Global and local forces in deindustrialization: the case of cotton cloth in East Africa’s Lower Shire Valley

ABSTRACT

Numerous scholars have suggested that nineteenth-century industrial decline in the global “periphery” was driven by externally wrought global forces that promoted cash-crop agriculture and dis-incentivized local industry, particularly strong global demand for tropical agricultural commodities and increasing competition with imports of cheap, factory-produced manufactures from industrializing regions. To what extent did global market forces affect production choices, and to what degree did local forces guide outcomes? The deindustrialization process is investigated through a case study of Malawi’s Lower Shire Valley, where the Mang’anja cloth industry declined – and cash-crop production began – in the second half of the nineteenth century. I demonstrate that changing production choices were not directly motivated by global market opportunities. Indeed, other cloth-producing sub-Saharan African regions faced nineteenth-century global forces but did not deindustrialize. Rather, economic change in the valley was stimulated by local factor-endowment shifts precipitated by both global and local forces. Labour declined sharply due to slave raiding and famine, while supplies of fertile land increased due to environmental change. Within this altered context, Mang’anja villagers responded by abandoning labour-intensive cloth production in favour of cash-crop cultivation. In more labour-abundant African regions, on the other hand, cloth production continued to thrive alongside cash-crop exports. The mechanisms behind deindustrialization can only be understood through careful local-level examination of the local contexts that influenced responses to broader global processes.

KEYWORDS:

• Deindustrialization
• cotton cloth
• East Africa
• global
• local

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Eastern African Studies along with Ewout Frankema, Elise van Nederveen Meerkerk, Kazuo Kobayashi, William Gervase Clarence-Smith, Gareth Austin, and Pieter Woltjer for their indispensable comments as this article developed.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID

Katharine Frederick http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8599-2624

Notes

1. Also known as machira.

2. For production descriptions, see Livingstone, Narrative, 102, 123. For trade, see Pearson, Port Cities and Intruders, 122; Machado, “Networks,” 109; Isaacman, The Zambezi Prazos, 66, 73; and Alpers, Ivory, 55. Rowley, Story, 195; Mandala, Work, 48–9; Davison and Harries, “Cotton,” 187.

3. See Clarence-Smith, “Textile;” van Nederveen Meerkerk, “Java;” van der Eng, “Indonesia;” Roy, “Indian Weaving;” and Haynes, India.

4. In the context of this study, “industry” refers to handicraft production.

5. Williamson, Trade and Poverty, 27.

6. See Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa; Sheriff, Zanzibar; and Amin, “Underdevelopment.” For the impact of India’s cloth trade, see Palat and Wallerstein, “India,” 36–7. See also Kjekshus, 106, 109.

7. See Wrigley, Uganda; Freund and Shenton, “Vent-for-Surplus Theory.”

8. Denemark and Thomas, “Debate,” 49, 57–9 and Brenner, “Origins,” 91.

9. Mandala ventures that by the mid-nineteenth century, “Only those Mang’anja without easy access to foreign calico combined […] cotton and food cultivation on the mphala with dimba agriculture” and argues that “few branches [of the non-agricultural sector] survived the onslaught of foreign imports” with the cloth industry on the “verge of a total collapse” by the first years of the 1880s. More generally, he suggests that domestic production of pottery, salt, iron and cloth “declined as manufactured products penetrated rural markets” (on ecological factors: Mandala, Work, 8–11, 94–5, 270–72; for the impact of merchant capital and imports on domestic industry: Mandala, Work, pp. 293, 137 and 56, also 43–44, 92; Mandala, “Capitalism,” 147, 148; Mandala, “Cotton,” 30).

10. Krugman, Obstfeld, and Melitz, Economics, 80.

11. Tosh, “Lango,” 417 and Austin, “Resources,” 588.

12. Widgren, “Geography,” 3–4; Beinart, “Environmental History,” 269, 287; and Vansina, Paths, 255.

13. Livingstone, Narrative, 381 and Rowley, Story, 112. By the early 1880s, Morrison saw Mang’anja villagers using bark cloth if they could not obtain imported cotton cloth (cited in Mandala, Work, 92, 308n136). By the start of the colonial period (1891) officials commented on the absence of what was once “universal” cotton cultivation for local cloth production (Johnston, First Three Years and Duff, Nyasaland, 306).

14. The pre-colonial figures do not include smaller amounts of fancy cloth exported by Muscat and Germany and consumed primarily by coastal people and interior elites. Rigby, “Report,” 8 and Hardinge, Report for the Year 1896, 8.

