domestic consumption and export. Equally significant but almost completely neglected however was the changing place and role of the American economy within the world economic system of multilateral production, trade and payments, as we will observe below.

- The importance of intercontinental migration can be seen from its vast
numbers and from the reasons that pushed emigrants out and pulled immigrants
in to where they contributed to development. NOT SO.

While this importance accorded to massive migration during the nineteenth century

is true, it by no means reflects the total importance of migration. There are at least two other major considerations: One is the expansion and multiplication, fan like as Hildgert put it, of the nodal nexuses in and of the world economic system of multilateral im/balances of trade and payments. Migration did not only add segments to the multilateral fan by the expansion of United States and accession of European settled Argentina, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, not to mention Siberia. Their new participation also made the 'network of world trade' more complex and indeed changed its structure and modified its operation for the transfer of income and entropy from each region to all the others. That cemented the hold of the old 'high' chairs and their occupants in the system of multilateral trade and payments and it added additional at least medium high chairs, while the majority of the world's population remained relegated to and even more glued to their 'low' chairs.

For instance by the end of the nineteenth century, the wages in Argentina had moved up well to bypass those of Europe and even of Britain itself. Wages and income in the United States and the Dominions benefitted not only by their little labor to much land & other resource relation [though immigrants also put a damper on wages but a boost to productivity]. They also benefitted, as we will observe below, from the location of the chairs that they came to occupy in the multilateral system.

Additionally, old Europe had regions with high population and many workers relative to their resources, some of which were being increasingly exhausted. The ability to ship many of these people off overseas, permitted a lower rate than otherwise of resource depletion and physical entropy, as well of social entropy from greater political strife, at home. Some of both of these kinds of entropy were shipped off shore through emigration. In the receiving or even newly peopled countries, the additional source of labor power converted natural resources into production and income, both for the population in the 'new' countries overseas and for that in the old countries. For the latter were now able to import more and at lower prices the products like wheat and cattle that use much land, which the old countries did not but the new ones did have. So the dissipation of entropy from Europe also took this additional form. In the new countries, the additional use of land and other resources may have been slower in generating physical entropy, some of which has since then also been dissipated abroad, again to the 'third world'. Thus, Europe and the settlers and already previously immigrants and their offspring in the regions of 'new' settlement benefitted from this migration and the export/import of cheap goods import with 'order' for their remaining still growing population. But in the 'new' countries, the old native/ indigenous/ aboriginal populations were forced to absorb untold amounts of physical as well as social entropy and disorder. In the case of the United States furthermore, Mexico was despoiled of half its land and many of its people at the cost also of untold entropy.

- The nineteenth century was the golden era of free trade and laissez fair.

NOT SO.

The POLICY of free trade was not even born until Britain's abolition of the corn laws in 1846. After that, it was practiced at most here and there, and it hardly survived 26 years until the Great Depression of 1973-1895 buried most of the praxis and of the policy as well. However, free trade did not go very far even in its heyday. Most significantly, Britain never allowed any free trade between itself and its most important colony, India, nor between the latter and other regions. China did not practice free trade, nor did Japan, even when Western states obliged them to lower tariffs. There was no free trade between Holland and its Indonesian colony nor between it and any place else. In the United States, Alexander Hamilton had already promoted high tariffs as part of his 'Manufacturing System', and they were then debated over between Clay and Calhoun in the 1830s-40s, before the Civil War, which was fought in significant part over whether to maintain them as the industrial North wanted or to reduce them as the cotton exporting South wanted. After 1873, the United States increased its tariffs again as well. It was the Zollverein [tariff association] sponsored by the Hamiltonian Friedrich List that brought Germany into existence in the first place. It would be tedious to continue bringing examples. Perhaps it would be useful to inquire what proportion of world trade was 'free' when.

The fable of free trade gives the lie of course also to that of laissez faire, since it was state action that determined how unfree that trade was. However, the 'interference' and of states and their promotion and finance of all kinds of economic projects was legion. State military ventures, both bellicose and still pacific have always sustained economic production and continued to do so throughout the nineteenth century as they would also during the twentieth. Many states promoted and financed the extension of the agricultural frontier, the development of industry, and of course the infrastructural investment for all of these, most obviously for the construction of railroads.

- Gold reigned, and the Gold Standard was an important weapon in British
economic rule of the world. NOT SO.

