IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rehdxx/v35y2020i1p50-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common markets and the decolonization of ‘British Africa’: The role of economics and economists

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth Button

Abstract

To facilitate an organized withdrawal from its African territories in the 1960s, the UK authorities undertook studies of the economic potential of each. What has been little studied is the nature and impacts of these exercises on subsequent policy. This paper looks at two such studies that examined ways existing ‘common markets’ in East and Central Africa could be retained after independence, and further developed. The institutions and structures governing the territories differed, one a common market and the other a fuller federation, as did the bodies conducting the analysis, one an official commission requiring public recommendations, and the other an advisory group to a senior government minister. The paper offers insights as to the way economists viewed common markets at the time, how they sought to quantify their economic benefits, and the ways in which these benefits were distributed across member states. It also considers the types of economic policy recommendations that were made and the reaction of the British authorities and the colonial politicians to them.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth Button, 2020. "Common markets and the decolonization of ‘British Africa’: The role of economics and economists," Economic History of Developing Regions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 50-70, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rehdxx:v:35:y:2020:i:1:p:50-70
    DOI: 10.1080/20780389.2019.1669443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/20780389.2019.1669443
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/20780389.2019.1669443?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rehdxx:v:35:y:2020:i:1:p:50-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rehd20 .

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

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