15. Mandala, Work, 40 and Frederick, Limits.

16. Frederick, What Drove; Burton, “Lake Regions,” 429, 431; Portal, Report, 11; and Bureau of Manufactures, “German East Africa,” 777.

17. Imports into western Africa were probably still higher than depicted in Figure 1 as these regional statistics only include British cloth imports.

18. Alpers, “Benaadir,” 79–97.

19. Rigby, “Report,” 9.

20. Mandala, Work, 41. James Stewart alleged that Livingstone had overstated the valley’s cotton culture. Mandala notes that Livingstone had motives to present the valley’s cotton cultivation in a positive light but also points out that Stewart visited later, in 1862–63, when productivity-stalling famine and slave raiding had ravaged the region (Mandala, Work, 41–3, 293–4). John Kirk, a botanist accompanying the Livingstone expedition, gave a detailed description of regional cotton cultivation from 1858–60 that supports Livingstone’s favorable account. He reported that in the Lower Zambezi region, where already “the slave trade and war ha[d] combined to desolate this rich country,” only some wild cotton was found growing. But in the Lower Shire Valley, which was at that time less affected, he reported extensive cotton cultivation for the “manufacture of cloths [which] all engage in […] from the chief to the poor people” (John Kirk, “Report,” 25–30).

21. Mandala, “Capitalism,” 139–42.

22. For the “disaster economy” concept, see Johnson, “Cotton Imperialism,” 180. In the north of the valley, villagers sought protection from armed Makololo immigrants, who subsequently established authoritarian control. This article focuses on the independent south, which retained autonomy.

23. Livingstone, Narrative, 381.

24. Ibid. See also Rowley, Story, 112.

25. Mandala, Work, 7, 44, 76–8.

26. Livingstone, Narrative, 450; see also Foskett, Zambesi, 500 and Rowley, Story, 363–84.

27. Rigby, “Report,” 9.

28. See Rowley, Story, 384 and Anderson-Morshead, Mission, 39.

29. Livingstone, Narrative, 471.

30. Ibid., 202, 206, 407, 473, 593–4; Rowley, Story, 92–3 and McCracken, Malawi, 32.

31. According to Mandala, in the Lower Shire Valley, “Male and female labor prevailed in different stages of cloth-making. Women spun cotton, and men wove it into cloth” (Mandala, “Capitalism,” 141). Elsewhere, however, he reports that male labor dominated in all aspects of cloth production with occasional female assistance (Mandala, Work, 41; Livingstone, Narrative, 112).

32. Mandala, Work, 47–8.

33. Lovejoy, Transformations, 229.

34. Vaughan, “Food Production,” 355–7.

35. Alpers, “Benaadir,” 80, 87–8.

36. See van Nederveen Meerkerk, “Java;” van der Eng, “Indonesia;” Haynes, India; and Roy, “Indian Weaving.”

37. Alpers, Ivory, 25.

38. Singer, “Demographic,” 253–4.

39. Johnson, “Technology,” 267.

40. Nicholson, “Fluctuations,” 227 (Appendix A). Mandala, Work, 6-7.

41. Murray, Nyasaland, 67.

42. Livingstone, Narrative, 78 and Mandala, “Capitalism,” 154.

43. Rowley noted flooding from late October to early May in the 1860s, but 20 years later flood waters only persisted from late December to February. Sieger reported water-level decline from the mid-1870s, and Kerr witnessed increasing marshland exposure. See Rowley, Story, 62 and Mandala, Work, 7; Sieger, “Schwankungen Der Innerafrikanischen Seen;” Kerr, Interior; and Nicholson, “Fluctuations.”

44. Shire water levels are affected by rainfall patterns in southern Tanzania. Nicholson, “Fluctuations,” 218–22.

45. The once-per-annum labour required to clear freshly exposed marshlands now facilitated two planting cycles. For the three-season system, see Mandala, “Cotton,” 27 and Mandala, Work, 7, 58–9, 94–5.

46. Mandala, Work, 93.

47. Nicholson, “Climatology,” 258 and Nicholson, “Fluctuations,” 214–6.

48. Tosh, “Revolution,” 83.

49. Livingstone, Narrative, 472.

50. A limited system of servitude (ukapolo) did exist in the valley prior to the slave raids of the 1860s but largely disappeared in the post-slave-raid period. Akapolo laborers were traditionally not engaged in industrial branches of the economy (Mandala, Work, 32–6, 97). On the region of Sena settlement, see Mandala, Work, 95; Rowley, Story, 62–3.