Apart from the exaggeration of the extent of British economic rule in the world, the evidence shows that during the first 1813 to 1848/50, the de facto silver standard that had been dominant over the previous centuries [see ReORIENT particularly chpt. 3] continued to reign supreme. The second period from 1848/50 to 1873/80 was marked by a bi-metallic silver/gold standard, in which silver continued to weigh heavily, both in the extent of reliance still on silver in the world economy, as well as in the preponderant number of countries that remained on the silver standard. Thus silver continued first supreme and then still very significant through three quarters of the nineteenth century. Gold did not even begin its monetary rule until after 1873 and was only dominant for the four decades until 1913. Interestingly that is also precisely the period in which the gold standard's principal supporter, Britain, was losing its previous dominance in the world economy that therefore covered the mere three decades preceding 1873. That was of course also the date that marked the beginning of "The Great Depression" which lasted until 1895. Yet even during that period, the monetary standard continued to be silver in Mexico, by far the world's largest producer before the new Colorado mines began to produce, and in China and at Britain's own instance India, who still continued as the world's largest importers of silver. Some other large countries, including Russia and the Ottoman empire, also remained on the silver standard, and the United States still continued on a bi-
metallic standard until very late in the nineteenth century that prompted William Jennings Bryant's famous 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech in defense of western agricultural and Midwestern rural interests who sought protection against gold, which favored Eastern industrial interests. Thus and contrary to widespread belief that in the nineteenth century the world was on the gold standard, it's never more than only partial rule was confined to only the last three decades of that century and the first one of the twentieth century. Britain's attempt to return to the gold standard after World War I proved to be a disaster for Britain; and Roosevelt's tying gold to 35 dollars put much of the world on a de facto dollar standard until Nixon again separated them and the Bretton Woods arrangements gave way to flexible exchange rates in the early 1970s.

- European colonialism and imperialism, indeed and all political [colonial] and
economic [ free trade or other] 'North-South' relations made no significant
contribution to the development of the North. Calculation of the numbers show that
the percentages of direct bilateral foreign trade, payments and possible profits with or from the 'Third World', or with even all of the world, were too small significantly to affect the development of Britain, Europe or the United States, as do those of O'Brien [also see his "Balance Sheet for the Acquisition, Retention and Loss of European Empires Overseas" [1998] , Paul Bairoch, and Walt Rostow only to name a few. NOT SO:

The calculations of whether Britain, Europe and/or the United States benefitted or not from their colonies or neo-colonies are already vitiated AB INITIO, because in almost every case, they take into account only of the bilateral flows of investment, trade and payments between here and there. The same goes for the assessment of equal or unequal benefits from voluntarily or involuntarily entering into any bilateral exchange relations, as much theory and many analyses presume. On the 'left' on the other hand calculations and often only presumptions on the contrary are that the 'North' or some part thereof did benefit, substantially or only marginally, from their colonial, imperialist, or neo-colonial and de facto imperialist relations with some part or all of the 'South'. However, no matter what the answer to the question 'which side are you on', all these calculations about bilateral relations are largely altogether irrelevant for their own purposes of determining the balance sheet of gains and losses. For these can be determined if at all ONLY by examining the entire system of MULTILATERAL and not simply bilateral or even trilateral im/balances of trade and payments at any one time and also historically. As we will see below, that was unavoidably [even if mostly neglected] the case during our last period after 1873; but it was to a lesser but nonetheless significant degree already in our first and then second period when also, as the above cited Hildgert put it, " the significance of such trade can by no means be gauged by its percentage share in the total."

That is all the more so the case when we consider the opportunity costs lost and gained and the entropy dissipated by this multilateral trade. Two simple examples from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries will illustrate the matter. Consumption and production of food calories: The ability for British and other Europeans to import calories from overseas, first in the form of sugar and fish [Atlantic cod] and later of wheat, where their production was relatively cheap for both ecological economic [abundant land and gulfstream fed water] and socio-political economic reasons [slavery and others] , freed Europeans from producing the same calories for their own consumption with their own increasingly scarce land and related resources, which therefore could also more profitably be devoted to other uses and/or saved for future generations. Similarly with clothing and its backward linkages. In Britain it was said that 'sheep ate men', because the enclosures of common farm land in order to devote it to raising sheep for their wool, drove farmers off their land. It also involved de-forestation of scarce forests whose wood was being burnt if not devoted to shipbuilding etc, to make way for grazing land. The ability of Britain first to import cotton textiles from India, and then to produce them at home but with cotton grown in and imported from India and the southern United States, allowed the British to avoid having to produce that much more wool from sheep that would have required the supply of untold amounts of additional grazing land, and the deforestation and depopulation that would have involved. The earlier British and European import of cotton textiles was rendered possible only by its payment in silver derived from also triangular trades with Spanish America. The later replacement of additional wool clothing by home produced textile clothing was derived from Britain's privileged position and role at the apex of various trade and payments triangles to be examined below. To have replaced the amount of yarn spun from imported cotton by home grown wool would in the first trimester of the nineteenth century alone have required more than all of Britain's available pasture and crop land combined. A similar acreage of forest land was saved by the replacement as fuel of wood by coal. Much of the entropy generated by all that , not to mention the entropy that would have been generated by the exhaustion of resources that was obviated by the British participation in privileged positions in this so far even only incipient new system of multilateral trade and payments [Pomeranz 2000: 274-278, Frank 1998:xx].

So, if most of the received wisdom about the nature and causes of the wealth of nations during the nineteenth century does not stand up under the weight of evidence, then what is it instead or at least in addition that we must and should we inquire? The at least preliminary answer below is how location, location, location in an expanding and deepening multilateral world system and its UN-level playing field contributed to if not determined the absolute and relative wealth and poverty of nations and the dissipation/adsorption of entropy among, not to mention within, them. Indeed, taking voluntary of forced position on and playing from it made the field even more uneven. Two diagrams are supplied to serve as historical background and points of departure for the nineteenth century discussion that follows. Both reflect realities in the mid-
eighteenth century, but for their discussion I remit the reader to that in their sources. One [Diagram 1] is a more detailed mapping of the various 'triangular trade' relations across the Atlantic [from Frank 1998]. The second one [Diagram 2] is less detailed but stresses the nexus of all of them in Britain [Saul 1975:7].

