Market Structure and the Profits of the British African Trade in the Late Eighteenth Century
A Rejoinder Rebutted
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 4846959 |
|---|---|
| Autores | B Anderson (0000-0001-8071-2021, University of Liverpool), B L Anderson, David Richardson (0000-0002-1864-3907, University of Hull) |
| Ano | 1985 |
| Volume | 45 |
| Fascículo | 3 |
| Páginas | 705-707 |
| Data de publicação | 1985-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | The Journal of Economic History (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0022-0507 • E-ISSN: 1471-6372 |
| Editora | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s002205070003463x |
| OpenAlex | W2004406933 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 4 |
| Referências citadas | 6 |
In his rejoinder in the September 1983 issue of this JOURNAL to our comment on his article that appeared in December 1981, J. E. Inikori claims that we fail to address effectively any of the six major points raised by his article. We confess that we did not respond to his arguments about temporal fluctuations and interfirm variations in profit margins, largely because we regarded such arguments as commonplace and the subject of little debate among historians. We do have doubts, however, about Inikori's attempt to relate profit margins to the size of firms in the trade, as we indicate below. The main concern of our comment was with several more questionable assertions made by Inikori about the market structure and general profitability of the slave trade, and we sought to challenge these. Our criticisms centered on Inikori's classification of British slaving firms, his analysis of the elasticities of supply of trade goods and export credit, his method of calculating profits, and his interpretation of the career of one Liverpool slave merchant, William Davenport, for whose ventures we have exceptionally detailed accounts. Inikori's Rejoinder rejects all of our criticisms, but the arguments he advances remain conceptually unsound and rely upon questionable interpretations of slender evidence. We propose to deal only with the main points of our criticisms that Inikori either misunderstands or still fails to meet
Classical economics · Economics · Interpretation (philosophy · Law and economics · Neoclassical economics · Political science · Positive economics · Profit (economics · Profit margin · Profitability index · Subject (documents · Colonialism, slavery, and trade · Computer Science · Finance · Global Maritime and Colonial Histories · Historical Economic and Social Studies · Law · Philosophy
The Uncommon market
Liverpool, the African Slave Trade, and Abolition
Market Structure and the Profits of the British African Trade in the Late Eighteenth Century
Market Structure and the Profits of the British African Trade in the Late Eighteenth Century
Economic Change in Pre-Colonial Africa
Economic Fluctuations in England, 1700-1800
| Obras citantes distintas | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 0,07 |
| Intervalo de citações | 1972 - 2026 (55) |
| Velocidade de citação | current |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 4 |