Category: Great Britain

Jane is a British woman of Maori descent who has lived in the UK all her life. She was racially abused and is taking her case to a tribunal. In the run-up to the case, many of her colleagues and bosses stopped talking to her and her boss even put her on suspension. This is an example of victimisation which is a form of direct racial discrimination which is supposed to be protected by the Equality Act. Supposed to at least. Adam, who was born and bred in Kent but who comes from Pakistani descent, was walking through Camden town market in London coming home from work where he is a veterinary surgeon at a top surgery in Europe. He accidentally bumped into a vendor where he was then verbally assaulted with many racial slurs. Unfortunately, these ‘stories’ are very much real and occur throughout Britain every day despite the government claiming they are doing everything they can to stop these sorts of things from happening. They don’t do enough to prevent ethnic minorities from being subject to racism on a daily basis and they especially don’t do enough to support these minorities in everyday life.

Unfortunately, in modern society in Britain, the relative poverty rate is roughly 16.4%. Of that 16.4%, 65% are from ethnic minorities. Clearly, this paints a picture of just how lackadaisical the government is when it comes to supporting ethnic minorities. In London’s Bethnal Green which is one of the poorest and most poverty-ridden areas in Britain, the crime rate is extraordinarily high for an area of just 3.1 square kilometres. Between September 2017 and August 2018, there were just below 800 cases of anti-social behavior, and that made for only 24% of the crime in the area. The second highest crime was violence and sexual assault in which there were 738 cases making up for 22% of all crime in the area. The largest ethnic group in Bethnal Green today is Bangladeshi which accounts for 38% of the population. Whilst it’s certainly not a social minority in Bethnal Green, according to the most recent census it only makes up 0.7% of the UK. This comprehensibly shows that the government isn’t doing nearly enough to combat poverty in areas with low socioeconomic status and high numbers of ethnic minorities if the people in these areas are being forced to turn to crime to survive. The government needs to either better accommodate immigrants into an environment in which they are more likely to thrive or try to further help the ethnic minorities already living in poverty in order to achieve this goal.

According to Gov. uk, there were 298,949 stop and searches in the financial year of 2016/2017 in Britain which is the highest since 2009/2010. However, the rates vary between different ethnic groups drastically. For white people, there were roughly 4 stop and searches per 1000 people compared to 29 stops per 1000 black people. This obviously makes us think that either black people walk down the high street wearing ski masks with money erupting out of the rucksacks or the British police force is stereotypically profiling ethnic minorities like black people despite there being any evidence to do so. Now, saying every stop and search in that year took place without sufficient evidence or that every Policeman or woman walking down the street will do this, but I think we can all agree that there isn’t a major difference in rates of stop and searches between white people and black people just by coincidence. If we look at the incarceration rates between ethnicity it tells a different story. Of the roughly 90.000 prisoners currently in prison today roughly 70% of them are of white ethnicity. So why are so many more stop and searches occurring for black people compared to white people? It’s down to the police officers carrying out the stops. A quick solution would be to formally punish them for this via either suspension or being told there is no need anymore, but a long-term fix would be to educate the officers instead.

As I’ve mentioned before many ethnic groups with a low socioeconomic status tend to turn to crime. Again, not their fault. However, upon their return to society, they quickly return to their lives before incarceration due to the fact that they do not know how to cope without the appropriate skills needed to maintain a life without poverty. Again, not their fault. For some apparent reason, the government keeps complaining about poverty and crime rates, yet they let these people go around in a circle from birth to poverty to crime to prison and back around again (not to birth. Obviously). They have to see the simple solution. That being, to educate the prison inmates and provide appropriate skills necessary to cut out poverty from their lives. This will not only benefit the government and raise their approval rating, but it will also benefit the prisoners who get to go on and get a job and start providing for their families. As 46% of prison inmates have literacy below the national 5/GCSE standard giving them basic training in maths and English or even introducing a course to achieve a qualification such as a couple of GCSEs like they have done in America will mean they can put that on a CV and get a basic job and start earning and climbing above the poverty line.

Due to pop culture, ethnic minorities have come to have a strong hatred and distrust for the police force. This is prevalent in society through uprisings and riots in recent times. This distrust also causes ethnic minorities to refuse the aforementioned help from the police and even the government and the local council that they desperately need. This is why it’s almost necessary for the government to reinstall trust in the police force. There could be a counterargument that before of this happens the police force itself needs to be ‘cleaned’; for all the bigoted and corrupt policemen and women to be removed as I have already mentioned. Once that has happened then and only then can the ethnic minorities who have been abused by the police and government for years upon years start to trust the authorities again.

Time and time again I hear the phrase ‘that’s just how they were brought up’ or – ‘that’s just how that generation thinks’ or something like that. By that generation, they mean the generation that grew up in the 1950s/60s and I think everyone knows what they mean by ‘the way they think’. Yes, that generation grew up witnessing some of the worst racial tragedies. That doesn’t mean that they necessarily have to be bigoted or racist. In fact, they should know better due to witnessing those events. They need to be educated. This will drastically decrease racism as a whole in the UK and it will raise the standard of living for ethnic minorities instead of getting yelled at for coming to a country they thought they were welcome in.

To conclude, yes, I think life in Britain for ethnic minorities is rising but there is still so much we can do to raise their standard of living and decrease their fear of everyday life. We have to combat and educate bigoted people who believe that it’s okay to have racism in the government and police. It’s totally vital to attempt to revitalize the lives of prisoners in the outside world in order to fight against the poverty threshold. With all of these solutions in good time, we can make Britain a country that welcomes legal immigrants. A country that not only welcomes immigrants but fulfills their dreams and wildest ambitions. We can once again be the country everyone believes and wants us to be.

The Suez Crisis is another chapter in British history that showcases the themes of imperialism, power struggle and the effects it had on British status as a global power at the disinclination of accepting a new post imperial era. The Suez Crisis of 1956 involved the nationalization of the Suez Canal company by the Egyptian dictator Gamal Nasser in which the British government had a significant portion of shares within the company. This led to an Anglo/French collusion with Israel in an invasion of Egypt which was then dismantled by American pressure. As a consequence, Britain fell into a political crisis concluding with a change of Prime Minister.

What can be observed from this that shows Britain’s loss of its global status as a power is the outcome of the entire situation. Firstly, the whole operation was stopped by the UN who demanded a cease fire, the reality was however that “the operation was halted under a ceasefire ostensibly ordered by the United Nations, but in fact dictated by the Americans” (Brown, 2001). US president Dwight Eisenhower was enraged by news as it was a showcase of blatant European imperialism US President Dwight Eisenhower was incensed and world opinion was firmly on the side of the Egyptians (Ferguson, 2004) the whole situation would later intensify as the judgment from a second global power was placed on the table, “When the Soviet Union threatened to intervene Britain, France and Israel were forced to withdraw their troops from Egypt in a humiliating climbdown”(‘How the Suez Crisis Sank the British Empire’, 2016).

The outcome for Britain was a humiliating showcase of not only its crumbling empire but its stubborn imperialist mindset that was still present even during a period of worldwide imperial resentment.

This is proven by how America was willing to hurt Britain if they’d continue with the operation “They had been prepared to exert financial pressure on Nasser by withdrawing their financial support for the new Aswan Dam” (Ferguson, 2004). Americans had been warning the British about intervention in the Arab world out of fear of driving them into a Soviet sphere of influence in the midst of the Cold War “President Eisenhower – How can we possibly support Britain … if in doing so we lose the Arab world” (Ferguson, 2004). Britain’s weakness is inevitably shown no matter from what dimension its looked from.

Britain was now in between two colossal growing world powers whilst it was rapidly shrinking. The worldwide opinion favored Egypt, undermining Britain which in effect lost its former respect as a global power, swiftly being replaced by the United States and the Soviet Union.

However, Britain’s loss of global power isn’t that considerable when looked from the perspective that the outcome of the event was a showcase of Britain’s status unveiling an overall loss of a replete of power that it formerly had.

The Suez Crisis did not challenge the power Britain had over its international relationships with the United States (special relationship), despite the aggressive reaction enforced by the anti-imperialist country towards the imperialist actions by the British. The Crisis had no significant lasting damage to the friendship between the United States and Britain, something that was significantly viable and important towards the survival of a post war Britain. “The Crisis merely confirmed Britain’s dependence on the United States and had no lasting impact on Anglo-American relations” (Peden, 2012). Therefore, the Suez Crisis should be remembered as a showcase of Britain’s reliability on the United States which in the end was not tampered with. This relationship was important for Britain as the way Britain adapted to have power in what was becoming a post imperial era was by having strong relationships with powerful allies and establishing a trust between nations. It was fortunate for Britain that the Crisis did not ruin the relationship between the new superpower, as if it did the outcome for Britain as a nation would have been worse and any power Britain would have had would have been rapidly lost, therefore the Crisis wasn’t detrimental towards Britain’s international relationships on a long-term basis.

Taking all of this into account it can be observed that Britain’s status as a global power has little effect in relation to the Suez Crisis. “Suez was little more than an eddy in the fast-flowing stream of history. Nor was there a dramatic change in Britain’s world role after 1956. And acceleration of decolonization in Africa after 1959 was the result of a complex combination of factors (Peden, 2012)”. The casualty of this whole event was the worldwide perception of British prestige on the international theatre which could be argued that it is indirectly linked to Britain’s global status.

Nevertheless, it shouldn’t be ignored what happened in the UK internally with its politics and governmental crisis is significant, enough to mark a loss of status. Britain had faced both a diplomatic and political crisis after and during the Suez Crisis, the Prime Minister Anthony Eden’s character has been described by individuals such as Derek Brown as a “curiously inadequate man” and someone who had “never absorbed the simple postwar truth: that the world had changed forever. On November 19, just three days before the last of the British invaders finally left the canal zone, he abruptly took himself off to Jamaica to recover, leaving behind Rab Butler in charge of the cabinet. On January 9, 1957, Eden resigned” (Brown, 2001)”.