DIAGRAMS 1 AND 2 ABOUT HERE

For purposes of political economic world or global history, the nineteenth century from 1816 to 1913 should, or at least may, be divided into three periods of approximately equal length: [1] 1816 to 1848/1850, [2] 1845 to 1873/1880, and [3] 1873 to 1913. These three periods and the dates of transition from one to the next reflect several significant kinds of political economic regimes and the transitions among them., which were separated by the deep recession in the mid 1840s and the crash of 1973.

Let us here at least incipiently examine these developments period by period with special regard to the place and role of various 'national' economies, sectors and processes in the increasingly multilateral or at least increasingly DIFFERENT multilateral world economic system.

Period # 1 : 1816 - 1848/50

Recall from myth # 1 that the world economic constellation during the first of these periods remained pretty much as it was, except for one or, depending on how we count, two major changes. Both occurred in India and its relation with Britain. Since the Battle of Plassey in 1757, more and more of India was politically occupied and subdued by Britain, already using also Indian troops. This was done less by the use of real military force than by the pro- [re-?] gressive disintegration of states in India that had begun already a half century before. Economically, the Indian net export surplus in its strongest and long world leading textile industry was replaced by a textile import surplus, predominantly from Britain. That was the first well known 'de-industrialization' of India with its whitening skeletons in the villages of Bengal. However recent research [Bagchi 19xx and xx] suggests that this process was not as far-
reaching and penetrating as previously claimed. Concomitantly the system of land tenure was changed and in 1793 codified in and by the 'Permanent Settlement', which enshrined large zamindary and small ryotwary ownership. Both in their way were organized to produce an agricultural surplus of grains and raw cotton that was exportable to far away Britain and for consumption by its nearby political and military administrators and their Indian sub ordinates.. Both combined to produce the first great famine already in 1770. The related change in agriculture was to growing more and more export of opium for British export to China. That became the basis of the infamous 'opium triangle'.

This triangular trade and payments system was set up and maintained in the interest first of the British East India Company and its 'servants' and after the BIC's loss of its monopoly, in the interests of British merchants, large like the still today surviving Jardines Matheson , and small. On the one hand, Britain imported merchandise from China, but was unable or unwilling to pay for them. On the other hand, first also the same BIC and its servants in India, and then British subjects and interests in India in general, sought a way to transfer home to Britain their earnings and profits primarily in India and secondarily elsewhere in Asia. The solution to both problems was one and the same: If China could be persuaded or if necessary forced to import opium from India in excess of its exports to India, then China would send bullion or cash to India to settled the balance between Chinese imports from India over its export to India. And the British [more than the Indians] could then use these Chinese funds both to remit their own profits from India to England, and to pay the Chinese for Britain's own excess of imports from over their exports to China. And India could complemented its domestically generated merchandise exports, primarily of raw cotton, and of financial transfers of home charges that Britain exacted from India exacted from India for its 'administration', with India's own receipt of payments from abroad, principally from China. This good [at least for the British] business arrangement was begun already in the late eighteenth century after Britain had gotten a good foothold in India. It was further developed during our first period during which however the arrangement ran into some trouble that had to be fixed; and it reached its zenith during our second period. After that from the 1880s onward, both the absolute quantity and the relative importance of this opium trade declined; although it did not fade out altogether until World War I and its aftermath.

Trade and financial relations primarily between Britain and India and secondarily between them and China were the reasons for the British and Indian establishment of the triangular trade with China one of whose legs was the production of opium in and export from India to China. A contemporary explained "opium was still inextricably bound up with the triangular system of trade. China was the creditor of England [still of silk and its derivative good and increasingly by its export of tea], England of India [by virtue of British textile exports to India, which exceeded its imports of the same after 1816, and later also of some capital goods], and India of China [for the opium export of the former and its import by the second] , and opium was the biggest single item in enabling India to discharge her debt to England and England hers to China" [quoted in Fairbank 1953:226-227]. Moreover, India's export surplus with China was the essential element permitting not only India to settle her trade balance with Britain but to permit and channel their homeward bound remittances by British subjects of the private profits they made in India and from its trade with countries to the East. Chinese legal impediments against the import of opium were easily circumvented through smuggle, which may have equaled legitimate trade; but the physical negation of opium imports - precisely because they temporarily generated a net outflow of silver - threatened the essential foundation of the entire triangular system of trade from which the British derived the principal benefit, and thereby precipitated the first Opium War in 1840. The resulting and also nationally generated changes in total and per capita income its rate of change and its distribution in China are examined farther below.

