Search

From its foundation as a private corporation in 1694 the Bank of England extended large amounts of credit to support the British private economy and to support an increasingly centralized British state. The Bank helped the British state reach a position of geopolitical and economic hegemony in the international economic order. In this paper, we deploy recalibrated financial data to analyse an evolving trajectory of connections between the British economy, the state, and the Bank of England. We show how these connections contributed to form an effective and efficient fiscal-naval state and promoted the development of a system of financial intermediation for the economy. This symbiotic relationship became stronger after 1793. The evidence that we consider here shows that although the Bank was nominally a private institution and profits were paid to its shareholders, it was playing a public role well before Bagehot's doctrine.

The East Asian Journal of British History is produced by the East Asian Society of British History, and supported by the Institute for Historical Research.\ud \ud The Institute of Historical Research is pleased and proud to be supporting this recent addition to British history scholarship. Developing out of the IHR’s long-standing collaborative partnership with Japanese universities, and now in its fourth year, the East Asian Journal of British History features some of the best emergent scholarship from Anglophone historians working in China, Japan, and South Korea.\ud \ud Divided between an articles section and one devoted to reviews, the journal’s remit wide-ranging covering all fields and periods of British history. It complements the triennial Anglo-Japanese Conference organised by the IHR and Japanese historians based at the universities of Tokyo, Kyoto and Osaka, and the conference of the East Asian Society of British history, in which we are joined by our colleagues from South Korea. In future, we hope that more contributions will be featured in the journal from the Chinese mainland and from Taiwan.

Our article is a critical survey of the concepts and data utilized by economists and economic historians that purport to measure relative levels and long term trends in GDP per capita from the Han Dynasty to Communist times. We favour attempts to extend macro-economic analysis and its associated quantification to China’s long imperial history, but have concluded that estimates calibrated in international dollars for 1900, or 2005 or 2011 are not fit for that purpose. Furthermore, and after surveying recent endeavours to reconstruct the published secondary and official statistical sources available for the measurement of primary production for Ming and Qing China (1368-1911), we reluctantly suggest that Kuznetian paradigms for empirical economics are probably not viable, either for the measurement of the empire’s growth over time or for reciprocal comparisons with European economies. This is because on both conceptual and statistical grounds the concept and associated metric for GDP per capita does not travel easily and securely between the fiscal systems of China and the West (Yun-Casallila and O’Brien 2012).

2, KJ00000005829, P

Our article is a critical survey of the concepts, methods and date constructed and utilized by scholars (particularly the late Angus Maddison) in order to provide estimates for the measurement of relative levels and long term trends in the GDP per capita for China from the Han Dynasty to modern times. We applaud the endeavour but have reluctantly concluded that, even as conjectures, they are not fit for purpose. Furthermore, our article suggests that the Kuznetsian paradigm in empirical economics may not turn out to be viable for qualitative analysis of the long term development of imperial economies of pre-modern East and South Asia.

New institutional economics lacks a theory of state formation which could help us to deal with the mega question of why some states became more efficient than others at establishing and and sustaining institutions. Some kind of middle range theory could be formulated based upon historical case studies. This paper considers the case of Britain and as its title suggests degrades the myth of the United Kingdom as the paradigmn example of liberalism and laisser faire. In making its precocious transition to and industrial market economy the kingom’s history is best represented as a case of successful mercantilism. – military ; sovereignty ; mercantilism ; political economy ; taxation