The Suez Crisis would see itself make a change in how power and global influence and status was contained by nations, instead of vast imperial landmass the power resided in the possession of nuclear weapons and accessibility to other nations areas. It also marked a change in British politics “Less than 50 years ago, there were plenty of Tories who still believed in the virtues of empire. But there was also a new generation which recognized the damage being done to Britain’s real interests in the new world, and which was outraged by Eden’s blinkered approach” (Brown, 2001).

What this can tell us is that it may be true that Britain didn’t lose power in the traditional sense, but that statement is irrelevant when considering that the perception and understanding of a globally powerful nation had been altered by the changing environment of a post war era and the Suez Crisis can be marked as a point of reference from when this change occurred. In this sense Britain’s status of global power was put in jeopardy by the Crisis and created a turbulent perception of power by other countries towards the UK.

Both immigration and societal issues surrounding immigrants themselves have rose to popular discourse within Britain for a significant number of years now (Kudnani, 2007). A large number of citizens and governmental figures have deemed immigration as a nationwide issue in the process (Blinder and Richards, 2020). This outlook will be analyzed to understand to what extent Britain claims itself to be ‘tolerant’ country with regards to immigration (Blinder and Richards, 2020). This essay will further elaborate on this proposal and in turn attempt to define what is meant by ‘tolerant’. After this has been established, the history of both governmental policies and public opinions on the matter will be examined in order assess any support given to the concept that Britain is indeed a ‘tolerant’ nation. Challenges to this claim will be heavily relied upon too. Further factors, such as the archive of racial knowledge, the media and the future of Britain will all be examined in reference to policy and public opinion in order to answer the question if Britain is a ‘tolerant’ country.

Before looking at the history of public and policy responses to immigration the usage of ‘tolerant’ in this context must be established. Typically, to tolerate someone is to accept their behavior or actions even if they disagree with the one’s own (Blinder and Richards, 2020). In relation to immigration, this refers to Britain’s tolerance in hosting various migrants and asylum seekers for several years now. A general attitude has formed amongst public and government for several years now that these exact individuals only bring about negative consequences or issues to country itself. “Tolerance is simultaneously a requirement for inclusion and grounds for exclusion; it is both a self-conscious welcome and veiled threat” (Anderson, 2013, p. 108). What the expression ‘tolerance’ successfully carries out is this hidden warning to its intended audience. The word connotes that society is neither fully barbaric nor fully civilized towards immigrants but rather the word choice leaves the impression that it’s an inconvenience to support and house them (Brown, 2006, cited in Anderson, 2013). However, Anderson (2013) furthers this proposal and suggests that tolerance also indicates an individual’s self-restraint of rationality over emotion. This concept supports the idea that Britain further strengthens itself for tolerating these individuals in this manner. Rather than fully embracing immigrants, tolerating them to a lesser extent highlights the countries strength that it’s more so rational rather than emotional. This mindset has even led some to believe that those migrating to the country are expected to work harder in order to be tolerated (Solomos, 2003). This was highlighted in 2009 when the then minister for Immigration Phil Woolas stated that “if someone is applying to our country, we do think that you should not only obey the law but show you are committed to our country” (Travis 2009, cited in Anderson, 2013, p. 109). This statement not only highlighted Woolas’ own xenophobic opinion but it contrasts with his opinion on already citizens. He noted they should only have to follow the law and have no need to show patriotism (Anderson, 2013). What declared here is a jarring double standard. In order to answer why this standard was set, Britain’s past with immigration and racism must be examined.

The 18th century saw repurposed and reused its racism from the slave trade in order to legitimize the expansion of Empire (Kundnani, 2007). Occurring linear to this was Darwin’s theory of evolution, utilized for the science of eugenics. This process declared lesser breeds to be destined for extinction in the name of progress (Kundnani, 2007). Thus, the concept of racism became widely respected and understandable, it legitimized colonialization and the same attention was applied when immigrants settled here. Britain’s tolerance began to strain towards Chinese groups settling in the country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Chinese individuals within Britain were being categorized as secretive, sinister beings during this period and dangers surrounding the ‘yellow peril’ began circulating (Kundnani, 2007). Fears of Chinese men corrupting innocent white woman were common during this period with the main concern centered around opium addictions (Kundnani, 2007). In retaliation Government introduced the Alien Restriction (Amendment) Act of 1919 and the Dangerous Drug Act of 1920 which legitimized police raids in Chinese areas within Britain (Kundnani, 2007). Not only did these Acts further stigmatize Chinese citizens in a negative manner but normalized their behavior to be occurrent due to their national identity. Similar policies and acts only further developed the notion that Britain was possibly too tolerant on their immigration system and changes were needed. Yet, shortages of labor after the Second World War saw the Nationality Act of 1948 being enacted where legally individuals from various colonialist countries were allowed move and settle in Britain (Solomos, 2003). However privately the government were looking at methods to discourage black immigrants from settling in the country and tampering with image (Solomos, 2003). Although, the government would deem itself tolerant during this period for accepting EVW’s (European Volunteer Workers) on a temporary year contract. However, immigrants were only allowed to stay past this initial year this if they were deemed a worthy member of community (Solomos, 2003). So, although it was a relatively small-scale migration, the government was attempting to justify their acts in retaliation to their growing tolerance to immigrants. According to Kundnani (2007) these attempts still led to the global idea that Britain was a multicultural state. However, Britain’s political authorities, such as Conservative MP Enoch Powell had the opposing mindset. His work from 1950 onwards aimed at subjugating non-white individuals living in Britain to be racialized as the ‘other’ (Kundnani, 2007). Powell’s infamous speech surrounding this was held on April 20th 1968 and stated that the near future would see black men enslaving white men if attitudes towards immigrants did not change (Kundnani, 2007). Expressing concerns that the country was already too tolerant to immigrants helped circulate public debates and language surrounding the matter. Imagery of violent migrants formed in the public’s consciousness, contributing to an archive of racial knowledge where harmful stereotypical ideas were stored surrounding non-white citizens. Interestingly though Britain’s ‘tolerant’ attitudes created an adverse effect on various immigrants settling in Britain. Many began to view themselves and other non-white citizens as ‘black’, not relating to their physical appearance but rather to form a cohesive front against racism (Kundnani, 2007). This retaliation against oppression was necessary for ethnic minorities to survive and ironically ‘tolerate’ the racist abuse they could face in their daily lives from public.

Britain’s tolerance towards migrants gained greater traction and importance when it became widespread public discourse. Developing in the late 1950’s, a shared public consciousness led to the protection of the racial character of the English people (Harris, 1988, cited in Solomos, 2003). This sustainability was made necessary through the widening issue of ‘tolerance’ that was now appearing as discourse within political, economic and social life. Ultimately, protecting traditional ideals were deemed necessary in the fight against immigration. To question why public are so bound to one another in regards to oppositions of immigrants can be answered by examining the state formation. As Anderson (2013) explains, the modern state relies on people creating their own communities through contributions surrounding skills, languages and beliefs. What the wider public do not regard themselves as is individuals’ part of a wider coalition only brought together through legal status (Anderson, 2013). This truth is not adopted by the nation state itself, due to it being rooted in a colonial past, meaning emphasis is placed on ‘national identity’ instead. Coinciding with this, public perceptions about immigration tend to center around the ‘imagined immigrant’ which itself is drawn from a vast amount of stereotypes about race, ethnicity, colonial legacies and global inequalities (Blinder, 2015, cited in Keating and Janmaat, 2020, p. 1215). The ‘imagined immigrant’ contributes heavily to the archive of racial knowledge, which itself can be utilized at any time by the white population to bring justification to their racial behavior. Rationalizing racism only further strained tolerance within Britain, creating a further divide between cultures of the white citizen and ‘the other’. This tolerance started to break at several points throughout history, notably when the racialized ‘other’ or ‘black’ individuals’ culture was not wanted to taint out own. This was displayed when black sea men began to settle in towns such as Liverpool or Cardiff in the late 1950’s, where crime was already common due to high rates of poverty (Solomos, 2003). Yet the physical presence of migrants led to regular public debates concerning safety took place with common fears that immigrants will overrun cities in their hordes. However, it has not been until more recently where the identification of migrants has become a widespread common issue (Anderson, 2013). An Ipsos MORI poll conducted monthly asks public what is an important issue facing their nation and found that of those interviewed in 1999 only 5% of people felt immigration race relations was a main issue (Anderson, 2013). Comparing the result with 2007’s poll, 46% of the population felt it was an important issue (Anderson, 2013). This sharp increase in percentage represents the overall decrease of tolerance towards immigrants in more recent years. This ultimate decrease and breakdown of tolerance amongst the general public is present in concerns over every aspect of life. For instance, public housing crisis’s that occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s in large scale cities saw clashes between immigrants and white Brits occur (Goodhart, 2004). If a family with a child in it were immigrating to Britain during this period, they were given priority over better housing away from areas of deprivation such as East End (Goodhart, 2004). However, this was not well received by white couples who had been on an extended waiting list and as previously mentioned, utilized their archive of racial knowledge to justify verbal abuse towards immigrants. Drawing from this evidence of public responses it can be concluded that a lack of tolerance towards immigrants can be common among the lower social classes of Britain. This is especially prevalent in today’s society amongst the unemployed where it is commonly said immigration strains resources, such as employment, housing and result in more tax payments (Hainmeuller and Hopkins, cited in Keating and Janmaat, 2020, p. 1214). However, there is a lack of evidence that supports the theory that immigrants pose a large economic threat over Britain and rather it is our newfound threat of culture that drives the countries xenophobic attitudes (Keating and Janmaat, 2020). From this, it can be said that publics tolerance towards immigration presents itself in a dwindling state, with a large percentage of the public blaming societal issues on what is regarded as the ‘imagined immigrant’. It is not just policy or governmental figures that influence the public but a factor that has not been examined yet, that being the role of the media. It will be discussed shortly what role the media plays and how it harbors a great influence over the general public’s response to immigration and its effect it has on Britain’s tolerance towards these individuals as a whole.