This China-India-Britain triangle of trade and payments imbalances and corresponding economic and financial flow relations are illustrated by the triangle outlined in Diagram 3 and explained by THE CAMBRIDGE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF INDIA explains

An unusual characteristic of India's foreign trade throughout the period of this

survey [that spans all of our three periods] was the existence of a large export	surplus, which was not offset bey either a rise in her foreign-exchange reserves or	an increase in overseas lending. In fact, the permanently favorable	balance of trade [that is the aforementioned export surplus], after including movements of treasure, was accompanied by a net import of capital after 1850. The key to the puzzle lie in the invisible items in her balance of payments and the unilateral transfer of funds that she had to make to Britain as par t of the political charges debited to her external account. Thus the payment of political [and economic!] tribute was the genesis of the famous theory of a 'drain of wealth' from India

[Cambridge Economic History of India (CEHI) 1983:869-870].

DIAGRAM 3 ABOUT HERE

China, of course, became a huge importer of opium and to pay for it an exporter, though only temporarily a net one, of silver. Other than that, the continuity in Asian economic strength was particularly the case in China. The "Paradox of Growth without Development" as the dean of American Sinologists John King Fairbank entitled a chapter in his CHINA: A NEW HISTORY published in 1992 just before his death, is that there was and is NO such paradox. China's previous world leading economic productivity and merchandise export surplus based thereon still continued also in its world market domination in ceramics and silk, which was now increasingly complemented also with the export of tea, especially to Britain and other parts of Europe. By virtue of its continuing export surplus, Chinese imports also continued to consist significantly of silver bullion and coins, mostly from Mexico as before, but now increasingly also shipped across the Pacific via the United States port of San Francisco. The most important change in China's foreign trade, other than its increasing import of opium from India was its now also increasing import of more cotton goods than before from India, but which were sold primarily by the British and imported both directly and via Southeast Asia through the Chinese port in Canton.

Actually, the First Opium War was precipitated when, to contain the opium trade, the Chinese government deliberately confiscates and destroyed large shipment in action analogous to that of the erstwhile Bostonians who had a party dumping British tea into their harbor. In both cases, the main reason for doing so was not any great dislike of tea or opium, neither for consumption, not morally not politically, the latter at least not directly so. Instead, the big problem for the Chinese was that they had 'traditionally' been the world's largest inward importer of silver, but alas payment for more and more opium also invoked a grater and greater outward re-export of that silver. Since domestic taxes remained payable in silver, lower domestic supplies raised its price relative to copper cash and other commodities, thereby impoverishing many people so that the opium-for-silver trade then also did pose a political problem, at least indirectly. Nonetheless, foreigners still had to work within the and not outside of or against the Chinese 'Canton System'. So the ' First Opium War' that China lost to Britain and her few cannon boats in 1840 and the subsequent 'unequal' Treaty of Nanjing in 1842 that accorded Western and particularly British interests some special privileges in a few ports. Yet, their economic impact on and importance in China seem to have been exaggerated all out proportion to their effective weight and consequences. That may be because both Westerners and Chinese saw and still see them as manifestations of Chinese weakness.

However from 1846 to 1848, floods and famine in the southern part of China most involved in foreign trade, as well as the in-migration there of more northerners, contributed to the beginning also there of the Taiping Rebellion from 1851 to 1864. That seriously weakened and almost brought down the Empire governed from Beijing. When the Taiping threatened to capture Shanghai in 1854 and to protect itself from further Taiping incursions, the Chinese government in Beijing in effect made a tactical alliance against them with foreigners that ceded to them an Inspectorate that collected customs duties at the port of Shanghai. But with Beijing further weakened and threatened by continuing Taiping advances, British and other foreign interests took advantage thereof, subjected China to the Second Opium War, and captured Beijing in 1860. Then they imposed further treaty concessions on China, which with the simultaneous further weakening of the Chinese economy, only now undermined the "Canton System," to which foreigners had until then still to adapt their trade with China, and led to further increases in the import of opium and its countervailing outflow of silver. Only then, despite the earlier temporary import deficit/export surplus of silver, was the Chinese relation to the world economy substantially transformed in its disfavor. That was one of the origins of the subsequent Chinese attempt at 'self strengthening' against further foreign threats and incursions.

Even this brief survey of the operations of the China-India-Britain triangle in the

first half of the nineteenth century should now make it easier also to accept the challenges above to a number of 'myths' regarding the nineteenth century world economic development. For particularly the challenges to the ones about British at 'center' of it all, e.g. as the workshop of and of and for the world, now fall into better place in the context of the multi laterality of the world economy that allowed Britain to maintain herself as she did.

