Mercantile France In The 18th Century Essay
According to Ekelund, the primary difference between Mercantile England and Mercantile France was that France had absolute property rights in taxation held by the crown until the end of the French Revolution (1799). This form of rent-seeking was successful for France, allowing a larger accumulation of wealth. Mercantile writer Gregory King estimated the “general income” of France in 1688 at £80,500,000 and of England at £41,700,000. While both the monarchs were eager to impose rent-seeking policy, the French crown was far more effective at enforcing it. Rent-seeking allowed the crown to control manufacturing which furthered military artillery production for their own benefit and consequently keep it out of their enemy’s hands during war. By
…show more content…
withholding goods, France maintains bullion supplies and increases capital, “finished goods”, reserves which prove competitive in war. Consequently, by refusing trade, France’s opponents do not have access to necessary goods thus weakening their relative position. While rent-seeking decreased individual wealth, it increased French national wealth. This proved more beneficial to national self-preservation during war by giving more power and funding to the state to wage war. When cartel enforcement could no longer contain the “competitive fringe challenge to guild dominance” resources began to flow to areas of high return resulting in French economic growth. This revenue was used directly to finance its military expenditures and keep them out of their opponent’s hands. Having larger revenue supplies for the nation to rely on gives rulers economic security in war and the ability to control the market and bullion supplies.
Market share also acted as a strong determinant of military outcomes.
British foreign trade was regulated through the protectionist policy The Navigation Acts. The Navigation Acts ensured trade would afford maximum advantage to the state through heavy regulation of trade ports and thus increased their ability to accumulate wealth making it a Mercantilist policy. According to Broadberry, Britain’s trade comprised 49% of the share of the rest of the world and 25% of the nation’s GDP in 1790. Britain had the largest share of European Trade, increasing their capacity for economic growth during the 17th and 18th centuries giving the nation more disposable capital for war and the opponent less. One example is the Navigation Acts’ taking away from Dutch power. The Dutch controlled a large portion of European trade and the Navigation Acts regulated the transport of foreign goods to England and its thirteen colonies, thus the Acts took trade power away from the Dutch. This resulted in the First Anglo-Dutch war where wealth and trade capacity became a primary factor in Britain’s military success proving that effective Mercantilist policy gives countries the tools they need to win wars. Smith believed that such protectionist policies helped strengthen Britain’s military capacity because it grew the empire, and thus the national wealth. The British Navigation Acts served as a monopoly in the sense that it heavily controlled trade to and from Britain; however, monopolies, as we will see in France, afforded the nation a military advantage by increasing the nation’s size in both population and
wealth.
France captured their share of the market through luxury cartels formed to “expropriate” rents from foreign buyers. This strategy, like England, aligned with the “balance-of-labour” goal of Mercantilism where France imported raw goods, exported luxury goods, and increased profit from finished goods. France’s share of European trade was not far behind Britain’s at 38% of the rest of the world and making up 20% of their nation’s GDP. Based on Broadberry’s data it is evident that France could capture and impact a large share of the European trade market in 1790, relative to the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal. During a war, limited access to goods, which France could control through market share, meant decreased chances at success because their opponent can withhold necessary resources or capital. This proves advantageous for the Mercantilist nation. By controlling the markets and money supplies France greatly increased their military position.
Along with Mercantilism helping a ruler wage war, it also gave them the ability to control their opponents. There is a proportional change in income and power amongst countries with trade. As in the cotton-raw-materials example, Britain increased their supply of precious metals, increasing their wealth and their supply of capital to help in wartime, thus controlling their opponent’s access to goods. This means trade is a two-sided relationship. Countries that are dependent upon others for finished goods are essentially controlled by their suppliers. The supplier is a price-setter that consequentially controls that nation’s bullion supplies and capital endowment. When one nation heavily exports a good and another buys it, the former increases their relative position while the latter decreases theirs. Jean-Baptiste Colbert describes the two-sided relationship of trade by stating,
Colbert explains that for the power of your nation to increase, that of your enemy must decrease, which increases the Mercantilist ruler’s ability to wage war. Lastly, Colbert says that an abundance of money leads to power and power gives ruler’s the financial and military capacity to win wars. Effective Mercantilist policy not only strengthens a ruler’s ability to wage war but also decreases their opponents’.
