The Five C’s of Economic Growth: Reevaluating Wealth and Expansion in British America

Ainsley Becnel

Zinx Technologies

3/1/16

Introduction

It is widely agreed upon that there was a rapid and substantial growth of population, prosperity, and productivity in the British American colonies leading up to the American Revolution. Scholars have debated numerous theories regarding how this occurred and what forces were responsible, but few have critically questioned how it was determined that the colonies were growing in wealth—and to what exact degree. Many economic historians base their foundational theories on estimates calculated by Alice Hanson Jones, who used colonial probate records to determine the change in assets over time. A closer look at the methods used to produce these estimates reveals that the wealth and economic growth of the colonies are frequently misunderstood due to statistical biases. More importantly, it demonstrates that England’s economy was the major source of this economic growth. By looking at the economic growth of the colonies as separate from that of England, one can show the quantitative theories proposed by many economic historians to be deceiving.

Clarifying Economic Terminology

It is important to introduce and clarify the economic terms used in this analysis, as they are frequently interpreted differently by previous economic historians. The most crucial terms are wealth, economic growth, asset, and market value. Wealth is defined by Alice Hanson Jones in her book, Wealth of a Nation to Be, as anything that has market value.[1] The problem with this definition is that almost anything can have market value if at least one entity makes a transaction, transferring an item as an asset. For the purposes of this theory, an asset is defined as any tangible or intangible entity that can be owned, controlled, or traded.[2] Wealth is delineated as any asset in abundance. The market value is an amount determined by previous transactions of the asset, while fair market value relies on probable future transactions. Finally, economic growth is the expansion of the economy, measured mathematically by the rise in wealth of a specified entity. Because economics is a mathematically based subject where ratios are derived to account for its state, tangible measurement is essential to determining asset accumulation.

The Importance of Documentation and "Invisibles"

In order to measure the economic growth or market value of an asset, contemporary evidence is needed. Unfortunately, documents relating to economic activity in the seventeenth-century colonies are extremely scarce; their numbers did not meaningfully increase until the 1690s when England began to keep systematic commercial statistics.[3] The limited evidence suggests that a vast number of transactions went unrecorded.

These unrecorded transactions, often referred to as "invisibles," cause incomplete measures of balance in accounting.[4] For example, when gold was exchanged for the service of shipping cargo and the transaction went unrecorded, it would appear to an auditor that the person who paid for the shipping simply declined in wealth for no apparent reason.

When a trade occurs, two transactions must be recorded to keep accounts balanced—a debit and a credit. This system, known as double-entry bookkeeping, has been in use since fifteenth-century Venetian merchants exploited it for greater profitability, and it remains necessary for tracing the distribution of wealth. Every colonial trade that bypassed this proper documentation raises the difficulty of assessing the true nature of the economy.

Statistical Adjustments and Historian Bias

The complete absence of documentation for invisibles creates a profound challenge. While Alice Hanson Jones attempts to mathematically adjust her figures to account for these absences, such advanced formulas are ultimately estimates that cannot be accepted as factual.[5] Statistical adjustments carry margins of error. Furthermore, probate records—inventories of a colonist's valuables at death—must be applied retroactively to the economy to attain an accurate account, as they do not reflect the economy at the exact moment of death.

Beyond natural statistical imperfections, the historian's own bias plays a role in defining variables. Jones, for instance, had to decide what constituted an asset, creating two separate wealth estimates: one including enslaved people and bound workers, and one excluding them.[6] Determining the value of human capital is highly subjective; assessing the true value of an enslaved person would require knowing exactly how much work they would produce until death, leading to massive discrepancies.[7] These subjective inputs cast doubt on the precise accuracy of Jones's estimates and the subsequent theories that rely heavily upon them.

Measuring Economic Growth: The Current Theories

In the 1950s, there was a rise of interest in the British American colonial economy among intellectual elites, largely to tout the economy's successful expansion to support Capitalism over Communism.[8] Much of this research relied on per capita income—the best-known way to measure economic growth—which in turn relied heavily on Jones’s preeminent, if flawed, wealth estimates.