Another dimension of this whole set of relations is how they permitted Britain and then also other European and American economies to dissipate the entropy they generated and to oblige India and China to absorb it. Thus, entropy generated even by their still slow processes of industrialization was exported to these areas and to Europe's source of cotton in the American South and their Caribbean still plantation economies. The increasing ecological, economic, social and political 'disorder' in these regions, however much also 'domestically' generated, was thus intensified by the export of British and other European entropy, which permitted grater economic, social, and political stability there. In the United States, as argued above, the entropy imported from Europe could also be partly dissipated further west, as could also that from Russia further east to Siberia and Central Asia, which also suffered therefrom. Later, the Crimean War between Britain and Russia and then their 'Great Game' competition in the latter region intensified the same politically

Period # 2: 1850 - 1873/80

We may examine a few of the important relations and development that in this second period from 1848/50 to 1873/80 that were operationalized through this triangle as seen from the Indian angle in Diagram 3 and at the bottom of Diagram 4. Indian exports were dominated by opium to China and raw cotton to Britain. Opium and raw cotton combined alone always accounted for more than half of Indian exports from 1850/1 until 1870/1, of which opium about 30 percent and cotton about 20 percent in 1850 and 1860, with opium declining to 18-19 percent in 1870 and 1880, and cotton first rising to 35 percent in 1870 and then declining to 18 percent in 1880. The next highest exports were of sugar and indigo at the beginning of this period, with food grains and seeds catching up taken separately and combined also exceeding the second and third highest [CEHI 1983: 844]. Therefore also, exports to Britain hovered around somewhat more than 40 percent of India's total, while its imports from there were mostly in excess of 80 percent, while its exports to China in this period began with 35 percent and declined to about 20 percent.

But that was not the only dimension of the opium-for-silver problem, which also had other international and world political economic ramifications and indeed even causes.

India's imports from China, except in the first year, never reached even 5 percent of India's total merchandise imports. The huge excess of Indian exports to China, most importantly of opium and secondly of cotton and its textiles, was balanced by Chinese payments to India, importantly in silver imported from Mexico directly or via the United States [see bottom triangles in Diagram 4] , which were then converted into part of India's IMbalance of payments with Britain [ibid. 864]. In the early 1850s, India's excess of these and other re-exports, rose from 3.9 million to 5.4 million pound sterling and averaged around 20 percent of all Indian exports, 40 percent of its merchandise imports and around 25 percent of these plus bullion import [see below] combined. In the second half of the 1850s, India had a small excess of imports instead, which was soon again replaced by the 'normal' export surplus, again illustrated by the vertical South-
North axis in Diagram 4.

During this second period also another major triangle was added to the first one. As Diagram 4 illustrates, the new triangle still included China at the eastern point on the right and Britain still at the northern one at the top, but the United States now occupied the western point of the triangle on the left. The two major triangles, the eastern one on the right side, and the northern one at the top, now complemented and re-enforced each other as part of a four cornered incipient multilateral system of trade and payments.

DIAGRAM 4 ABOUT HERE

The increasingly important place of the United States in this system was several fold, both across the Pacific to china and across the Atlantic to Britain. Americans had replaced the Spaniards who during the preceding centuries had been the ultimate, and via Acapulco also the direct, suppliers of silver to China. Now, it was the Americans who shipped Mexican silver to China, mostly westward directly across the Pacific as Spaniards had done to a lesser degree on the Manila Galleons from Acapulco in Mexico to Manila from where it went to China. And Americans as well as Mexicans themselves also shipped Mexican silver to China, eastward via Europe, which the Spaniards had also done earlier, only more so. That is, the structural still largest in the world import of silver by China was now importantly supplied by Americans. In much of the nineteenth century, China still exported more merchandise than it imported, and therefore was also able still to import silver to make up the balance. However, now China had to use some of this silver from the Americas to pay for opium and cotton from India for much of which China in silver, part of which as bullion or as the commodities, including gold for which the silver payed. They were then shipped further on to Britain and other parts of Europe. Herein, particularly in the second half of the nineteenth century, there was a difference from earlier times in that China was no longer the ultimate sink for world silver as it had been in the eighteenth and earlier centuries. In the new triangular trades, China now exported silver to rather than as previously importing silver from India. Britain and Europe exported more to China than before, but still not enough to avoid balancing its import surplus. A now much smaller portion of this balance was made still through bullion shipped from Europe to China. Two larger portions of the balance was arranged through British exports to the United States, enough of which were again re-exported to account for half of all American exports to China. Most of the other half was made up by the afore mentioned US export to China of silver, both of which payed for much of America's own import surplus from China but also from India, which were settled not only directly but also again through Britain. The latter, at the apex angles of all of these triangles, was able to skim the cream off, and when the system became perfected in our third period at the end of the nineteenth century, also half of the milk.

For some years in the second trimester of the nineteenth century, China even became a net exporter of silver. That was the case, notably, after 1834 when the United States changed its gold/silver exchange ratio, which made it more profitable than before to keep silver in the United States. Mexican pesos then comprised more than one fifth of all coinage circulating in the United States, where they had already earlier been declared legal tender. In consequence, less silver was available for the usual shipment to China. These events and the consequent demand generated increase in the price of silver during the second half of the 1830s caused or contributed to a lesser inflow into, a silver shortage in, and a net outflow of the now more valuable silver from China, which then still and again was converted into an additional export surplus rom India to Britain. Therefore, although Britain sent India the silver and gold, elsewhere acquired, in partial compensation for her import surplus with India on merchandise account, almost exceptionally in the annals of balances of trade and payments, India nonetheless still maintained an export surplus to Britain on both merchandise AND payments account, which therefore resulted in a unilateral transfer of both from India to Britain. This unequal relationship is illustrated by the main South-North axis in Diagram 4.