Before the medias impact on public perceptions can be discussed in detail, the definition of media and its intended purpose within this context need to be examined. According to political commentator Walter Lippman, the media’s strongest skill is the ability to shape ‘pictures in our heads’ (1922, cited in Blinder and Jeannet, 2018, p. 144). As imagined, these pictures shaping in public’s heads are being drawn from their archive of racial knowledge alongside any media content itself being published. According to Blinder and Jeannet (2018) it is a common occurrence for media outlets to spread misinformation or overexaggerate certain bodies of information when including migrants or immigration. These stories succeed in circulating discussions amongst the public and in turn sell more newspaper copies or receive more online article clicks (Blinder and Jeannet, 2018). According to Anderson (2013) this may be a result of the observer effect, where seeing others discussing and worrying over issues leads oneself to become concerned with the matter. So ultimately media outlets discuss immigration as an issue within the general public panic themselves over the listed issues and in turn supports the media outlets that speak against them. This media itself has a massive role regarding tolerance within with the majority of newspapers feeding into nationalism supporting the concept that the country is too tolerant towards migrants. This can be seen when examining a recent article by ‘The Sun’, discussing the border issue. Paul Lincoln outgoing head of Border Force stated that borders are of great inconvenience and instead should look at one another as human beings (Murray, 2021). Lincoln, in expressing his disagreement with the debates surrounding migrants ultimately disagreed too with the concept that Britain is too tolerant a nation. Rather Lincoln held that view of the opposing side while Murray (2021) from ‘The Sun’ expressed his disgust with the response. Murray (2021) perpetuated the idea that Britain could not function as a nation state with millions of migrants coming over to. Claiming that “If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country” (Murray, 2021). Statements similar to this one and arguments from similar viewpoints continually generate the idea that Britain as a whole should no longer tolerate immigrants and the general public will not allow for this to pass. However strikingly, Murray (2021) gives no factual evidence to how or why the country would not be able to cope with migrants settling here but rather chooses to continue with vague language surrounding the subject matter. Ultimately this language can influence the public’s personal and intimate thoughts on immigration and whether or not they too should continue to be ‘tolerant’.

Contrastingly though, the ‘tolerance’ that Britain has towards immigrants is said to becoming less an important factor to the younger generation of today (Keating and Janmaat, 2020). It was said the aftermath of the 2016 Brexit Referendum highlighted new discussions surrounding the modern ‘cosmopolitan’ generation of today and how statistically newer generations were showing more acceptance. Keating and Janmaat’s (2020) work was set out to explore this concept but rather with reference to younger Brit’s who are not in favor of immigration. Data extracted from a 2014 cross sectional survey amongst young people noted that over 50% of participants agreed those not born in Britain deserve the same rights as everyone else. This highlights there has in fact been a change of attitude amongst the younger generation within recent years. This suggests that there may no longer be a great pressure asserted on individuals regarding their tolerance towards immigrants, but rather a universal view of just accepting them for who they are. However, there is visible restraints to this acceptance of diversity amongst some youth. The survey found 20% of respondents would be bothered ‘a lot’ or ‘a great deal’ if their neighbors were immigrants (Keating and Janmaat, 2020). So, although some progress has been made in recent years among the younger generation there is still an underlying feeling of xenophobia present in society. This emotion can usually be erected through cultural norms that are not traditionally or represent Britain in its idealized pure white form which again leads back to the concept that Britain is too tolerant a nation.

In conclusion, it can be said there is multiple factors, influences and causes of why Britain regards itself as a ‘tolerant’ nation towards immigration. Such influences are drawn from Britain’s colonial past where it was festered in racism that translated its way into 20th and 21st century life. These colonial influences gave way to the idea that those migrating to Britain would tamper with their pure image, a matter that just cannot occur. This tolerance can be met with violence.

During the IR there were several developments in which caused work to shift from an agriculture based society to manufacturing and producing goods this change had short term and long term effects on society. The industrial revolution began in the 18th century within England. The revolution impacted how goods specifically clothing and fabrics were produced.

The most important cause of the industrial revolution was rapid increase of new inventions specifically innovations in textiles, one of the first being the flying shuttle in 1733 this device enabled one weaver to make a width of cloth it had previously taken two to make. (Cited in intriguing history 4/09/19) the spinning jenny which was patented by James Hargreaves followed this greatly increased the amount of production of cloth however the yarn which was produced was not strong enough so more development was needed. Because of the innovations the technology was no longer able to be held within smaller buildings and were moved into larger factories often found near rivers close to urban areas this caused workers to be needed and led to urbanisation Work in the industrial revolution began to evolve more around textiles within urban areas. People who originally lived in smaller rural communities which was most people, quickly began to move to cities for work. This change had a massive impact on society with 80% of people moving from rural areas to bigger cities this caused living to be cramped and unhygienic. And started the trend of majority of the population to begin living within urban areas today.

Before the industrial revolution Britain was mainly a rural based society with both women and children of the families staying at home doing spinning and weaving. This was changed because of the industrial revolution and more and more jobs being created due to innovations within textiles and other factory type production the introduction of machinery caused many new jobs for not only the father of the families which was done traditionally but gave opportunity for other members of the families such as the wife and children. Sometimes however because of the increasing demand for production and the sudden increase of population it led to longer periods of working hours for children. But this was changed when an act was passed restricting the working hours for children. The IR also got rid of other jobs. Skilled workers which included handloom weavers and craftsman were replaced.

The industrial revolution had lasting effects on society both short and long term this specifically impacted manufacturing and food production explicitly within the clothing and fabric industry. This set the trend of factory work within urban areas which caused majority of the population to move to cities and led to mass urbanisation this caused poor hygiene and disease.

August 1914 will always remain a poignant date in history. On this day Great Britain declared war on Germany. This Was to leave a scar on the landscape of the world which can be still seen today. Many years prior to the outbreak of war there was 2 powerful groups in Europe who opposed each other. Germany, AustriaHungary, and their allies and Known as the “Triple Alliance”. Opposing them were Great Britain, France, and Russia it was also known as the “Triple Entente”. It is extremely hard to distinguish one main event that caused the great war, but several things can be attributed to it. One event that stands out as a major factor was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand who was the heir to the AustriaHungary empire. Along with his wife Sophie the Duchess of Hohenberg. On the 28th of June 1914. They were assassinated while out in Sarajevo.

Also contributing factors were politically motivated. Several secret alliances appeared with nationalistic and imperialistic pride coming to the fore. European powers wanted to increase their powers and holdings across Europe, and this would not be achieved without conflict. Even though the Schlieffen Plan would channel the anger of Great Britain and slide that into the war it was accepted by the German Civilian Government (GCG) as the war plan. In 1914 the Russian Generals were also able to force Czar Nicholas to accept and use full mobilization. They threatened him with the danger of defeat if he acted otherwise.

Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism and Nationalism caused, without a doubt, the breakout World War I. Before the war, countries in Europe were going through the industrial revolution and many parts of Asia, South America and Africa were colonized. Many events, incidents and tension helped and led to the outbreak of the war. However, the main catalyst was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife on the 28 of June 1914. With Europe split in half due to the Triple Alliance formed by Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente formed by Great Britain, France, and Russia. The Great War was a result of leaders’ aggression towards other countries, which was supported by the rising of nationalism in the European nations. There was an economic and imperial competition and fear of war prompted military alliances and an arms race, which further escalated the tension contributing to the outbreak of the war. Germany, as a newly united Country, was becoming more and more powerful and Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted a strong navy that would rival Britain’s. The Kaiser had a plan to make Germany the most powerful nation in Europe, Strengthening his hold on Europe and parts of Africa. Britain and France decided to control the Mediterranean between them, which meant controlling parts of Africa, such as Morocco. Being aware of the riches and wealth of these two countries, the Kaiser twice tried to take Morocco to try to break the alliance, the second time being a military assault. But it turned out that the alliance was a force to be reckoned with and supported each other well.

Much can be attributed to the Slavic people In Bosnia and Herzegovina as a factor for the outbreak of World War 1. They no longer wanted to be part of AustriaHungary but be part of Serbia. So in effect their nationalism contributed heavily to war. Several countries flexed their nationalistic muscles to prove their power and dominance. This caused an extension of hostilities. Countries became very wary of each other and their military capabilities, so an arms race ensued as they strived to have the best armies and naval forces. War was coming it was inevitable. Prior to the outbreak of war, it was discovered that it was Serbian military that was responsible for the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife. Their goal was to have Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of Serbia and not AustriaHungary. With the discovery of this AustriaHungary declared war on Serbia. This had a “knock on” effect which caused war to escalate. Russia came to the defence of Serbia. This action caused Germany to declare war on Russia. France was drawn into the conflict against Germany and AustriaHungary. Germany invaded France through Belgium and due to alliance’s, this forced Great Britain to go to war.

The conflict was both devastating for the loss of human life, over 15 million people died because of the war. It effected people from all countries and of all social classes. It also had a devastating effect on the landscape with the extensive network of trenches which men from both armies lived and fought. Technology had allowed the advance of aviation had this took the battle from land and sea to the skies. Damaged by shells and chemical attack large areas of land became barren and unsuitable for farming.

The biggest and bloodiest battle of ww1 was the battle of the Somme. The battle lasted from the 1st of July to 18th of November 1916. Tanks were used for the first time these played a huge part in the outrageous number of deaths. It is reported to have cost the lives of over a million men from both sides. Lesson was learnt and the experience gained by the allied forces certainly helped to secure a victory on the western front.

The battles at sea were also a hotbed with both sides vying for control of strategic waters with the introduction of aeroplanes at sea. The most critical sea battle was the Battle of Jutland Involving some 250 ships and 100,000 men, this battle off Denmark’s North Sea coast was the only major naval surface engagement of World War I. The battle began in the afternoon of May 31, 1916, with gunfire between the German and British scouting forces. When the main warships met, British Admiral John Jellicoe manoeuvred his boats to take advantage of the fading daylight, scoring dozens of direct hits that eventually forced German Admiral Reinhard Scheer into retreat. Both sides claimed victory in this indecisive battle, though Britain retained control of the North Sea. As war raged on the only respite for the troops in the trenches was a well-documented account of soldiers from both sides coming out of the trenches at Christmas and played football and ate and drank with each other in “No man’s Land” sadly it did not last.