From this data emerged two dominant theories. The first is the Staple Theory, which proposes that the demand for the colonies' staple commodities led to an export-driven economy that continually expanded.[9] The problem with this theory is its failure to apply to the northern colonies. New England, New York, and Pennsylvania were not driven by staple exports. In 1699, New England exported a mere £26,660 to the mother country while importing £127,279—five times greater than its exports. By 1750, imports outpaced exports by a factor of seven.[10] Their economy depended instead on general trade, shipbuilding, and providing shipping services.

The alternative approach is the Malthusian-Frontier Theory posited by Daniel Scott Smith. It combines Thomas Malthus's population principles with Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis, suggesting that an abundance of land and resources allowed exponential population growth and vast wealth accumulation without standard structural checks.[11] However, a major flaw in this theory is that if land abundance alone dictated prosperity, the Native American population should have achieved far higher economic growth prior to European settlement. Their economic expansion was hindered by an absence of European mercantilist networks and technological advancements, proving that internal demographics alone cannot explain colonial growth.

The "Five C’s" Theory of Economic Growth

To bridge the gaps in the Staple and Malthusian-Frontier models, a new, flexible framework is required that can apply to individual regions as well as British America as a whole. Neither of the previous theories is entirely wrong, but accepting a simple theory without refining it usually means it is applied too generally, avoiding the complications of historical detail. It is necessary to combine and develop these models for a more accurate explanation of colonial economic growth. This comprehensive framework is the "Five C’s Theory": Country, Citizenship, Commerce, Capital, and Control.

Country (Land) The first and most critical factor is Country, referring not only to the soil but to the entirety of the usable environment. Historically, land has been the most valuable global asset, essential for sustaining life and yielding profitable resources. In the colonial context, land tied into economic growth in multiple ways. As Malthusian principles suggest, an unchecked population will grow until limited by resources, disease, or famine. The sheer abundance of earth in North America prevented the severe overcrowding and high mortality rates prevalent in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe.

Furthermore, the richness of the land provided near-limitless resources to sustain both a thriving local populace and a demanding foreign market. England coveted the staple commodities imported from its colonies, but it initially underestimated the intrinsic value of the land itself. By giving land away to anyone willing to work it—such as through the Headright system—England inadvertently provided the colonists with their most significant capital asset. The colonists understood this value intrinsically; their major expense was their own labor, making land the ultimate engine of renewable wealth. Even when agricultural efficiency spiked—such as when tobacco production doubled in the mid-seventeenth century—colonists continued pushing beyond the frontier, knowing that expanding their acreage was the most direct path to greater profit.

Citizenship (Population) Citizenship in this context refers to the active demographic makeup of British America, encompassing colonists, Native Americans, enslaved Africans, and indentured servants. Because human labor is the pinnacle of asset ownership and economic generation, a growing population is generally beneficial to an economy, provided it does not outstrip its resources. Thanks to the excess of viable land, British America was able to sustain exponential population growth through a combination of large family sizes, high early marriage rates, low mortality, and continuous immigration.[12]

A larger population meant a massive increase in the able-bodied labor force required to harvest tobacco, cut timber, mine iron, and engage in trade. As an expanding territory, the colonies successfully absorbed this demographic boom without lowering the standard of living. In fact, according to Edwin J. Perkins, "population growth was responsible for over 75 percent of the increase in aggregate economic output during the eighteenth century."[13]

Commerce (Market) Commerce is the vital artery of economic growth, as a market is required to transform labor and resources into recognized wealth. A market not only encourages economic activity but enables communities to grow through efficiency and specialization. Even localized commerce—such as a tobacco planter purchasing wheat and dairy from a specialized neighbor—contributed directly to regional economic expansion.

On a macro level, trade with England provided a constant, secure market. Under the mercantilist system, the colonies were obligated to sell raw materials to the mother country and purchase British manufactured goods—such as textiles, hardware, clocks, and furniture—in return. While this structure generated massive trade deficits for the colonists, they offset these losses through robust, often illicit, commerce with Native Americans, foreign colonies in the West Indies, and the provision of "invisible" shipping services. By selling more on the global market than they were losing to England, the colonists were able to continually pull wealth into British America.

CapitalCapital, defined here as assets available for use in the production of further assets, was the seed from which the colonial economy sprouted. It is crucial to recognize that nearly all initial capital in British America came from England. English merchant capitalists supplied the entirety of the principal needed to create the colonial economy.

