October 31, 2016


Why Not Taxation and Representation? A Note on the American Revolution (Sebastian Galiani, Gustavo Torrens, 10/16, NBER Working Paper No. 22724)

Why did the most prosperous colonies in the British Empire mount a rebellion? Even more puzzling, why didn't the British agree to have American representation in Parliament and quickly settle the dispute peacefully? At first glance, it would appear that a deal could have been reached to share the costs of the global public goods provided by the Empire in exchange for political power and representation for the colonies. (At least, this was the view of men of the time such as Lord Chapman, Thomas Pownall and Adam Smith.) We argue, however, that the incumbent government in Great Britain, controlled by the landed gentry, feared that allowing Americans to be represented in Parliament would undermine the position of the dominant coalition, strengthen the incipient democratic movement, and intensify social pressures for the reform of a political system based on land ownership. Since American elites could not credibly commit to refuse to form a coalition with the British opposition, the only realistic options were to maintain the original colonial status or fight a full-scale war of independence.

..is why George didn't re-assert royal authority by granting America independence from Parliament with himself at the head of government with an American parliament?

Posted by at October 31, 2016 5:58 PM


« IOWA, "UNFAIR": | Main | ...AND CHEAPER...: »