The intersection, complementarity and consequences of these two major triangles with their principal south-north and east-west axes that had been forged between the late eighteenth and mid nineteenth centuries now complemented the long since existing Atlantic 'triangular' trade, which in fact existed of a complicated network of separate and mutually complementary triangles. The latter was already illustrated in Frank [1978a:221] reproduced below, and the combination of all of these from the mid-nineteenth century onward in

Diagram 4 .

We may turn to examine a few of the important relations and development that in this second period from 1848/50 to 1873/80 that were operationalized through this triangle as seen from the Indian angle at the bottom of Diagram 4. Indian exports were dominated by opium to China and raw cotton to Britain. Opium and raw cotton combined alone always accounted for more than half of Indian exports from 1850/1 until 1870/1, of which opium about 30 percent and cotton about 20 percent in 1850 and 1860, with opium declining to 18-19 percent in 1870 and 1880, and cotton first rising to 35 percent in 1870 and then declining to 18 percent in 1880. The next highest exports were of sugar and indigo at the beginning of this period, with food grains and seeds catching up taken separately and combined also exceeding the second and third highest [CEHI 1983: 844]. Therefore also, exports to Britain hovered around somewhat more than 40 percent of India's total, while its imports from there were mostly in excess of 80 percent, while its exports to China in this period began with 35 percent and declined to about 20 percent.

India's imports from China, except in the first year, never reached even 5 percent of India's total merchandise imports. The huge excess of Indian exports to China, most importantly of opium and secondly of cotton and its textiles, was balanced by Chinese payments to India, importantly in silver imported from Mexico directly or via the United States [see bottom triangles in Diagram 2] , which were then converted into part of India's IMbalance of payments with Britain [ibid. 864]. In the early 1850s, India's excess of these and other re-exports, rose from 3.9 million to 5.4 million pound sterling and averaged around 20 percent of all Indian exports, 40 percent of its merchandise imports and around 25 percent of these plus bullion import [see below] combined. In the second half of the 1850s, India had a small excess of imports instead, which was soon again replaced by the 'normal' export surplus, again illustrated by the vertical South-
North axis in Diagram 4.

Between 1850 and 1880, beginning with 10 million rupees worth of gold and rising to about 50 million and then again falling to about 35 million rupees per decade, India received a bit over 100 million rupees worth of gold. The corresponding receipts of silver of about 7 million rupees in the first decade, rose to about 100 million in the second decade, and then leveled off at about 60 million rupees in the succeeding two decades, for a total of about 230 million rupees worth of silver over these three decades [all figures rounded from Digby 1969:181]. This flow of bullion, minted into coin in India, also came as capital exports from Britain to India, e.g. to build railroads, which soon however generated an additional return stream of invisible payments from India to Britain.

Between 1850 and 1880, beginning with 10 million rupees worth of gold and rising to about 50 million and then again falling to about 35 million rupees per decade, India received a bit over 100 million rupees worth of gold. The corresponding receipts of silver of about 7 million rupees in the first decade, rose to about 100 million in the second decade, and then leveled off at about 60 million rupees in the succeeding two decades, for a total of about 230 million rupees worth of silver over these three decades [all figures rounded from Digby 1969:181]. This flow of bullion, minted into coin in India, also came as capital exports from Britain to India, e.g. to build railroads, which soon however generated an additional return stream of invisible payments from India to Britain.

Of particular interest in India's contribution to Britain and its ability in turn to finance its foreign investment in the United Sates and its Dominions were the Indian 'home charges'. These, in a word, were the tribute, and form in which it was payed, which Britain exacted from India in payment 'for' British administration of it 'Crown jewel' colony. The home charges consisted importantly of Indian payment for the British commanded but Indian manned army of occupation and the civil service administration of India, as well as payment of pensions to and remittance of profits by the British in India. By way of example during this second period, while from 1858/9 to 1876/7 the gross revenues of the government in India increased from 36 million to 51 million pound sterling, the home charges increased from 7 million to 10 million pounds. That is throughout this period, the home charges exacted by Britain were fully 20 percent of Indian revenues, which were generated primarily by taxing its people [Dutt 1960:271]. All of these Indian payments to Britain went to shore up British coffers at home and to finance their in turn partial re-investment abroad. Particularly significant among these was direct investment in railroads, which then generated profits; and portfolio finance in the form of loans that generated dividend payments from foreign governments, who also used many of the funds to finance railroads.

The new railroads, but also shipping, and in some cases canals, permitted expansion of the frontier of settlement and of agricultural production, in particular sowing and transporting wheat and other crops, and later with the introduction of refrigeration, also of meat. The rapid and wide expansion of railways and shipping also created an enormous overseas market for British steel and machinery, and for direct investment as well as for portfolio loans to foreign governments for to build railroads and other infrastructure. These in turn, and despite government and private defaults on many loans [on almost all of its debts by the United States already in the 1830s and on many again in this second period], generated a flow payments into Britain from so called 'invisible' earned interest, profits, charges for shipping on primordially still British bottoms that constituted the largest invisible earnings. Other invisible earnings came from brokerage of and insurance on the goods carried, banking services, technical and other services abroad, and in India especially the notorious 'home charges' for administering and 'defending' that colony, as well as for the payment of savings and pensions for the British subjects who did that administering, and remissions from other British subjects or emigrants abroad. Furthermore, these monetary receipts formed a sort of revolving fund through which these earnings from Peter were used to make loans in turn to Paul, or additionally again to Peter himself. Moreover, another complement to all this was the also growing market for real physical British machinery, other capital goods, of which especially the sale as well as the use of British made ships and railroad rolling stock .

