The emergence of the welfare state was, we are told, a nineteenth and twentieth century phenomenon. While scholars disagree and disagree vociferously about the causes of that emergence, they are largely in agreement that theirs is a story that begins after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. All across Europe, in a variety of different ways, states began to provide for the unfortunate. This interventionism would have been unthinkable in earlier periods. Most accounts simply begin their stories in the late nineteenth centuryii, while others like David Roberts explain that “students of the eighteenth century can certainly discover little evidence in the Whiggish government of Sir Robert Walpole or the Tory government of William Pitt that the central government or even the justices of the peace, did much for the lower classes besides dispense poor relief.”iii
These stories rest upon a fundamental stadial notion of the evolution of the state. States emerged in the early modern period, sometime between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries, right across Europe. These states were indifferent to the happiness, prosperity and welfare of their populations. In most accounts wars made early modern states and early modern states made war. “War made the state, and the state made war,” Charles Tilly famously suggested.iv European interstate warfare explains the radical reduction of the number of states in early modern Europe, and their structural strengthening. Only those regimes that developed strong state capacity emerged from this intense period of incessant warfare. “The fiscal imperative, the increased requirements posed by the costs of war, and the long-term consequences of fiscal growth may be seen as the primum mobile for the development of the state,” maintain Richard Bonney and W. M. Ormrod.v “War wove the European network of national states,” agrees Charles Tilly, “and preparation for war created the internal structures of the states within it. The years around 1500 were crucial.”vi Anthony Giddens agrees that “it was war and preparation for war, that provided the most potent energizing stimulus for the concentration of administrative resources and fiscal reorganization” of early modern states.vii “Practically the only goal of early modern rulers was to wage war,” Philip Hoffman and Jean-Laurent Rosenthal posit succinctly.viii “Most early modern states raised taxes primarily to pay for warfare and military organization,” agrees Jan Glete.ix “Military developments thus begot institutional innovation,” Hendrik Spruyt helpfully summarizes, “Institutional innovation in turn corresponded with greater effectiveness on the battlefield and the opportunity to expand one’s realm. This in turn ratcheted up competition among rival lords and kings making the successful conduct of war the key feature of early modern administration.”x Economists have recently chimed in to support this paradigm. “State capacity evolved historically over centuries in response to the exigencies of war,” suggest Timothy Besley and Torsten Persson, “war placed a premium on sources of taxation and created incentives for governments to invest in revenue raising institutions.”xi “The leading explanation for state building emphasizes the role of warfare,” Nicola Gennaioli and Hans-Joachim Voth note approvingly.xii
These early states, as distinct from more modern states, were narrowly fiscal-military, regulatory and extractive. They did little more than fight wars and seek out means to finance those wars. States prior to the nineteenth century were mercantilist states. The Danish sociologist Gosta Esping-Andersen suggests that the nineteenth century liberal political economists found little disagreement from their conservative and Marxist critics in their denunciation of earlier European states for “upholding absolutist privileges, mercantilist protectionism, and pervasive corruption.”xiii British free traders and the German Historical School agreed on very little besides the notion that early modern states were mercantilist.xiv The result has been that scholars today assert the existence of an eighteenth century mercantilist consensus in Britain and across Europe. Anthony Howe insists that there was a “mercantilist consensus on trade and power” that persisted well into the nineteenth century.xv According to Charles Maier “Britain’s empire began as a mercantilist structure” and remained in that mode until ”the nineteenth century.”xvi The economists Ronald Findlay and Kevin O’Rourke have dubbed the period from 1650-1780 as the “age of mercantilism.”xvii In the mercantilist age, which came to an end sometime in the nineteenth century, governments were committed to the notion that land was an insuperable economic constraint, that there was no possibility of global economic growth, and that therefore trade was a zero-sum game. “Economics as a zero-sum game,” insists Niall Ferguson in his widely circulated analysis of the British Empire, is “the essence of what came to be called mercantilism.”xviii Chris Bayly, in an equally mass-marketed recent work, reaches similar conclusion about the political economic commitments of those who preceded the moderns. “Eighteenth-century wars abroad had turned around the issue of ‘mercantilism’,” he writes. “Theorists and politicians of the ancien regime had thought the world’s wealth was a finite amount,” Bayly explains, “if someone got more of the cake, someone else would get less.”xix “The basic assumption of the mercantilist world,” in Joel Mokyr’s view, is “that the economic game, and above all the commerce between nations, was zero-sum such that the gains of any agent or any economy inevitably came at the expense of another.”xx Before the end of the mercantilist period, given that all states functioned on the assumption of economic scarcity, state expenditure on new infrastructural or social welfare projects was unthinkable. The only way to pay for new commitments was necessarily through territorial expansion, and the profits gained from conquest necessarily had to be folded back into the military to protect the new territories from would be predators. The prevailing economic assumptions of the early modern world, we are told, made it impossible that the emerging states would take on the functions we associate with modern statecraft. All of this, defenders of the fiscal-military state thesis imply, was called into question only with the coming of the French Revolution.xxi
Data on the British state in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries suggest a very different story. Far from marking the triumph of a narrowly fiscal-military state, the eighteenth century British government oversaw the emergence of an interventionist state, a state that in addition to fighting wars successfully and relatively efficiently, also devoted resources to civic development. Diverging both from the contemporary European pattern and from the historical pattern of state development, the British government in the eighteenth century developed a precociously interventionist state. While these developments certainly correlate with the period usually known as the second hundred years war against France, it is difficult to believe that wars made the British state. Rather, we claim, the emergence of the strong British state between 1500 and 1800 had little to do with interstate warfare. Britain achieved a monopoly of violence, a heavily bureaucratized infrastructure, and a centralized administration for other reasons. In Britain, as in many places in Europe, the size and contours of the state was shaped by political choices, rather than by the ineluctable logic of interstate warfare. New kinds of states did emerge in early modern Europe. But the case of Britain demonstrates that scholars need to look beyond the simple fact of frequent wars to explain the emergence and different qualities of these states. The British example suggests that political choices rather than war made states. And states in the eighteenth century could, if they so chose, do far more than wage war.
The British state in the eighteenth century was, we are told, an exclusively fiscal-military state. “The British state of the eighteenth century was a fiscal and war-making machine,” Margaret Levi asserts, “it was not yet deeply involved in education or social programs.”xxii “For roughly four centuries after 1453,” insists Patrick O’Brien, “no European state recognized responsibility for economic growth with social welfare as anything other than contingent.”xxiii The eighteenth century British “state did primarily one thing,” explains Joel Mokyr, “it waged war against other states, and raised revenue to pay for this activity.” Government activity “that enhanced social welfare,” he insists, was “almost an afterthought.”xxiv Britons in the eighteenth century created a uniquely fine-tuned war-fighting instrument.
