To what extent do you accept Nicholas’ defence
To what extent do you accept Nicholas ‘ defense mechanism of British companies’ selling abroad in the period 1870-1914?
In his article ‘The Overseas Marketing Performance of British Industry, 1870 – 1914” , Stephen Nicholas addresses what he sees as an mistake in the past consideration of British industry during this clip period. Arguing that traditional positions have held that British industry failed to keep its ain when it came to selling in foreign markets, and that as the period progressed, they retreated into the familiar district of the Empire, he rejected this sentiment, utilizing frequently the same grounds as earlier observers, such as the Consular studies from the clip. His other grounds is besides challenging, and his statement is persuasive, and seems hard to reject ; if his reading of the grounds is accurate, so surely he can non be rejected wholeheartedly. His comprehensive overview of the state of affairs, the inquiries raised, and Britain’s topographic point in the industrial and commercial universe prior to 1914 are obliging, and a strong defense mechanism of their selling public presentation. Although inquiries are subsequently raised, and harm is done, much of the defense mechanism remains standing after that bombardment, and those parts of it would be hard non to accept.
Get downing the article, Nicholas explains the place that he is get downing from, and explains how earliest coevalss of historiographers saw the place of British enterprisers in a negative visible radiation, peculiarly compared to the Americans and the Germans ; harmonizing to Nicholas, even the historiographers who were interested in rehabilitating British industry “have shown rare unanimity in reprobating the enterpriser as salesman” ( Nicholas, 1984, pg 489 ) ; he demonstrates this with a series of quotation marks from the historiographers in inquiry, who find assorted mistakes with the abroad selling of British industry, naming their failure to supply recognition, and the incompetency of their salesmen. In modern times, it is alluring to experience sympathetic to the claims that British industrialists were chesty, and their salesman failed to talk the linguistic communications of the states in which they were selling, or follow the metric system as used by the other salesmen at the clip – this reminds us good of our ain times. Nicholas, nevertheless, claims that that is non a merely description of British public presentation of the late 19ThursdayCentury, believing that the earlier positions have been subjected to insufficient argument or examination, and have simply entered into the recognized historical orthodoxy without inquiry. He sets himself two earlier averments to reject ; that the British merchandising techniques were inefficient, and that the British used incorrect institutional agreements. He readies himself to reject them both ( Nicholas, pg 490 ) .
Nicholas agrees with the earlier averment that British exports made up a worsening part of universe trade, naming the averment “indisputable” ( ibid ) – in 1880, the British portion of manufactured goods was some 41 % , declined to 31 % by 1913 ( Maizels, 1963 in Nicholas ) . Nicholas is right, nevertheless, to reason that the cause of this is non needfully a failure of selling ; whilst this may hold been a cause, it is non the lone possibility, and it is non possible to prove whether or non historical public presentation of exports would hold been any better with a different selling scheme. With the Germans and the Americans in the market every bit good, it is non ever possible for everyone to win ; the British gross revenues techniques could hold been good, whilst simply being outclassed by those employed by others. Nicholas, nevertheless, does non look to experience that they were outclassed in this manner. In contrast to earlier historiographers, who used British consular studies to reason that the British were lacking, Nicholas used the same studies, and discrepancies thereof, to reason the counter instance. He felt that the consular studies upon which all earlier unfavorable judgments were based were unequal upon which to make this ; the British consular studies complained about the British no more than other states complained about their ain ( Nicholas, pg 493 ) , and he agreed with the description by D. C. M. Platt that the consular staff was made up of those who had failed in school, and could travel into no other calling – proposing that they were non competent to do the ailments they were making. Not merely does he reject the British consular studies as a good footing on which to curse the British public presentation, but he uses American commercialism studies as a footing on which to praise their institutional agreements, which he had earlier noted were one of the countries in which British public presentation has traditionally been criticised.
Nicholas does this by note of the British construct of the merchandiser house, with which the American merchandisers had small experience, which he says the Americans envied, for the web of cognition, information, and supplies that the merchandiser houses provided gave the British a trade advantage over their American rivals when selling goods in majority. Nicholas’ account as to what the merchandiser houses did is obliging, as is his concluding as to why it provided the British with a major advantage.
Davenport-Hines, on the other manus, culls Nicholas’ work, impeaching him of simply picking instance surveies that support his instance, and disregarding others. Nicholas, for illustration, could utilize Vickers as an illustration of British success, but if Davenport-Hines can demo other companies in the same field, such as BSA or Armstrongs, executing negatively, does that non propose that Vickers were simply an anomalousness? It would look to make so, and indicate that Nicholas’ defense mechanism, whilst spirited, would non be wholly accurate or justified. Similarly, if British electrical applied scientists in China ignored the huge possible market of topographic points such as Szechuan, so in what footings could that be described and considered other than a failure of selling? Failure in this light makes it impossible to accept Nicholas’ thesis of difficult working enterprisers, who took all the advantages they were offered. Davenport-Hines’ onslaught is a significant one, and it does weaken Nicholas’ defense mechanism of British public presentation in selling its wares abroad. It does non and can non, nevertheless, wholly destroy Nicholas’ defense mechanism, even if it does make damage to it, and that it does this can non be ignored.
Nicholas’ defense mechanism survives the assault that Davenport-Hines launches, albeit in a damaged signifier, due to the degree of successes he has managed to demo. That the Americans felt the British web of commercialism houses gave them an advantage the Americans lacked is a major point that can be said in the favor of the British selling. If houses such as Vickers enjoyed commercial success, so nevertheless ill other British companies in the field were executing, Nicholas succeeded in showing that simply being a British company operating in the clip did non needfully take to failure – the actions of the companies themselves would find that, and there were British success narratives that duplicated abroad the success that their selling was holding at place. Nicholas has shown that sing the British enterprisers of the clip in a uniformly negative visible radiation is unjust, and if nil else, this subdivision of his defense mechanism must be accepted. Anything else of his decisions would depend on the single instance surveies one chose to see most declarative, as about each one of them would state a different narrative by themselves.
Stephen J. Nicholas, “The Overseas Marketing Performance of British Industry, 1870 – 1914” , inThe Economic History ReviewNew Series, Vol 37, No 4. ( Nov. , 1984 ) , pp. 489 – 506
Richard Davenport-Hines ( Ed. ) “ Markets and Traveling salesmans: Surveies in the history of selling and British Industrial Performance 1830 – 1939 ” , Gower, 1986