In conclusion, an effective Mercantilist government increases a ruler’s ability to wage war because it increases the nation’s capital and decreases their opponent’s relative position. England increased their national wealth by developing a favourable balance of trade between themselves and the thirteen colonies, subject to English rule. This allowed England to increase their precious metal supplies and control the markets despite the inability to eliminate foreign trade dependency. France did have the ability to remove itself from foreign trade and created an effective rent-seeking system focused on luxury goods. The two-sided nature of trade combined with effective capital management allowed rulers to increase their position relative to their opponent and better their ability to wage war via Mercantilist policy.
withholding goods, France maintains bullion supplies and increases capital, “finished goods”, reserves which prove competitive in war. Consequently, by refusing trade, France’s opponents do not have access to necessary goods thus weakening their relative position. While rent-seeking decreased individual wealth, it increased French national wealth. This proved more beneficial to national self-preservation during war by giving more power and funding to the state to wage war. When cartel enforcement could no longer contain the “competitive fringe challenge to guild dominance” resources began to flow to areas of high return resulting in French economic growth. This revenue was used directly to finance its military expenditures and keep them out of their opponent’s hands. Having larger revenue supplies for the nation to rely on gives rulers economic security in war and the ability to control the market and bullion supplies.
Market share also acted as a strong determinant of military outcomes.
British foreign trade was regulated through the protectionist policy The Navigation Acts. The Navigation Acts ensured trade would afford maximum advantage to the state through heavy regulation of trade ports and thus increased their ability to accumulate wealth making it a Mercantilist policy. According to Broadberry, Britain’s trade comprised 49% of the share of the rest of the world and 25% of the nation’s GDP in 1790. Britain had the largest share of European Trade, increasing their capacity for economic growth during the 17th and 18th centuries giving the nation more disposable capital for war and the opponent less. One example is the Navigation Acts’ taking away from Dutch power. The Dutch controlled a large portion of European trade and the Navigation Acts regulated the transport of foreign goods to England and its thirteen colonies, thus the Acts took trade power away from the Dutch. This resulted in the First Anglo-Dutch war where wealth and trade capacity became a primary factor in Britain’s military success proving that effective Mercantilist policy gives countries the tools they need to win wars. Smith believed that such protectionist policies helped strengthen Britain’s military capacity because it grew the empire, and thus the national wealth. The British Navigation Acts served as a monopoly in the sense that it heavily controlled trade to and from Britain; however, monopolies, as we will see in France, afforded the nation a military advantage by increasing the nation’s size in both population and
wealth.
France captured their share of the market through luxury cartels formed to “expropriate” rents from foreign buyers. This strategy, like England, aligned with the “balance-of-labour” goal of Mercantilism where France imported raw goods, exported luxury goods, and increased profit from finished goods. France’s share of European trade was not far behind Britain’s at 38% of the rest of the world and making up 20% of their nation’s GDP. Based on Broadberry’s data it is evident that France could capture and impact a large share of the European trade market in 1790, relative to the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal. During a war, limited access to goods, which France could control through market share, meant decreased chances at success because their opponent can withhold necessary resources or capital. This proves advantageous for the Mercantilist nation. By controlling the markets and money supplies France greatly increased their military position.
Along with Mercantilism helping a ruler wage war, it also gave them the ability to control their opponents. There is a proportional change in income and power amongst countries with trade. As in the cotton-raw-materials example, Britain increased their supply of precious metals, increasing their wealth and their supply of capital to help in wartime, thus controlling their opponent’s access to goods. This means trade is a two-sided relationship. Countries that are dependent upon others for finished goods are essentially controlled by their suppliers. The supplier is a price-setter that consequentially controls that nation’s bullion supplies and capital endowment. When one nation heavily exports a good and another buys it, the former increases their relative position while the latter decreases theirs. Jean-Baptiste Colbert describes the two-sided relationship of trade by stating,
Colbert explains that for the power of your nation to increase, that of your enemy must decrease, which increases the Mercantilist ruler’s ability to wage war. Lastly, Colbert says that an abundance of money leads to power and power gives ruler’s the financial and military capacity to win wars. Effective Mercantilist policy not only strengthens a ruler’s ability to wage war but also decreases their opponents’.
In conclusion, an effective Mercantilist government increases a ruler’s ability to wage war because it increases the nation’s capital and decreases their opponent’s relative position. England increased their national wealth by developing a favourable balance of trade between themselves and the thirteen colonies, subject to English rule. This allowed England to increase their precious metal supplies and control the markets despite the inability to eliminate foreign trade dependency. France did have the ability to remove itself from foreign trade and created an effective rent-seeking system focused on luxury goods. The two-sided nature of trade combined with effective capital management allowed rulers to increase their position relative to their opponent and better their ability to wage war via Mercantilist policy.