This story seems all the more plausible when one focuses on the remarkable quantitative growth of the British state in the eighteenth century. After the Revolution of 1688-89, John Brewer has shown, British parliament voted an increasingly impressive quantity of new taxes and created ever more elaborate means to service the accelerating war debts. This new Leviathan funded not only an impressively growing army and an increasingly dominant navy but also supported them with an army of excise officers.xxv By focusing on the growing size of the state and selecting for analysis the Duke of Marlborough’s army and Horatio Nelson’s navy, scholars have convinced themselves and their readers that Britain had become over the course of the eighteenth century the first “fiscal state.”xxvi
Yet, if one focuses on the changingnature of the British state as well as narrowly on its fiscal growth, one can tell a different story. Comparative analysis has revealed that states right across Europe in the early modern period devoted a remarkably high percentage of their revenues to fiscal-military measures. Most monarchies in the seventeenth century spent about half their budgets on narrowly recurrent conceived military matters (not including debt service or new capital projects). By the end of the century France spent over three quarters of its revenue on warfare alone. The Danish kings spent 88% of their available finances on war, Peter the Great of Russia devoted 90% of his revenue to martial affairs, while the Austrian Habsburgs spent a remarkable 93 %. Lest one think warfare was merely the game of kings, the Dutch Republic spent over 80% of its revenue on warmaking in the same period.xxvii Most European states further increased their relative expenditures on fiscal-military affairs in the eighteenth century. The Dutch spent almost 90% of their revenues on warfare and servicing war debts, a figure comparable to that of most monarchies. “The great scourge of public expenditure” in the early modern period, concludes Martin Korner, “was the growing proportion devoted to war.”xxviii
Comparative studies of expenditures are notoriously tricky. Nevertheless detailed work on individual states confirms the basic pattern. Russia devoted phenomenal resources to war in the 17th and 18th centuries despite relatively few institutional changes, leading some scholars to call it a “garrison state.”xxix “Bourbon governments increasingly tightened their control over Spanish finances,” notes one expert, “to the point that, in this respect at least, eighteenth-century Spain might more readily be described as a ‘fiscal-military’ state than even Great Britain.”xxx “The early modern Habsburg monarchy ranked with the most awe-inspiring military states,” writes Michael Hochedlinger, state expenditure, not yet encumbered by spending on other public sectors, was still entirely dominated by the military budget.”xxxi This echoes Peter Dickson’s claim that Habsburg Austria was “primarily concerned with the assertion of fiscal and military power, rather than the welfare of subjects.”xxxii In France, even in the mid-18th century when the state took an increasingly interventionist turn, “the largest public works projects … remained royal buildings.”xxxiii
Remarkably the early modern European data looks very similar to the relative amounts that classical states spent on war. Recent scholarship has shown that the Roman Empire spent almost 80% of its revenues on the army. xxxiv The Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt also spent 78% of their budget on the military, leading one scholar to conclude that the relative expenditures on the military “resemble” those of early modern Europe.xxxv
The British state in the eighteenth century diverged from this European and historical pattern. While most European states, whether monarchies or republics, were dramatically increasing their emphasis on fiscal-military spending, Britain began spending relatively more of its revenues on non-fiscal military issues. In the mid-1720s, for example, over 40% of British expenditures were either on social or economic initiatives. After the Revolution of 1688-89, exactly in the period when Britain was radically expanding its army and navy, Britain also ramped up its social expenditures. “The period since the Revolution [of 1688-89] is distinguished by principles of a very different nature,” the Scottish political economist Sir John Sinclair recalled at the end of the eighteenth century. “The State has assumed the appearance of a great corporation: it extends its views beyond the immediate events, and pressing exigencies of the moment – it forms systems of remote as well as immediate profit – it borrows money to cultivate, defend, or to acquire distant possessions, in hopes that it will be amply repaid by the advantages they may be brought to yield…. In short it proposes to itself a plan of perpetual accumulation and aggrandizement, which according as it is well or ill conducted, must either end in the possession of an extensive and powerful empire, or in total ruin.”xxxvi The eighteenth century British state devoted itself both to military expansion and unlimited economic growth. Gleanings from the Treasury records suggest that the British state spent an unprecedented proportion of its revenues on the development and support of civil society. (Figure 1). The British pattern diverged significantly from that of other European states. In the late eighteenth century, for example, Spain’s military expenditure as a percentage of its annual budget dwarfed that of Britain.xxxvii Savoy, too, while it spent a smaller proportion of its budget on the military than Brandenburg-Prussia or the Habsburg monarchy spent a much higher proportion than Great Britain.xxxviii This finding accords well with John Brewer’s claim that in Britain “current military expenditure accounted for between 61 per cent and 74 per cent of public spending during the major wars of the period.” This “outlay” though large, Brewer concludes, “probably represents a much smaller percentage of national resources than in many other states.”xxxixStatistical analysis supports the view that the fiscal-military nature of the eighteenth century British state “is easily overstated.”xl