The economy suffered Inflation was high, taxes were raised, and industry was at an all time low for both sides. Food was in short supply and governments struggled to provide for the people.

The political ramifications were felt throughout the world After the war countries were created out of old empires. Middle East countries were put under British and French control and the Ottoman Empire became Turkey. During the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union emerged together with a new ideology: Communism.

There were also great changes in social society the birth rate dropped because of the loss to the male population. People emigrated to other countries to try and sustain the families and lives. The country was hit by the “Spanish flu” which again claimed the lives of thousands which in turn had a slowing down effect on the social development. It was to take society several years to return to some form of stability.

World War I was a global war fought between Allies and the Central Powers. It had become clear to the Germany that losing the war was inevitable. After losing military support and with a revolution underway, Kaiser Wilhelm had no choice and was forced to abdicate and leave Germany and seek asylum in Holland, where he spent the rest of his life. On 28th June 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed. However, France, who had suffered considerably in the war, was determined to make sure Germany would not be able to challenge them again. Under clause 231, Germany had to accept full responsibilities for the war and give financial compensation, known as “reparations”. Many Germans were outraged by the peace treaty, but they had no choice and if rejected they would face returning to war. This was not an option as the country was in turmoil and had loss the faith of the people and had no money left to continue fighting. Many discussions have ensued in homes, classrooms, and workplaces, as to who won the war. While it is Widley acknowledged it was the allies. It could be stated that due to the heavy loss of life, the damage to landscape and the turmoil caused to both sides that there was no real winner.

I can not imagine for an instance what it must have been like to go through the hell that the people of that era did, and the years of hardship suffered after the war. Sadly, several years later they would have to endure it all over again.

The task of differentiating between the racial theories of the 19th and 20th centuries can seem somewhat insurmountable. To the fullest extent, Britain was at the foremost frontier of the so-called “new” imperialism, and with it came, philosophers as well as politicians, many of whom had their ideals of what the British dominion should look like. This paper will attempt to distinguish and compare some of the more well-known theories and ideologies such as “Social-Darwinism”, “Manifest destiny” and “Liberalism” as well as put them in context with actual issues that arose during the early 19th century concerning the Indian East India Company

The age of “new” imperialism is to a certain degree a natural consequence of an expanding Western civilization, brought up by the industrial age, as well as the fact that the world would altogether seem smaller due to expansions on systems such as railroads and telecommunications. During this period, two prominent characters are worth mentioning. Cecil Rhodes, and Benjamin Kidd. These men are known today mostly as racist imperialists of one of the most heinous times in British history, but during the late 19th century they were pioneering. They both believed firmly in the expansion of the British empire, and the opportunities granted to them by the rise of the industrial age. Like many of their contemporaries, they believed that Western civilization was at the top of both physical and social order, although for different reasons.

For Cecil Rhodes, who was raised in a broken home with essentially no one to look up to, it became imperative for him to pursue life by his means through scrupulous bartering and trading in southern Africa, to obtain wealth within the diamond mining industry. With this, he was soon able to buy out the competition and amass himself wealth equalling that of the Rothschilds. Rhodes would come to see himself as essential within the ideology of “manifest destiny”, “He believed that the British were marked out by God for worldwide dominion; he yearned for the reunification of the Anglo-Saxon races and the recovery of the United States; and he imagined himself as the Man of Destiny who brought all this about.” (Cannadine, David 1998, 209) Rhodes was undoubtedly a narcissistic megalomaniac, and his reasoning lies heavily in the fact that he felt that Britain was destined to one day, colonize the entirety of Africa, mostly because there was no room for these “lesser civilizations” in his mind.

Benjamin Kidd on the other hand, was somewhat more tentative in his approach to race politics. He leaned heavily on what we know as “social Darwinism”, which was a way of justifying the subjugation of non-western civilizations due to inferior cultural, and logical “evolution”. Kidd was however on many accounts quite opposite to Rhodes. Kidd sees two different sides of the human character, the intellectual and the religious side, the intellectual side is in his own opinion innately greedy and egotistical while the religious character is what drives the social functions between humans in a fashion that is fit for the further evolvement of the species.

Since man became a social creature the development of his intellectual character has become subordinate to the development of his religious character. It would appear that the process at work in society is evolving religious character as a first product, and intellectual capacity only so far as it can be associated with this quality. (Kidd, Benjamin 1894, 245)

What drives the human condition, is that we can socially adjust through what is first and foremost a religious matter. Although Kidd was certainly a racist on par with Rhodes and many of his other contemporaries, what differentiates him from Rhodes is that his views on why the English race was superior stems more from what he sees as the ability to suppress the intellectual characteristics that would have no gain for the community or the future of the country, rather than believing that England was somehow “destined” to conquer.

Before the times of Cecil Rhodes and Benjamin Kidd, there was yet another, completely different argument as to how and why, Britain should (and should not) intervene with other races and states. John Stuart Mill in his short essay “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” written in the context of the construction of the Suez Canal and the Crimean War, describes intricately, what he sees as Britain´s role, concerning interference in a foreign state’s affairs. Mill stands in contrast to both Rhodes and Kidd, Mill was one of the most influential thinkers regarding liberalism. He believed that the individual has a right to freedom within their realm and that state-wide control over certain citizens is not merited. This is, of course, if you take things at face value, Mill also believed in what is known as “paternal liberalism” which essentially justifies the actions of a third-party nation to intervene between two conflicting states, in the case that the conflicting parties are deemed “barbarous”. His view of British imperialism was that Britain´s aim with the colonies was not from an imperialistic standpoint, but rather the betterment of the people, as well as helping states grow into what could be deemed fair civilizations, “Any attempt it makes to exert influence over them, even by persuasion, is rather in the service of others, than of itself: […]” (Mill, John Stuart 1859, 252). Concurring with both Mill and Rhodes in the fact that Britain is sovereign to many non-western countries, he deviates when it comes to what he sees as appropriate for Britain to intervene in. The wave of new imperialism should, according to Mill, not be to conquer, but to set an example and to help these. The fact is, that Mill sees this no less as an intervention, but rather as assisting its neighbors caught within “oppressive” systems.

An important factor within paternal liberalism was the relations between Britain. The East India Company and India as a whole. The pressure to take up more responsibility for the Indian natives arose not concerning civilizing them as a people, but rather regressing from the exploitation that had been so apparent in the first place, “The extravagant and demoralized lifestyles of the East India Company servants, combined with their ruthless exploitation of native material resources, had begun to raise serious and alarming questions in England about the morality of the British presence in India” (Viswanathan, Gauri 1987, 4). Suddenly there was a new issue for the British parliament and one where they could certainly not sit idle, especially concerning a colony of importance such as India. It is important to note the difference between the effects of paternal liberalism, and Anglicanism. While paternal liberalism, as stated earlier seeks out the supposed “betterment” of foreign states, the ideology essentially allows “civilized” to exist with fair sovereignty insofar as Britain has no reasonable interest in them. Anglicanism, however, supposes that a colony or state should be rightfully within British rule, traditions, and faith. This was not to be deemed the case with India, at least in the early 19th century. Anglicanism grew out of the discontent from the rise of oriental languages within the native population and stood in stark contrast to what we know as “Orientalism”, Anglican believers promoted the use of Western education over Eastern, while Orientalists, who were historians of Asian languages, literature, religion etc. promoted the idea that forcing native people to live under western education would in turn alienate the eastern colonies.

As we know today, India would eventually become heavily Anglicised, but one of the starting points for this was the reason that British rule had to intervene in the first place. the exploitation of the native population was seen as a direct result of the accommodation of native culture, according to the new governor of the Indian colonies, Lord Cornwallis, “In his view the official indulgence towards Oriental forms of social organization, especially government, was directly responsible for the lax morals of the Company servants.” (Viswanathan, Gauri 1987, 4). Therefore, we can see Anglicanism and Orientalism not as opposites, but rather as a consequence of Britain having to politically keep their legitimacy as a colonial empire.

“New” imperialism for the British empire was a point in history where the world would come to see some of the greatest pioneers in history, as well as some of the most grueling and heinous crimes committed against humanity. “New” imperialism came at the brink of the industrial revolution and with it came Britain, the biggest political power at the time. To suggest that people such as Cecil Rhodes and Benjamin Kidd, and with them, their separate views on race, were nothing more than the natural progression of time would be foolish. Rhodes, Kidd, Mill, and many others are impossibly intriguing, in the sense that human psychology is intriguing. To truly explain why and how they came up with their ideas and theories around imperialism would be impossible, but to gain an insight into one of the most important eras in “recent” history, which for the time, was very well documented, is remarkable. India seems to be one of the many remnants still marked by the era and we can to this day, still very vividly see the change that Britain had brought, not just upon the country, but unto the world itself.      

Appearing on the world manufacturing scene with a bang and a puff of black smoke, the Industrial Revolution marked a pivotal moment in global history. Though the idea was initially scorned by some, such as Indian nationalist and spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi, who preferred the small-scale handicraft of earlier centuries, the concept soon took hold. Before long, industrialization spread from its origin, Britain, to countries as far away as the United States.

The Industrial Revolution took place between the years 1750 and 1900. Drawing deeply upon influences from the prior Scientific Revolution, it transformed the economic structure of Europe completely in a breakthrough not seen since the Agricultural Revolution some 12,000 years earlier. The Industrial Revolution was an increase in efficiency in production brought about by the use of machines and characterized by the use of new energy sources. It was the human response to the mounting energy dilemma as wood and charcoal, the major industrial fuels of the time, dwindled. Though at the time this new advance might have seemed like the solution to all mankind’s problems, it would later wreak tremendous havoc on the fragile equilibrium of the environment, tipping our planet towards the harsh reality of global warming we must face today.

