In Erik Reinert's "How Rich Countries Got Rich... And Why Poor Countries Stay Poor", he says that "an important reason for the 1776 fight for independence was that, as colonial masters have always done, England had prohibited manufacturing industry in the American colonies." (2008, p. 25)
Is the statement that the American colonists fought for independence (among other) to have a manufacturing industry true?
What about that colonial powers (let's say the English and French) prohibited the colonies from having a manufacturing base? (I know that was not the case in Belgian Congo).
Thanks,
-styx
I can comment on your third question- It usually wasn't so much outright prohibition as simply flooding colonial markets with cheaper goods.
For example, Bengal had a very well developed textile industry (industry here meaning cottage industry, not factory based industry) before the British established their hegemony. Though there had been initial damage to Bengali manufacturing output during the 18th C as a result of the collapse of Mughal hegemony in North India, this was exacerbated in the 19th C by British industrialisation being able to produce finished cloth at a cheaper price than Indian cottage industries could. Thus, under British rule, Bengal was pushed towards primary agriculture, and effectively deindustrialised. It became a raw material producer for British factories and a captive market for finished British products.
For a very detailed overview of the process, and how much each contributing factor (Indian political instability in the wake of the Mughal collapse vs British takeover of the market) played a part see this paper.