On what, then, besides the military did the British government spend its increasingly robust revenue streams? Our preliminary analysis of the Treasury records has revealed a wide variety of targets. In addition to predictably small sums devoted to supporting the newly established Regius Professors of History at Oxford and Cambridge, paying the professors of Modern Languages at Oxford and Cambridge, the historiographer royal, the new professors of Arabic at Oxford and Cambridge, and the “Reader of the Mathematics to His Majesty’s Engineers,” the British state spent rather larger sums on public paving throughout Britain and on cleaning the sewers. In 1732 the Treasury granted Sir Thomas Lombe £14,000 “for discovering and introducing the engines for making Organzine silk.” These kinds of prizes for scientific discoveries only accelerated later in the century. In the 1770s, for example, British governments doled out substantial prizes and bounties for “discovering how to make salt water fresh,” for advice against the disease amongst horned cattle,” for discoveries towards the South Pole,” “for experiments in securing buildings from fire,” “for making a fast green dye,” and another for “dyeing scarlet.” Occasionally the Treasury devoted substantial sums to building bridges, like Westminster Bridge in 1743. The state created substantial allowances for schoolmasters and charity schools. Larger sums were devoted to supporting poor immigrant communities, including the “relief of poor French Protestants” and settling the Palatines refugee in Ireland and in North America. The state also raised money to support the building of new churches and for the support of Church of England ministers in New England and on the continent. And, of course, in 1780, the British government devoted resources to the creation of the British Museum. The state devoted a not insubstantial sum each year from 1746-1755 to compensate farmers “for losses by the infectious distemper amongst horned cattle.”
In fact, the British state was at its most financially active not in England, but in Scotland, Ireland and in the overseas colonies.xli While the eighteenth century British parliament passed much more legislation dealing with England than Scotland or the overseas plantations, it devoted far more resources to those latter regions. There are frequent entries in the Treasury Books for the support of hospitals and for paying the salaries of officials in the West Indies. Increasingly the British state devoted resources to supporting the creation of an imperial infrastructure, ranging from building forts in Africa, supporting William Penn’s government in Pennsylvania, paying off the proprietors of lands in South Carolina, “establishing the colony of Georgia,” offering relief to “sufferers by fire at Charlestown, in South Carolina,” to “settling reduced officers and privates, &c. in the Colony of Nova Scotia.” Sir John Sinclair later estimated that the British state spent over £100,000 developing the civil infrastructure of Georgia and over five times that amount on Nova Scotia.xlii In 1756 the British government devoted a whopping £115,000 “for services of the colonies of New England, New York and New Jersey.” After the Seven Years War the government devoted resources for the “civil establishment” of the new colonies of East and West Florida as well as Senegambia and paying salaries in Quebec. In the 1770s the British devoted resources for building the “harbor of Barbados.” “In the year 1781 £120,000 was voted to relieve the inhabitants of [Barbados] and of Jamaica who had suffered by a violent hurricane,” recalled Sinclair.xliii The contrast between state activity in the colonies with that of England was stark. After fires destroyed large sections of Warwick (1694), Buckingham (1725), Blandford Forum (1731), Stony Stratford (1742), and Wareham (1762), those towns were rebuilt using local rather than central funds. Similarly the new port of Whitehaven was developed with the financial backing of three generations of the Lowther family.xliv