Table 1 BRITISH MERCHANDISE TRADE DEFICITS & INVISIBLE EARNINGS

[rounded yearly averages in millions of pounds over 5 year periods]

1	2	3	4	5

Dates	Mch Def	Services	Int & Div	Total Invis	Accumulated

Shipping=50%

1851-55	27	37	12	49	218 [1851]

250 [1855]

1856-60	34	50	16	66	380 [1860]

1861-65	57	67	22	99	490 [1865]

1866-70	58	83	30	113	692 [1870]

1871-75	62	99	50	149	1065 [1875]

1876-80	125	101	56	157	1189 [1880]1- Trade Deficit on Merchandise Account increased from 218 million pound sterling in 1851 to 1189 million pound sterling in 1880. These in turn would render a stream of interest and dividend earnings in the next period up to World War II [see below].

2- Business Services, including Foreign Trade Services, Insurance etc.

and Shipping Charges, normally 50% of all business services

3-Interest and Dividends

4-Total Invisibles [cols. 2 + 3]

5-Accumulated Credits Abroad

Source: A.H.Imlah ECONOMIC ELEMENTS IN PAX BRITANNIA [1958:72-73]

Table 1 shows several things of interest for the analysis and argument about this period. Column 2 related to 1 shows that increasing earnings from services [2],

of which 50 percent were regularly derived from shipping charges alone,

ran at about 50 percent more than trade deficits on merchandise account.

Interests and dividends earned [3] were by themselves about half of the trade

deficits [1]. Adding these interest and dividend earnings [3] to those from services [2],

we get a total of all earnings from invisible [4], which is about two times higher than the trade deficit [1]. This excess of earnings from invisible that were double the trade deficit on merchandise account were money for the 'kitty', from which they could be re-invested abroad. As a result accumulated credits abroad rose from 218 million pound sterling in 1851 to 1189 million pound sterling in 1880. These credits would then generate a continued stream of earnings from invisible during the next period to World War I.

Many of these British earnings from 'invisible' were directly or indirectly derived

from and based on also British shipping. During this boom period of course, the number of ships, mostly British and increasingly steam powered, as well as the number and frequency of their voyages, also increased rapidly. But the introduction of steam hardly increased the speed of ships. On the other hand, the Suez Canal, the opened in 1869 vastly reduced the travel time to India and beyond. Since however it could not accommodate sailing ships, the wish to use it was an incentive to build more steam ships.

Now it is easier to see how both Britain and the United States benefitted from this increasingly multilateral arrangement and their place in it in still another important way. The question already arose before how it was possible for Britain and its 'workshop for the world' were able to make vast investments to the benefit of itself as a creditor country AND to the corresponding United States debtor. The mystery arose from the fact that in fact Britain had a permanent and ever growing structural import merchandise surplus and export deficit and how the United Sates found the means to repay - when it did not default as it often did on - its debts to Britain.

The answer and solution to the mystery could not be Britain's alleged marvelous productivity and huge production, which it did not have, nor any supposed ability of the United States by its own efforts and production to generate a surplus sufficiently large to cover its debts to Britain. Nor is 'Rumpenstillzchien' the answer to this riddle. Instead, the answer is to be sought in the British and American positions and roles in and benefits from the increasingly global system of international imbalances of trade and payments and their trilateral, quadrilateral, and increasingly multilateral settlement through other countries and the productive efforts of its many peoples to the benefit of the much fewer people who were its beneficiaries. Later, but to a lesser degree, the United States would be joined by the British Dominions and Argentina in privileged positions in the expanding world system of im/balances of trade and payments, from which they drew benefit as large as were as their corresponding near total mystery to and denial by those who drew the highest benefit from this arrangement.

So how was Britain able to finance its foreign loans to and investments primarily in the United States and secondarily elsewhere? Britain was able to and did so out of the merchandise AND payments surplus that it received from abroad, but mostly from Asia, principally from South and East Asia, especially China, and predominantly from India, although Southeast Asian remissions to Continental Europe and the latter's in turn to Britain also made a marginal but increasing contribution. Moreover relatively densely populated Britain was also able to reduce poverty by exporting much of its unemployment and potential welfare payments problems to its Dominions and even more so to the United States, which had the opposite problems of surplus land and resources that the newly arrived labor power helped convert into real wealth and income.

And how other than by the contribution of its immigrants was the economy of the United States able to grow so fast and so well? Firstly by its receipt and use also of inputs of capital, both in direct investment and in credits, from Britain that had been produced by and payed for by the people of India at the cost of their deepening impoverishment. Secondly, the United States also received an ever larger surplus of imports of consumable merchandise goods, especially from China and less so also from India, but also including Mexican silver that the United States re-exported to China. At the same time, the United States was able to cultivate an export market for its own manufactures in Latin America including Mexico and in turn to receive raw materials inputs for its industries complemented by their drain of whatever bullion that Britain had not already extracted from them.