Early theories attempting to explain the place of origin of the Industrial Revolution nominate a certain facet of culture, or history, or society unique to Europe as the answer. However, such theories can be refuted by the simple fact that other areas of the world, such as the Islamic world and China, have also experienced times of great scientific and technological innovation. Europe did not enjoy an economic advantage; nor was it exceptionally compatible with industrial development, as proved by the rapid spread of the idea into many parts of the world.

As a result, historians today are inclined toward the conclusion that the answer to their question lies in two interrelated factors many small, competitive states established a constant state of innovation, unlike the larger Chinese, Ottoman, or Mughal empires. Secondly, the absence of a stable tax system as well as a need for money pushed monarchs of European states to form an unusual relationship with their merchants. Consequently, support of commerce and innovation was in these monarchs’ best interest.

Then, if Europe had conditions worthy of incubating the legendary Industrial Revolution, why did it all begin in Britain, and not in some other European country?

Firstly, Britain was the most commercialized of Europe’s larger countries. Additionally, the success of the Scientific Revolution had instilled in Englishmen a new confidence to push forward. Unlike other places, Britain did not have the Catholic Church breathing down their necks, ready to quash any “heretical” findings. Nevertheless, it was a natural occurrence that was their greatest advantage of all. Britain had a ready supply of coal and iron ore, which was often conveniently located close to each other and within easy reach of major industrial centers.

After these new and advanced scientific developments, British society underwent significant changes. The Industrial Revolution completely destroyed many of the old ways of living, yet did not reform them. For instance, the British aristocracy went into decline as urban wealth became more important. By the end of the century, landownership was no longer the sole criterion for the wealthy person. As for the middle classes, which contained people such as wealthy factory and mine owners, they benefited the most from industrialization. Additionally, as Britain’s industrial economy matured, a large lower middle class was born. In it were considered occupations such as clerks, police, and secretaries.

The majority of the population, however, were neither aristocrats nor members of the middle class. They were the laboring classes, and they suffered most from the transformations brought about by the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution also created a need for social and political change and ignited unrest within the general populace. Many people moved to urban areas in search of employment and money. Children, too, began to work in factories, where they were exploited and ill-treated.

Introduction

Mental health (MH) parity of esteem, an investigation into MH and wellbeing strategies in workplaces across Northern Ireland.

Good MH can be described as ‘a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her own community’ (World Health Organization, 2001).

There has been increasing research into the subject of mental wellbeing (MW), research from the Stevenson Farmer review in 2017 showed that people with who suffer from MH conditions employment increased by 200,000 in one year (Stevenson, 2017). Whilst individual’s MH will naturally fluctuate workplaces can impact hugely on their employees, either by supporting good MH and promoting wellbeing or triggering problems that subsequently exasperate poor MH (CIPD, 2018). Given that poor MH affects one in four people, it is no surprise that workplaces are becoming more aware of the economic consequences should they fail to provide efficient support for their employees. Furthermore, Northern Ireland was highlighted as having the highest rate of employees who were stressed at work (85%) combined with the lowest figure in the UK (29%) of workplace support for MH (HSENI, 2019). Research detailed the economic costs to workplaces included reduced participation, efficiency and the diminished ability to work (Dewa and McDaid, 2011), despite this, many workplaces including my own RLC UK, currently have no MH and wellbeing strategies in place.

Background Information

Established in 1955 RLC Group is a privately-owned precision engineering company that employs over 1000 staff across 5 sites, 2 of which are based in Northern Ireland. RLC manufacture a variety of aerospace products across a global customer base including both civil and military sides of the business. Sales across the 5 sites are over 140 million per year. The RLC vision is to be an organisation that attracts talented people who want to learn and develop within state-of-the-art facilities. RLC is known to have high standards particularly in Quality where they are highly accredited not withstanding providing a first-class service to their customers and suppliers (RLC, 2019).

Research Hypothesis, Aims and Objective

This research will explore the topic of MH and wellbeing and critically analysis strategies across 3 workplaces in Northern Ireland and whether the implementation of these strategies have benefitted the employees and in turn their organisation. The workplaces represented will be from both the public and manufacturing sectors.

Additionally, the research objectives of this investigation are as follow:

• To critically analyse how poor MH effects employees and subsequently their organisation.
• To investigate implemented MH and wellbeing strategies.
• To investigate what effect MH and wellbeing strategies have had on employees and the organisation.
• To design and implement a MH and wellbeing strategy for RLC.

In order to explore this further the next section of this proposal will review prevailing literature of MH from a workplace bias and wellbeing strategies whilst section three will set out the proposed design and methodology of how this research will be undertaken.

Literature Review

Introduction

The following literature review will support with developing a greater understanding of MH in the workplace from the viewpoint of academic experts and will end with a discussion of MH strategies aimed at increasing employee wellbeing.

Mental health within the workplace

Workplaces are now widely accepted to be one of the significant environments that affects MW and health (Burton and World Health Organization, 2010) and there is mounting evidence signifying that employee wellbeing at work can help advance physical and MH whilst enhancing opportunities for engagement and efficiency (Cvenkel, 2019). Furthermore, most people living with MH issues can indeed contribute to an organisation (Evans & Reeper, 2000) and want to be in employment (Mechanic et al., 2002). MH and wellbeing it is said to be improved by work, a review of studies by Waddell and Burton’s (2006) on employment and wellbeing found that having paid employment remained largely positive for wellbeing both physically and psychologically. Unemployment damages people’s health and wellbeing and although not often viewed in this way, it should be thought about as a public health problem. Workplaces have a responsibility to provide a safe and healthy workplace for the wellbeing of their employees (Schulte et al., 2015).

Research also suggests that MH can be enhanced by work, studies show that 1.5 million people in employment diagnosed with mental ill health struggle to retain their jobs, this is twice the amount of those who do not have MH conditions. Furthermore, in a recent report only 10% of employees said they would open up to their managers regarding MH struggles, whilst 50% of employees would not consider talking about their MW with their manager (Stevenson, 2017). Whilst in Northern Ireland a recent review of MH policies called for the government to make Parity a Reality (Heenan and O’Neill, 2019) given that the provision for health services is a devolved matter and the collapse of the NI Assembly, we remain the only region in the UK with no predominant MH framework.

It is clear that whilst there has been much progress and exploration in this area, there is still additional exploration needed to develop a greater understanding of workplace MH for both individuals and employers, indeed managers’ understanding and acceptance of the rifeness of MH conditions and understand how to better support employees as organisational life has failed to in the past (Schott, 1999). Symptomatic of the lack of implemented strategies the CIPD will be running training workshops in 2020 for organisations who need to explore options for creating, developing and sustaining wellbeing strategies that will support their organisations (CIPD 2019).

Mental health and wellbeing strategies

Digital Interventions

Employees will not respond positively to MH and wellbeing initiatives if they are suspicious and consider them to be an excuse to make them work harder. Therefore, promoting the right values in the workplace is important (Stevenson, 2017). An emerging trend is the use of digital apps and online tools for wellbeing that can be tailored depending on the business need, resilience training delivered online showed a trend toward increased resilience and emotional flexibility (Joyce et al., 2018). Further research suggests that digital wellbeing programs have the potential to serve as cost-effective ways to manage workplace stress and wellbeing (Glance et al., 2016). Whilst recent research states the ideal digital interference for MH is a website with a combination of support methods and e-coaching (Carolan and de Visser, 2018).

Employee Assistance programs EAP

(Berridge and Cooper, 1994) define employee assistance programs as “a programmatic intervention at the workplace, with the objective of enabling the individual to return to her or his full work.” EAPs have an extensive history of providing crucial workplace amenities (Daniels et al., 2005) and are rapidly emerging into workplace strategies, creating more holistic workplaces (Kirk and Brown, 2003). Furthermore, a large survey of over 4,000 employees with access to EAP support assistance showed that therapy had a constructive effect on employees. The results showed an increased satisfaction from under 10% to 57% of employees’ personal lives before therapy and afterwards (Anon.2011).

Mental health first aid training (MHFA)

MH first aid training originated in Australia in 2001 and research showed overall changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of those who completed the training in both workplaces and daily life (Kitchener and Jorm, 2008)During a trial scheme to provide awareness and understanding of MH for those in leadership positions participants described feeling better placed in supporting their employees in the future with mental ill health, moreover, the MHFA training can have encouraging consequences for good MH (Weston et al., 2019). Furthermore, with significant investment in England of £15 million an initiative was launched by the government in 2018 aimed at providing 1 million people with basic skills to support and treat people with mental ill health, such investment demonstrates the importance of MHFA. The campaign will give people advice and build resilience based on what has been shown to work, enabling trainees to better supporting people experiencing poor MH (Anon.2017).

Gaps in the literature

Research into organisations with wellbeing strategies in place found that whilst employees had indeed reduced their stress levels, they could find no direct link between having a strategy in place and better employee wellbeing (Zheng et al., 2015). Furthermore research into HRM practice and policies found that whilst they can support employee wellbeing, it is in fact the relationships with managers that has the greater link of its promotion (Renee Baptiste, 2008). Furthermore, research into the use of EAPs with field-based employees in different locations found that employees perceived access was inconvenient and unclear due to the physical separation(Smith, 2019). To conquer, a wide range of workplace MH initiatives are merely strategic partners of health and wellbeing promotion (Attridge, 2019) This research will investigate further what effect MH and wellbeing strategies have had on employees and their organisations.

Research approach and design

This research will investigate MH and wellbeing strategies across 3 different workplaces in Northern Ireland to gain an understanding of how the strategies have benefitted the employees and in turn the organisations.

(Kumar, 2019) describes approaching research as a way of thinking and not just a set of skills, rather a cycle of systematic thinking and the application of learned techniques to enable the research question to be answered properly. Researchers can be positivist scientifically, analysing quantitative measurable data whist interpretivists gather data through qualitative methods such as interviews and emphasis individuals’ perceptions (Valerie Anderson, 2013).