This capital took the form of structural investments—like sawmills, ironworks, and agricultural tools—as well as the immense lines of credit extended by numerous English mercantile firms. England pumped resources into its colonies, absorbing staggering financial losses for decades before the settlements became self-sustaining. The colonists utilized this English capital not merely to enrich the mother country, but to procure localized wealth. England’s willingness to advance goods for credit provided the colonies with the financial liquidity necessary to build their own internal markets and infrastructure.

Control Control consists of two distinct elements: ownership and freedom. Ownership is the continuation of control over an asset; it is necessary to maintain possession of wealth for it to be considered part of an economy. Freedom refers to the lack of crippling regulation over economic activity. For much of its history, England exercised an indirect laissez-faire policy (salutary neglect), allowing the colonists to conduct whatever business was most profitable to them.

When England attempted to tighten its grip through the Navigation Acts, intended to transfer wealth back to the mother country, the endeavor largely failed to stifle American growth. The regulations decreased colonial total income by a mere 1 to 2 percent, and practically aided the colonies by utilizing the British Navy to eliminate French, Spanish, and Dutch maritime competition at no cost to the colonists.[14] Ultimately, the British attempt to assert total Control proved fatal to their imperial investment. The colonies possessed the Country, Citizenship, Commerce, and Capital; when England tried to strip away their Control, the result was the American Revolution.

The Ultimate Change: Inheritance of Incalculable Wealth Post-Revolution

While the "Five C's" detail how the colonial economy operated, the ultimate pivot in the American economic trajectory was the transition of assets and power following the American Revolution. For over a century, the English economy acted as the primary engine for colonial growth, absorbing the risks, providing the physical capital, and extending massive lines of credit to colonial merchants. By the 1772 British credit crisis, enormous debts were owed by American mercantile firms and planters to the mother country.[14]

When the colonies successfully revolted, the entirety of this English investment became a catastrophic recorded loss for the British Empire and an unprecedented inheritance for the newly formed United States. The revolutionaries did not just win political independence; they achieved total economic Control. They inherited cleared land, functioning ports, established agricultural infrastructure, and a booming maritime industry—all of which had been heavily subsidized by English merchant capitalists.

Furthermore, the vast debts owed to British mercantile firms were largely nullified or severely delayed by the conflict. The American Revolution was, in an accounting sense, the largest forced transfer of wealth in the eighteenth century. England’s worst historical investment transformed into the foundational, debt-free capital that allowed the United States to immediately position itself as an independent economic powerhouse in the nineteenth century.

Conclusion

Understanding the economic growth of the British American colonies requires looking beyond isolated per capita statistics and acknowledging the inherent flaws in relying solely on colonial probate records. While the Staple and Malthusian-Frontier theories offer valuable demographic and market insights, they fail to capture the entire economic reality—particularly the complex, service-based economy of New England and the pervasive impact of unrecorded "invisible" transactions. The Five C’s—Country, Citizenship, Commerce, Capital, and Control—offer a comprehensive framework that corrects these inconsistencies by mapping the actual, interconnected engines of colonial prosperity.

Ultimately, analyzing the colonial economy as an independent entity is a historical fallacy. The colonies were a direct extension of England. English merchant capitalists supplied the seed Capital, the military security to protect Commerce, and the commercial credits that made the colonial experiment possible. The rapid expansion of British America was the direct result of this English financial backing interacting with the unprecedented Country (land) and burgeoning Citizenship (population) of the New World.

When the colonists ultimately seized Control during the American Revolution, they did not just win political independence; they executed one of the largest unilateral transfers of wealth in the eighteenth century. The new American nation inherited a century's worth of British financial investment. They took possession of cleared lands, established global trade routes, booming maritime industries, and massive, newly nullified mercantile debts. What became England's most catastrophic historical loss transformed instantly into the foundational, debt-free capital that allowed the United States to emerge as an independent economic powerhouse in the nineteenth century.

Bibliography

Anderson, Terry L. "Economic Growth in Colonial New England: 'Statistical Renaissance'." The Journal of Economic History 39, no. 1 (1979): 243-57.

Anderson, Terry L. "Economic Growth in Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Colonies." Explorations in Economic History 15 (1978).

Anderson, Terry L. "Wealth Estimates for the New England Colonies, 1650-1709." Explorations in Economic History 12 (1975): 151-76.