Thus, for none of these inputs into its own economy did or even could United States directly pay for all of their costs of production in and export from elsewhere. Instead the United States was able to complement its own merchandise production, but therefore also to consume more of it at home, by drawing on its own import surplus of merchandise and payments from abroad, and now also on its own production of gold, to settle its own debtor accounts elsewhere. These were primarily with Britain and secondarily with Continental Europe, who then 'took care' of their own and the American trading partners in Asia. Alas, none of this intricate house of charm for Western Europe and especially Britain, and ultimately even more so for the United States, would have been possible without its foundation in and support from India, except that India in turn, and the others in part also directly, made use of a supporting girder of their own in China. Simple!

Period # 3: 1873-1913

This period, and particularly its end and then the years after World War I, was already dealt with, at least incipiently, in my "Multilateral Merchandise Trade Imbalances and Uneven Economic Development," written in 1972 and included in my DEPENDENT ACCUMULATION AND UNDERDEVELOPMENT [Frank 1978b]. That essay drew substantially also on Hildgert's [1943] already above cited League of Nations Study of THE NETWORK OF WORLD TRADE and on STUDIES IN BRITISH OVERSEAS TRADE 1870-1914 by S.B. Saul [1960]. My essay included long and complex re-calculations of trade and payments data from Hildgert, Saul, Woytinsky and elsewhere, to demonstrate the very significant absolute [and as shares of their own and other regions' income] also relative contributions the 'Third World' hade been making, both directly and even more so indirectly to increasing income within the world economy through their participation in the system of multilateral trade and payments im/balances. However, my most detailed calculations were based on data for 1928, some for 1913, and only a scattered few for other years since 1870. I therefore do not reproduce these calculations here in I now returning to this period and problematique three decades later, though some trends and conclusions derived from them are still quoted below

It was of course the maximum of growth rates reached in 1872, the cyclical crash of 1873 that also launched 'The Great Depression' from 1873 to 1895, that mark off this last period before World War I from the economic boom third quarter of the nineteenth century reviewed above. However important these short and long cyclical changes were, they are largely disregarded in this review, which examines rather the world economy's continued expansion and increasingly complexity multi laterality. For the previous period, it was illustrated as a web of triangles in Diagram 4 that all had their apex in a common angle at the top There 'all roads ran to Britain', which sat in its saddle as the gatekeeper who exacted a toll from all that went in, by and out. Yet in this period after 1873 and until 1913 and the outbreak of World War I, the world economic system of multilateral im/balances of trade and payments and of related dissipative structure of entropy once again expanded still further and reached an even greater degree of complexity. So complex indeed that even a minimally representative illustration would now require so many criss-crossing lines as to make it unintelligible. Therefore, the ever more complex pre-World War I system of multi laterality is illustrated by concomitantly simplifying it in Diagrams 5 and 6. Of the many changes that this system of multi laterality underwent in this period, the following ones call for special note: 1. The increased role of the United States and its move towards occupying the position at the central vortex of the system. 2. The rise to important and changing places by other 'regions of recent settlement' in Canada, Australasia, South Africa, and Eastward expanding Russia, whose new nexuses not only benefitted themselves rather differentially but also the already previously existing ones. 3. The increasing visibility of Germany in the system and in its relations with others in the system. 4. New relations among more 'third world' regions themselves, to some benefit for themselves but through multi laterality apparently again even more for those, including those of # 2, who were or came to be better placed in the system. And 5. The pro- [re-?] gressively deteriorating position in the multilateral world economic scheme of things of China, which like India already before it, now also found itself with an export surplus of both merchandise AND payments.

The remainder of this paper is for now largely limited to reproducing summary passages from my own [Frank 1978b] and Saul's [1960] old studies, pending further results from now ongoing research. Alas, since the earlier calculations used mostly data for 1928 that are not now reproduced here, the ones on earlier times after 1873 for now remain quite wanting in quantitative reconstructions and estimates. The so far available or at least calculated data would not now be adequate to persuade, let alone convince, any 'Doubting Thomases' - as they certainly should be - that location, location, location really was - and still is! - vitally important [and how much?] to how the world economic deck of lucky and unlucky cards - also to mix some metaphors - is shuffled and distributed among the players in this world wide game of musical chairs. Moreover and despite [or is it because of?] 'The Great Depression', it is really only in this post 1873 period that rapid and far-reaching technological change, and particularly that driven by scientific inquiry, makes a mark in and through the petroleum, chemical, and electric industries, and by the end of the period also with the internal combustion engine. However, much more inquiry is still required into the also 'triangular' relations between A] technologically based capital investment and increases in productivity, [B] the financing of these investments, and [C] the role of the all too disregarded world system of political economic multi laterality in the generation of increasing world income and its mal/distribution and of entropy and its dissipation and also mal/distribution. And again, a necessary step in this direction is in our analysis also to give the system of multi laterality and the multi laterality of the system the pride of place that it in reality then had - and still has, though now again with different matizes.