51. Pankhurst and Johnson, “Famine,” 54–6. In fact, Ethiopia may have been experiencing over-population prior to the 1880s.

52. Sheriff, Zanzibar, 71, 134 and Mandala, Work, 93.

53. Murray, Nyasaland, 44.

54. McCracken, Malawi, 198 and Murray, Nyasaland, 71.

55. Farnie, Cotton, 135–70.

56. For example, in nineteenth-century Tanzania, this dynamic significantly depressed the terms of trade for ivory (relative to imported cloth) in the interior from which the valuable export came, while far more favorable terms of trade surged on the coast, primarily enjoyed by the coastal merchants who ultimately exported the ivory abroad. Frederick, Limits.

57. Tosh, “Lango,” 428 and Mandala, Work, 55. Dryland-produced cotton demanded considerable weeding labour since the short native thonje-kaja cotton could not be intercropped as it would be overshadowed by taller food crops. Harvest was also time-consuming because thonje-kaja adhered tightly to its seeds. Labour-intensity later declined when taller foreign cotton species were introduced as cash crops and intercropped in marshland fields (discussion below).

58. Livingstone, Narrative, 397.

59. Wallis, Expedition, 155.

60. See Figure 1; Mandala, Work, 95, 309.

61. Livingstone, Narrative, 112.

62. Port Herald District Annual Report, 1932 as quoted in Mandala, Work, 134.

63. Johnston, First Three Years.

64. Similarly, the Langi in Uganda initially produced cash-crop oilseeds partly because they could serve as a food source. Later, when production of non-edible cash crops took off in the Lower Shire Valley, villagers often neglected export-oriented crops to focus on food production. Tosh, “Revolution,” 85–6, 428; Nyasaland, 1907–8, 12; Nyasaland, 1908–9, 9; and Nyasaland, 1919–20, 7.

65. Tosh, “Revolution,” 85–6.

66. Intercropping significantly reduces labour inputs relative to sole cropping (i.e. growing different crops in separate fields) since weeding is performed in a single operation. Intercropped plants are also less vulnerable to disease due to greater ecological diversity, increasing overall yield potential. See Richards, Indigenous, 66–9. For intercropped subsistence crops planted in the valley, see Livingstone, Narrative, 111 and Murray, Nyasaland, 70.

67. Davison, “Women,” 410 and Mandala, “Cotton,” 30–1.

68. McCracken, Malawi, 88; see cloth-price sources for Figure 2.

69. Mandala, Work, 94, 111–32.

70. Sharpe, Report, 13–4.

71. Mandala, Work, 176 and British Central Africa Protectorate, 1906–7, 5.

72. Livingstone, Narrative, 111.

73. Johnston, First Three Years.

74. Green, Highlands, 11, 21 and McCracken, Malawi, 90, 91.

75. British Central Africa Protectorate, 1904–5, 10 and British Central Africa Protectorate, 1905–6, 13. Mandala, Work, 134–140.

76. Mandala, Work, 7.

77. Mandala, Work, 55, 135, 139.

78. Austin, “Resources,” 597–8, 603.

79. E.g. in Nigeria, Ghana and Senegal. See Austin, “Manufacturing,” 209–13 and Kriger, Cloth, 45–7.

80. Pankhurst, Ethiopia, 261.

81. As a counter-example, diminished agricultural opportunities in Java – caused by land constraints and declining agricultural prices – encouraged a 1930s resurgence of labour-intensive cloth-making. See van Nederveen Meerkerk, “Java,” 25–6.

82. Mandala, Work, 94–5 and Mandala, “Capitalism,” 149.

83. Livingstone, Narrative, 102, 123.

84. This reasoning is inspired by Austin, “Resources,” 603.

85. Johnson, “Technology,” 260; Austin, “Manufacturing,” 206–7; and Alpers, “Benaadir,” 81.

86. Austin, “Manufacturing,” 206.

87. Lovejoy, Transformations, 149.

88. Lovejoy, “Plantations,” 342–7, 356–9.

89. Casanelli, “Somaliland;” Alpers, “Benaadir,” 83, 85, 90; Clarence-Smith, “Textile,” 267; and Sheriff, Zanzibar, 71–2.

90. Mandala, Work, 97.

91. Nyasaland, 1927, 12 and Pankhurst, Ethiopia, 261–2.

92. Davison, “Women,” 411 and Duly, “Notes.”

93. Mandala, Work, 7, 177.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by a Graduate Programme grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) awarded by the N. W. Posthumus Institute.