Berry, Brian J. L. "From Malthusian Frontier to Demographic Steady State: The Concordian Birth Rate, 1635-1993." Population and Development Review 22, no. 2 (1996): 207-229.

Egnal, Marc. New World Economies: The Growth of the Thirteen Colonies and Early Canada. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Egnal, Marc. "The Economic Development of the Thirteen Continental Colonies, 1720 to 1775." The William and Mary Quarterly 32, no. 2 (1975): 191-222.

Hanson, John R. "The Economic Development of the Thirteen Colonies, 1720 to 1775: A Critique." The William and Mary Quarterly 37, no. 1 (1980): 165-72.

Jones, Alice Hanson. "Estimating Wealth of the Living from a Probate Sample." Journal of Interdisciplinary History 13, no. 2 (1982): 273-300.

Jones, Alice Hanson. Wealth of a Nation to Be: The American Colonies on the Eve of Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

Jones, Alice Hanson. "Wealth Estimates for the New England Colonies about 1770." The Journal of Economic History 32, no. 1 (1972): 98-127.

Kulikoff, Allan. "The Economic Growth of the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Colonies." The Journal of Economic History 39, no. 1 (1979): 275-88.

Main, Gloria L. "The Correction of Biases in Colonial American Probate Records." Historical Methods Newsletter 8, no. 1 (1974): 10-28.

Main, Gloria L. "Probate Records as a Source for Early American History." The William and Mary Quarterly 32, no. 1 (1975): 89-99.

Main, Gloria L., and Jackson T. Main. "Economic Growth and the Standard of Living in Southern New England, 1640–1774." The Journal of Economic History 48, no. 1 (1988): 27-46.

Mancall, Peter C., and Thomas Weiss. "Was Economic Growth Likely in Colonial British North America?" The Journal of Economic History 59, no. 1 (1999): 17-40.

Marshall, Peter, and Glyn Williams, eds. The British Atlantic Empire before the American Revolution. London: Cass, 1980.

McCusker, John J., and Russell R. Menard. The Economy of British America, 1607-1789. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985.

Nettels, Curtis Putnam. The Money Supply of the American Colonies before 1720. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1934.

Newell, Margaret Ellen. From Dependency to Independence: Economic Revolution in Colonial New England. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.

North, Douglass C., and Robert Paul Thomas. The Growth of the American Economy to 1860. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

Perkins, Edwin J. The Economy of Colonial America. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.

Shepherd, James F., and Gary M. Walton. Shipping, Maritime Trade, and the Economic Development of Colonial North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Smith, Daniel Scott. "Underregistration and Bias in Probate Records: An Analysis of Data from Eighteenth-Century Hingham, Massachusetts." The William and Mary Quarterly 32, no. 1 (1975): 100-110.

Sullivan, Arthur, and Steven M. Sheffrin. Economics: Principles in Action. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2003.

Taylor, George R. "American Economic Growth Before 1840: An Exploratory Essay." The Journal of Economic History 24, no. 4 (1964): 427-44.

Notes

[^1]: Alice Hanson Jones, Wealth of a Nation to Be: The American Colonies on the Eve of Revolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 15. [^2]: Arthur Sullivan and Steven M. Sheffrin, Economics: Principles in Action (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2003), 272. [^3]: John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard, The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 73. [^4]: Ibid., 75. [^5]: Alice Hanson Jones, "Wealth Estimates for the New England Colonies about 1770," The Journal of Economic History 32, no. 1 (1972): 102. [^6]: Jones, Wealth of a Nation to Be, 23. [^7]: Ibid., 113. [^8]: Marc Egnal, New World Economies: The Growth of the Thirteen Colonies and Early Canada (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 154. [^9]: McCusker and Menard, Economy of British America, 18-23; Allan Kulikoff, "The Economic Growth of the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Colonies," The Journal of Economic History 39, no. 1 (1979): 280. [^10]: Statistical ratios derived from Douglass C. North and Robert Paul Thomas, The Growth of the American Economy to 1860 (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), 80-83, 104. [^11]: McCusker and Menard, Economy of British America, 39. [^12]: Edwin J. Perkins, The Economy of Colonial America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988). [^13]: Perkins, Economy of Colonial America, 14; McCusker and Menard, Economy of British America, 41. [^14]: Perkins, Economy of Colonial America, 38.