Saunders (2019) research ‘onion’ outlines the importance of how data is collected whilst the various surrounding layers act as the framework for the research process, each layer demonstrats the limitations or strengths of various analysis and data collection techniques (Saunders et al., 2019). Furthermore, I will use this model as a basis for the research design. The research will reflect the philosophy of pragmatism using multiple sources to best answer the research question. The approach will be inductive by collecting and analysing data and letting patterns emerge to build upon a theory. The data collection technique will be mixed methods using both qualitative and quantitative means. The research strategy will use both case study and survey methods, cross sectional at a single point in time and the data will be collected and analysed.

Figure 1. The research ‘onion’ (Saunders et al., 2019)

Data Collection and analysis

This research will consist of mixed methods, the primary qualitative research will be carried out as case studies by conducting interviews with 3 different companies in Northern Ireland whilst the secondary quantitative research will be gathered using MHFA training evaluation survey results carried out by the Public Health Agency of Northern Ireland on behalf of RLC. The mixed methods of triangulation approach will provide improved outcomes as data will be cross verified from different sources(Valerie Anderson, 2013).

The form of data collection for this research is case studies, using Pattons (1990) strategy for Intensity sampling “information-rich cases that manifest the phenomenon intensely.” Furthermore, the 3 companies in Northern Ireland selected for this research have recently been recognised for their employee health and wellbeing strategies.

• Company One- Winner of the CIPD Best Health and Wellbeing Initiative 2019
• Company Two- Highly commended CIPD Best Health and Wellbeing Initiative 2019
• Company Three- Recommended by the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland as having best practice for MH and Wellbeing.

Prior to the primary research being gathered from face to face interviews, a provisional study of the interview arrangements and questions will be reviewed and modified as appropriate (Bell et al., 2018). Whilst some disadvantages of this method are time constraints and concerns over the lack of standardisation, the researcher has selected interviews as the conversation should allow an in-depth discussion into the topic and obtain the evidence required to answer the research objectives (Cohen et al., 1994). Whist remaining flexible and putting the informants at ease an interview guide will be created to allow for an introduction, the key and more probing questions and not only support the researcher to stay on track but improve validity as the same format will be used for each interview. The interviews will be semi structured, one of the most popular methods for qualitive researchers (Holloway, (2010).

Given that most research questions are answered with both secondary and primary data (Lewis and Thornhill, 2012) the secondary data that will be used is an ad hoc survey that was completed internally after 13 members of staff finished the accredited MHFA training delivered by the Public Health Agency Northern Ireland and was presented in an aggregated report. The advantage of using the secondary survey data is that there was a 100% participation rate, furthermore as HR Manager for RLC in a standalone capacity this will reduce time, is cost effective and will reduce scope creep on the project plan as the information is already available. Whilst Adams et al (2014) questioned the validity of secondary data and the relevance to the research question using the triangulation approach as described above will protect the integrity of the data.

Research Ethics

Ethics is a critical part of successful research (Saunders et al., 2019) regardless whether the data collected is primary, secondary, qualitative or qualitative. Furthermore, it is prudent to be aware that ethical lines may become blurred when completing internal research and practicing HR (Maxwell and Beattie, 2004). A detailed description of the research information sheet will be available explaining why the data is being collected and what it will be used for Appendix B and C. All individuals will sign a consent form prior to gathering the primary and secondary data with confidentiality and anonymity being protected.

Business Value

Northern Ireland has the greatest rate of MH issues in the UK , 25% more than England (Heenan and O’Neill, 2019) costing employers on average 42 billion pounds annually (Stevenson, 2017). Having no MH and wellbeing strategy in place poses a significant risk to RLC financially notwithstanding the human cost as suicide rates in Northern Ireland remain the highest in the UK.

It is intended that the findings of this investigation will be presented to the CEO and RLC Board and the ensuing MH and wellbeing strategy will be implemented across all 5 sites.

Timetable

Writing requires structure (Saunders et al., 2019) this research piece will the longest piece of work that I have written to date. Therefore, Appendix A provides a detailed timetable that will be used to keep me on track. The timetable will be reviewed regularly and updated at each stage when needed.

The word ‘mercantilism’ is a term that most economists would define as a theory; this is based on the idea that the world’s total wealth was static and strongly supported government intervention in regulating trade through commercial (protectionist) policies to protect domestic firms and economic growth. If executed effectively, it should result in a country’s GDP increasing whilst producing a trade surplus.

The Effects of Mercantilism on the Netherlands

When looking back at history, the theory of ‘mercantilism’ was first executed by the Dutch (even before the theory was created). Whilst Britain and France experienced the benefits of mercantilism towards the early 18th-century and beyond, the Dutch benefits started from as early as the mid-16th century right up until the early-18th century, after the French and British started copying the methods taken by the Dutch.

The 17th and 18th centuries were considered the ‘golden years’ for economic prosperity in the Netherlands, as “the long-distance trading system of Europe was transformed from one largely conducted through the Netherlands, with the Dutch as universal buyer-seller and shipper, to one of multiple routes and fierce competitiveness” (‘Netherlands – Dutch Civilization in the Golden Age (1609–1713)’, n.d.). This surprised other European countries as “the Netherlands was a tiny country which had only come into existence in the 1580s after a revolt against its Spanish Hapsburg rulers” (Fonseca, n.d.), promptly went from being known as a population filled with “poor, sleepy fishing villages” (Fonseca, n.d.) to arguably the most powerful and richest country in the world, “with an empire that stretched across the globe, from Nagasaki to New Amsterdam, from the Artic Circle to South Africa” (Fonseca, n.d.).

One reason for this was they became the first country that identified making a trade surplus as their main objective for trade; this is when the value of exports exceeds the value of imports. They achieved this by exporting expensive manufactured goods (i.e., guns, tools, wine, salt) whilst importing cheap raw materials (i.e., wool, fur). Furthermore, they introduced commercial (protectionist) policies to help aid their positive balance of trade; this involves the government using policies to help control the level of international trade to protect their domestic firms and economy. These policies include tariffs, quotas, embargoes and subsidies; for example, in 1667, the Dutch banned “the import of French brandy and raising tariffs on silk and linen” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.246) in retaliation to the French increasing tariffs on the majority of Dutch goods; in particular, “tariffs on fine woolen cloth and linen were doubled and on refined sugar raised by 50%, while duties on whale oil were quadrupled and on tobacco were raised as much as sevenfold” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.245).

The early effects of imposing these commercial acts were mostly positive; with high levels of economic activity taking place. The tariffs quotas caused high levels of tax revenue to be generated by the Dutch government; some of these extra funds were then redistributed back into the economy through subsidies to colonial manufacturers in the Netherlands and abroad (i.e., Dutch East India Company) as well to aid their naval army. This resulted in the country having stronger monopoly power in the sea-trade market; this meant that they could control the price and quantity for which the market sold the good, causing profits to be protected. In addition, the subsidies allowed colonial manufacturers to develop new products that other countries were willing to pay high prices for. Furthermore, the investment caused the Dutch naval army to become the most powerful in the world during the mid-17th century, as “it is estimated that Dutch shippers and merchants owned three-quarters of the commercial ships in Northern Europe” (‘Mercantilism and the Navigation Acts’, 2019).

The standards of living in the Netherlands generally improved during early economic success; this is because a majority of citizens were either “sailors, shipbuilders, fishermen” (‘Netherlands – Dutch Civilization in the Golden Age (1609–1713)’, n.d.), meaning that they were most likely involved in the high levels of trade that was happening. This is evident with the Netherlands having the highest GDP per capita in Europe during the 17th century at an estimated $1381; however, the Netherlands had the highest rate of income tax during this time, thus the workers couldn’t fully reap money they made during their dominance.

However, in the late 17th century to early 18th century, France and Britain caught onto the commercial policies that made the Dutch successful to help their empire and economy grow. This harmed the Dutch dominance on the sea-trade market and naval army as they started to lose their monopoly power in the trading scene whilst the British and French empires were growing exponentially, faster than the original Dutch Empire. This led to conflict arising with the countries, which caused to wars break out. These consequences were severe as this resulted in the Dutch losing the majority of their colonies during this period; notably, New Amsterdam to the British during the Second Anglo-Dutch War in 1664 and South African colonies during 1795 as the British occupied the Cape Colony.

The Effects of Mercantilism on France

Although the Dutch were the first country to execute the ‘mercantilist’ theory effectively, when looking into the birth of the name ‘mercantilist’ and its explained theory, we have to give credit to the French, particularly Jean-Baptiste Colbert. This idea came along after being baffled by the Dutch early economic success due to the size of the country and limited resources they had. He then created a plan (inspired by the Dutch) to export as much wealth from their colonies whilst minimizing spending.

Just like the Dutch, the French government decided to subside multiple colonial businesses associated with the French and their colonies (an example of a commercial policy). This started with French investing in the fishing market, with the fishermen of Normandy and Brittany exploiting “the cod fisheries of the Grand Banks off Newfoundland” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.247), which played a major role in allowing them to serve “the large domestic market in France” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.247), whilst “relying on plentiful supplies from the Bay of Biscay to salt the ‘green’ fish that they caught at sea” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.247), so the product didn’t go to waste. Also in 1608, Samuel de Champlain founded a fort at Cape Diamond which was in-between the banks of the St. Lawrence and Quebec; this fort laid the foundation for them to enter the highly-lucrative fur-trade market, as well as other high-profitable markets like brandy and firearms in Canada and the sugar market in the Caribbean. Furthermore, the French government also subsidized their naval army, as Colbert saw the size of the Dutch naval army and wanted to match it. Increased ships meant increased levels of trade as there was an increase in the number of goods that could be transported from the ships and allowed them to create a cabotage law which started “that all colonial products be sent directly to France on French ships” (DuPlessis, 2003, p.373).

Another commercial policy taken from the Dutch is to impose tariffs on goods from rival countries and their colonies. For example, “In 1664 Colbert raised tariffs on Dutch exports to France, moderately in most cases, but more heavily on refined sugar and spices to encourage the newly created French East and West India Companies” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.245), with the purpose of this to eliminate Dutch competition through making importing foreign goods more expensive. This in turn should force their colonies to buy French-produced goods as they turned out to be cheaper compared to the Dutch, thus allowing them to generate extra tax revenue which could be used to help aid their naval army and economy.