The British state also invested heavily in Scottish civil society.xlv Many believed that “at the union, the feudal system existed in full force in the remoter parts of Scotland. In those wild and mountainous districts, the chieftains of the different clans enjoyed almost full power over the persons and property of their vassals.” Therefore during the reign of George II the British parliament authorized a massive investment to break the power of the clan chieftains. The Whig government “resolved to purchase the rights and privileges which they claimed; and £152,037 was granted for that purpose.”xlvi In the same period the British government devoted substantial resources to the development of the Scottish fishery and linen industry through the Commissioners and Trustees for Improving Fisheries and Manufactures in Scotland, with the result that that board could report in 1738 “with great satisfaction” that “the Linen Manufacture under their care thrives.”xlvii Between 1727 and 1815 the government provided over £235,000 on developing the Scottish linen industry as well as over £150,000 on flax production. Even greater sums were devoted to developing Scottish fishing.xlviii Interestingly, as John Styles has noted, “in both Ireland and Scotland the state was more willing than in England to use public funds to encourage and regulate manufacturing.”xlix In addition, throughout the period the British treasury spent a good deal on improving roads and bridges in “North Britain.” It is hard to read the British Treasury Minutes and conclude that the eighteenth century British state was not heavily involved in supporting education or social programs or that social welfare was an afterthought.l
These expenditures in Scotland and the colonies were not thinly disguised military expenditures. The British government did spend, and spend substantially on the military in those areas, but those expenditures were included as part of the military not civil budget. In Georgia, for example, James Oglethorpe explained that “The expense here for the year for the improvement of the colony, the civil government and presents to the Indians cannot be brought under £5000 for the year.” These expenditures, unlike the military expenditures needed to be discussed and approved in Parliament.li The Georgia Trustees made clear that the money they demanded from Parliament was “necessary to defray the expense of the Civil government, maintaining persons newly arrived, preserving a good harmony with and supporting the Indians, and carrying on the other improvements of the province such as raising of silk, wine, oil, and other produces; the expense whereof private persons are not able to bear.”lii In Jamaica, too, Britons were well aware of the distinction between military and civic costs. In total, it was thought, the British government spent £30,000 per year to maintain Jamaica, of which slightly over half was spent on the military to protect the island from Spanish attacks and to defend the sugar plantations from Maroon attacks.liii In Scotland, too, British treasury officials drew sharp distinctions between expenditures to promote development, and costs incurred to secure the country against French invasion and Jacobite uprisings. “As to the roads in the Highlands in Scotland,” Sinclair noted, “they were for many years included among the extraordinary expenses of the army, and were not separately voted.”liv If anything, analysis of the Treasury reports underestimates colonial civil expenditures, since the payment of civilian colonial officers was included in the civil list.
The contrast with French colonial expenditures was stark. Canada and Ile Royale were supported out of the French naval budget. In her careful analysis of French expenditures, Catherine Desbarats, has demonstrated the almost exclusive French outlays on the colonial military. This was because, as she notes, “if Canada, and later Louisiana and Ile Royale, held initial promise as trade good valuable to both public and private purses, by the 1750s naval officials viewed New France in almost purely military and strategic terms.”lv
This description, in fact, significantly underestimates the British state’s promotion of social welfare. Whereas in the colonies the government spent directly on creating infrastructure, in England the government was much more likely to facilitate local or private spending. In England, the government was extremely cautious not to offend local sensibilities and local traditions. Parliament passed numerous pieces of legislation that while they cost the central government little, had a great effect. The 1723 Workhouse Act, for example, was “a permissive act” which resulted in “a powerful current” of new workhouse foundations.lvi The Workhouse act along with other permissive measures meant that “the expenditure on the poor doubled in real terms” between 1696 and 1750.lvii The Bank of England, we now know, provided a large number of loans to support the development of manufactures.lviii Similarly the explosion of acts for improving road and rivers after 1688 led to a massive increase in infrastructural investment by non-central state actors.lix This local expenditure was not unusual in early modern Europe. Localities had long taken responsibility for the poor, and in the Dutch Republic there is strong evidence that local investment was increasingly effective.lx
Why did the British state diverge from the European and historical pattern of state expenditures? Why did the eighteenth century British state spend relatively more on these kinds of activities? Our claim is that the Revolution of 1688-89 marked a revolutionary change in the nature of the British state.lxi Interestingly social and economic issues were a central concern of Parliament both before and after 1688. While Parliament sat for a dramatically larger number of days after 1688, the House of Commons devoted as much time to fiscal-military and non fiscal-military issues both before and after the Revolution. (Figure 2) What changed after the Revolution was not what MPs discussed, but the ability of Parliament to act on those discussions. After 1688-1689 Parliament passed more and more bills into law. (Figure 3)