The early effects of these protectionist policies were mainly positive, as similar to the Dutch with the sea-trade market, the French were able to gain monopoly power in the fur trade market. This is because the demand for animal fur was high during the early 17th century; furthermore, with the transportation costs of fur being low it allowed them to generate high levels of profit. Another market that the French were flourishing under the mercantilist era was the sugar business. For instance, one of the French colonies in the Caribbean (Saint Domingue) “accounted for 40 percent of French foreign trade” (DuPlessis, 2003, p.375). This was due to them being responsible for “two-fifths of world sugar production and half the world’s coffee” (DuPlessis, 2003, p.375); likewise, this allowed them to gain increased monopoly power in the sugar market. Overall, this caused France to become one of the most powerful trading countries by the mid-18th century, as just like animal fur, sugar was high in demand and valuable at the time. Moreover, standards of living in France improved as more people living in France could afford better goods and living conditions; overall increasing economic growth from the late 17th century to the mid-18th century.

However, by the late 18th century (1789), the country was experiencing an economic disaster as the government were facing huge debts. This was compounded by the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) and the American Revolution (1775-1783), in which they lost colonies in North America and Asia; particularly Canada to the British and the state of Louisiana to Spain in the Seven Years’ War. Besides, they were experiencing natural disasters through bad weather which led to poor harvest. This all led to levels of taxation and consumers standards of living to fall creating France to go broke, leading to the French Revolution (1789-1799).

The Effects of Mercantilism on Britain

Just like France, Britain too envied the early success that the Dutch were experiencing in terms of trading and economic growth. This inspired them to also colonize other nations, with one of their first thirteen American colonies (Jamestown, Virginia) in 1607 which was followed by their first island in the Caribbean (Saint Kitts) in 1623, in which those colonies were used as bases for their sea-trade empire (similar to the French colonizing Cape Diamond).

For the empire to be up and running, the British government had to subside their colonial businesses involved in this market. An example of a firm that the British government subside during this time was East India Company (EIC), as they were involved in the triangular trade. This involved Britain exporting textiles and manufactured goods to America and returning tobacco, rice, and silk from America, and sugar, molasses and wood from the West Indies.

Furthermore, like the French and Dutch, the British used tariffs and embargoes to protect their empire and profits. An example of an embargo imposed can be found in the first Navigation Act of 1651; it was written up with the purpose “to encourage British shipping and allow Great Britain to retain the monopoly of British colonial trade for the benefit of British merchants” (‘Navigation Acts ***’, n.d.). The purpose of this Act is that before the first navigation act, the British colonies were frequently trading with the Dutch due to their huge influence on international trade at the time, as “the Dutch operated the highly lucrative global ‘carrying trade’ around Europe” (‘Mercantilism and the Navigation Acts’, 2019); enabling them becoming arguably the most powerful country in the world by the mid-17th century. The British government hoped by forming this act, it would cause their colonies to trade less with the Dutch and only trade within their empire; however, the outcome wasn’t effective.

The reason being colonies largely ignored this commercial policy as they carried on trading with countries outside the empire particularly the Dutch (who mentioned earlier were Britain’s biggest rivals). Nevertheless, colonial manufacturers wanted to maximize the profits as it was estimated that the American colonies were generating £700,000 every year in profits until 1660. This continued trade with the Dutch caused tension to increase leading to the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1652, with the Dutch coming out victorious and the British failing to become the dominant nation in the sea-trade industry.

After the defeat, King Charles II decided that he need to create a revised edition of the Act, with its main purpose to retain as much money back to Britain as they possibly could from their colonies trading. This is because he realized that “simply banning the sale by the Dutch of fish in England when the national industry was still underdeveloped would be ineffective” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.242); thus, introducing tariffs and duty tax on colonial goods (just like the Dutch and French). For instance, the 1660 navigation act stated that certain goods and commodities (i.e., sugar, tobacco, rice, cotton and wool) had to be shipped to Britain, from where they would be re-exported to customers. This was due to the high value and demand the goods generated, allowing the government to easily impose heavy tariff duty tax on those items knowing that they would still be brought.

Another revised edition, the 1663 Navigation Act (as known as ‘the Staple Act’) “stated that colonial exports (mainly American) had to be transported in English, or colonial, ships and that all colonial imports had to first pass through English ports” (‘Navigation Acts ***’, n.d.). This was done by British customs officers to control the amount of trade being performed by inspecting goods the colonial manufacturers were exporting to calculate how much tariff duty tax they would have to pay. Additionally, the levels of duty tax and tariffs increased for the British colonies; which is similar to the 1733 edition, as this imposed a heavy-duty tax on sugar from the West Indies. These effects were similar to the French colonies, as this forced British colonies to buy goods, i.e., sugar, from other British-based colonies instead of goods from other countries as their price turned out to be more expensive. This meant that levels of profit that the government generated were increasing (through tax revenues), causing Britain to slowly gain more monopoly power in the sea-trade market.

Unsurprisingly, the winners of these navigation acts were the British citizens involved in the sea-trade business; particularly the British monarchy. This is because like the French and Dutch, they received extra tax revenue through the tariffs and duty tax they were charging. This meant they were able to fund their naval army, to compete with the French and Dutch naval size; this would lay the foundation for them to become “the most successful economy in the world and the greatest military power” (Libecap, 2012) by the time their second empire was formed. Furthermore, standards of living did improve in Britain to a degree as, during the peak of the first empire, the total GDP was at an estimated $683.3 bn (£542.8bn), which ultimately led to economic growth.

However, the mercantilism-inspired acts imposed wasn’t all positive; with the colonial manufacturers being the most affected negatively. Unlike the French colonial firms, these British firms were experiencing high levels of production costs due to the large amounts of tariffs duty tax, as well as being limited with the quantity of trade they can do with Britain and their colonies it caused profits to fall. Furthermore, whilst the majority of Dutch citizens were involved in the empire meaning there was a greater distribution of wealth, the distribution of wealth in Britain was far less as there were fewer people involved with the sea-trade empire. This meant that general standards of living for those people didn’t massively improve. All of these factors led to rebellion and corruption within the colonies which “contributed to rising anti-British sentiment and the eventual outbreak of the American Revolution” (‘The Navigation Acts (article) | Khan Academy’, n.d.); in which the British lost all their colonies in America by the late 18th century.

Conclusion

To conclude, all of the protectionist (commercial) examples given in the essay could be considered as examples of mercantilism, due to the high levels of government’s intervention to aid the levels of international trade. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Britain, France and the Netherlands were all economic powerhouses in their own right. They had at least monopoly power in a particular market at one point during the specified period and all experienced a degree of suitable economic growth. However, it could be argued that in the long term the British turned out to be more successful in terms of economic growth compared to the French and Dutch due to the British quickly adapting in later centuries to having a larger empire compared to their original one.

The word ‘mercantilism’ is a term that most economists would define as a theory; this is based on the idea that the world’s total wealth was static and strongly supported government intervention in regulating trade through commercial (protectionist) policies to protect domestic firms and economic growth. If executed effectively, it should result in a country’s GDP increasing whilst producing a trade surplus.

The Effects of Mercantilism on the Netherlands

When looking back at history, the theory of ‘mercantilism’ was first executed by the Dutch (even before the theory was created). Whilst Britain and France experienced the benefits of mercantilism towards the early 18th-century and beyond, the Dutch benefits started from as early as the mid-16th century right up until the early-18th century, after the French and British started copying the methods taken by the Dutch.

The 17th and 18th centuries were considered the ‘golden years’ for economic prosperity in the Netherlands, as “the long-distance trading system of Europe was transformed from one largely conducted through the Netherlands, with the Dutch as universal buyer-seller and shipper, to one of multiple routes and fierce competitiveness” (‘Netherlands – Dutch Civilization in the Golden Age (1609–1713)’, n.d.). This surprised other European countries as “the Netherlands was a tiny country which had only come into existence in the 1580s after a revolt against its Spanish Hapsburg rulers” (Fonseca, n.d.), promptly went from being known as a population filled with “poor, sleepy fishing villages” (Fonseca, n.d.) to arguably the most powerful and richest country in the world, “with an empire that stretched across the globe, from Nagasaki to New Amsterdam, from the Artic Circle to South Africa” (Fonseca, n.d.).

One reason for this was they became the first country that identified making a trade surplus as their main objective for trade; this is when the value of exports exceeds the value of imports. They achieved this by exporting expensive manufactured goods (i.e., guns, tools, wine, salt) whilst importing cheap raw materials (i.e., wool, fur). Furthermore, they introduced commercial (protectionist) policies to help aid their positive balance of trade; this involves the government using policies to help control the level of international trade to protect their domestic firms and economy. These policies include tariffs, quotas, embargoes and subsidies; for example, in 1667, the Dutch banned “the import of French brandy and raising tariffs on silk and linen” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.246) in retaliation to the French increasing tariffs on the majority of Dutch goods; in particular, “tariffs on fine woolen cloth and linen were doubled and on refined sugar raised by 50%, while duties on whale oil were quadrupled and on tobacco were raised as much as sevenfold” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.245).

The early effects of imposing these commercial acts were mostly positive; with high levels of economic activity taking place. The tariffs quotas caused high levels of tax revenue to be generated by the Dutch government; some of these extra funds were then redistributed back into the economy through subsidies to colonial manufacturers in the Netherlands and abroad (i.e., Dutch East India Company) as well to aid their naval army. This resulted in the country having stronger monopoly power in the sea-trade market; this meant that they could control the price and quantity for which the market sold the good, causing profits to be protected. In addition, the subsidies allowed colonial manufacturers to develop new products that other countries were willing to pay high prices for. Furthermore, the investment caused the Dutch naval army to become the most powerful in the world during the mid-17th century, as “it is estimated that Dutch shippers and merchants owned three-quarters of the commercial ships in Northern Europe” (‘Mercantilism and the Navigation Acts’, 2019).

The standards of living in the Netherlands generally improved during early economic success; this is because a majority of citizens were either “sailors, shipbuilders, fishermen” (‘Netherlands – Dutch Civilization in the Golden Age (1609–1713)’, n.d.), meaning that they were most likely involved in the high levels of trade that was happening. This is evident with the Netherlands having the highest GDP per capita in Europe during the 17th century at an estimated $1381; however, the Netherlands had the highest rate of income tax during this time, thus the workers couldn’t fully reap money they made during their dominance.

However, in the late 17th century to early 18th century, France and Britain caught onto the commercial policies that made the Dutch successful to help their empire and economy grow. This harmed the Dutch dominance on the sea-trade market and naval army as they started to lose their monopoly power in the trading scene whilst the British and French empires were growing exponentially, faster than the original Dutch Empire. This led to conflict arising with the countries, which caused to wars break out. These consequences were severe as this resulted in the Dutch losing the majority of their colonies during this period; notably, New Amsterdam to the British during the Second Anglo-Dutch War in 1664 and South African colonies during 1795 as the British occupied the Cape Colony.

The Effects of Mercantilism on France

Although the Dutch were the first country to execute the ‘mercantilist’ theory effectively, when looking into the birth of the name ‘mercantilist’ and its explained theory, we have to give credit to the French, particularly Jean-Baptiste Colbert. This idea came along after being baffled by the Dutch early economic success due to the size of the country and limited resources they had. He then created a plan (inspired by the Dutch) to export as much wealth from their colonies whilst minimizing spending.

Just like the Dutch, the French government decided to subside multiple colonial businesses associated with the French and their colonies (an example of a commercial policy). This started with French investing in the fishing market, with the fishermen of Normandy and Brittany exploiting “the cod fisheries of the Grand Banks off Newfoundland” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.247), which played a major role in allowing them to serve “the large domestic market in France” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.247), whilst “relying on plentiful supplies from the Bay of Biscay to salt the ‘green’ fish that they caught at sea” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.247), so the product didn’t go to waste. Also in 1608, Samuel de Champlain founded a fort at Cape Diamond which was in-between the banks of the St. Lawrence and Quebec; this fort laid the foundation for them to enter the highly-lucrative fur-trade market, as well as other high-profitable markets like brandy and firearms in Canada and the sugar market in the Caribbean. Furthermore, the French government also subsidized their naval army, as Colbert saw the size of the Dutch naval army and wanted to match it. Increased ships meant increased levels of trade as there was an increase in the number of goods that could be transported from the ships and allowed them to create a cabotage law which started “that all colonial products be sent directly to France on French ships” (DuPlessis, 2003, p.373).

Another commercial policy taken from the Dutch is to impose tariffs on goods from rival countries and their colonies. For example, “In 1664 Colbert raised tariffs on Dutch exports to France, moderately in most cases, but more heavily on refined sugar and spices to encourage the newly created French East and West India Companies” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.245), with the purpose of this to eliminate Dutch competition through making importing foreign goods more expensive. This in turn should force their colonies to buy French-produced goods as they turned out to be cheaper compared to the Dutch, thus allowing them to generate extra tax revenue which could be used to help aid their naval army and economy.

The early effects of these protectionist policies were mainly positive, as similar to the Dutch with the sea-trade market, the French were able to gain monopoly power in the fur trade market. This is because the demand for animal fur was high during the early 17th century; furthermore, with the transportation costs of fur being low it allowed them to generate high levels of profit. Another market that the French were flourishing under the mercantilist era was the sugar business. For instance, one of the French colonies in the Caribbean (Saint Domingue) “accounted for 40 percent of French foreign trade” (DuPlessis, 2003, p.375). This was due to them being responsible for “two-fifths of world sugar production and half the world’s coffee” (DuPlessis, 2003, p.375); likewise, this allowed them to gain increased monopoly power in the sugar market. Overall, this caused France to become one of the most powerful trading countries by the mid-18th century, as just like animal fur, sugar was high in demand and valuable at the time. Moreover, standards of living in France improved as more people living in France could afford better goods and living conditions; overall increasing economic growth from the late 17th century to the mid-18th century.

However, by the late 18th century (1789), the country was experiencing an economic disaster as the government were facing huge debts. This was compounded by the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) and the American Revolution (1775-1783), in which they lost colonies in North America and Asia; particularly Canada to the British and the state of Louisiana to Spain in the Seven Years’ War. Besides, they were experiencing natural disasters through bad weather which led to poor harvest. This all led to levels of taxation and consumers standards of living to fall creating France to go broke, leading to the French Revolution (1789-1799).

The Effects of Mercantilism on Britain

Just like France, Britain too envied the early success that the Dutch were experiencing in terms of trading and economic growth. This inspired them to also colonize other nations, with one of their first thirteen American colonies (Jamestown, Virginia) in 1607 which was followed by their first island in the Caribbean (Saint Kitts) in 1623, in which those colonies were used as bases for their sea-trade empire (similar to the French colonizing Cape Diamond).

For the empire to be up and running, the British government had to subside their colonial businesses involved in this market. An example of a firm that the British government subside during this time was East India Company (EIC), as they were involved in the triangular trade. This involved Britain exporting textiles and manufactured goods to America and returning tobacco, rice, and silk from America, and sugar, molasses and wood from the West Indies.

Furthermore, like the French and Dutch, the British used tariffs and embargoes to protect their empire and profits. An example of an embargo imposed can be found in the first Navigation Act of 1651; it was written up with the purpose “to encourage British shipping and allow Great Britain to retain the monopoly of British colonial trade for the benefit of British merchants” (‘Navigation Acts ***’, n.d.). The purpose of this Act is that before the first navigation act, the British colonies were frequently trading with the Dutch due to their huge influence on international trade at the time, as “the Dutch operated the highly lucrative global ‘carrying trade’ around Europe” (‘Mercantilism and the Navigation Acts’, 2019); enabling them becoming arguably the most powerful country in the world by the mid-17th century. The British government hoped by forming this act, it would cause their colonies to trade less with the Dutch and only trade within their empire; however, the outcome wasn’t effective.

The reason being colonies largely ignored this commercial policy as they carried on trading with countries outside the empire particularly the Dutch (who mentioned earlier were Britain’s biggest rivals). Nevertheless, colonial manufacturers wanted to maximize the profits as it was estimated that the American colonies were generating £700,000 every year in profits until 1660. This continued trade with the Dutch caused tension to increase leading to the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1652, with the Dutch coming out victorious and the British failing to become the dominant nation in the sea-trade industry.

After the defeat, King Charles II decided that he need to create a revised edition of the Act, with its main purpose to retain as much money back to Britain as they possibly could from their colonies trading. This is because he realized that “simply banning the sale by the Dutch of fish in England when the national industry was still underdeveloped would be ineffective” (Findlay and O’Rourke, 2009, p.242); thus, introducing tariffs and duty tax on colonial goods (just like the Dutch and French). For instance, the 1660 navigation act stated that certain goods and commodities (i.e., sugar, tobacco, rice, cotton and wool) had to be shipped to Britain, from where they would be re-exported to customers. This was due to the high value and demand the goods generated, allowing the government to easily impose heavy tariff duty tax on those items knowing that they would still be brought.

Another revised edition, the 1663 Navigation Act (as known as ‘the Staple Act’) “stated that colonial exports (mainly American) had to be transported in English, or colonial, ships and that all colonial imports had to first pass through English ports” (‘Navigation Acts ***’, n.d.). This was done by British customs officers to control the amount of trade being performed by inspecting goods the colonial manufacturers were exporting to calculate how much tariff duty tax they would have to pay. Additionally, the levels of duty tax and tariffs increased for the British colonies; which is similar to the 1733 edition, as this imposed a heavy-duty tax on sugar from the West Indies. These effects were similar to the French colonies, as this forced British colonies to buy goods, i.e., sugar, from other British-based colonies instead of goods from other countries as their price turned out to be more expensive. This meant that levels of profit that the government generated were increasing (through tax revenues), causing Britain to slowly gain more monopoly power in the sea-trade market.

Unsurprisingly, the winners of these navigation acts were the British citizens involved in the sea-trade business; particularly the British monarchy. This is because like the French and Dutch, they received extra tax revenue through the tariffs and duty tax they were charging. This meant they were able to fund their naval army, to compete with the French and Dutch naval size; this would lay the foundation for them to become “the most successful economy in the world and the greatest military power” (Libecap, 2012) by the time their second empire was formed. Furthermore, standards of living did improve in Britain to a degree as, during the peak of the first empire, the total GDP was at an estimated $683.3 bn (£542.8bn), which ultimately led to economic growth.

However, the mercantilism-inspired acts imposed wasn’t all positive; with the colonial manufacturers being the most affected negatively. Unlike the French colonial firms, these British firms were experiencing high levels of production costs due to the large amounts of tariffs duty tax, as well as being limited with the quantity of trade they can do with Britain and their colonies it caused profits to fall. Furthermore, whilst the majority of Dutch citizens were involved in the empire meaning there was a greater distribution of wealth, the distribution of wealth in Britain was far less as there were fewer people involved with the sea-trade empire. This meant that general standards of living for those people didn’t massively improve. All of these factors led to rebellion and corruption within the colonies which “contributed to rising anti-British sentiment and the eventual outbreak of the American Revolution” (‘The Navigation Acts (article) | Khan Academy’, n.d.); in which the British lost all their colonies in America by the late 18th century.

Conclusion

To conclude, all of the protectionist (commercial) examples given in the essay could be considered as examples of mercantilism, due to the high levels of government’s intervention to aid the levels of international trade. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Britain, France and the Netherlands were all economic powerhouses in their own right. They had at least monopoly power in a particular market at one point during the specified period and all experienced a degree of suitable economic growth. However, it could be argued that in the long term the British turned out to be more successful in terms of economic growth compared to the French and Dutch due to the British quickly adapting in later centuries to having a larger empire compared to their original one.