Origins of the First Era of Globalization 401 do not behave as monolithic actors,such scholars examine the interplay of ideas, interests,and institutions within Britain.These scholars all confront the correla- tion between the meteoric rise of Smith's ideas and the commercial reforms of the 1780s. Traditionally,scholars assumed that Smith's ideas must have sparked the reforms. They point to the reforms'Smithian character and the homage that leading reform- ers paid to Smith.All these scholars concede,however,that this intellectual re- orientation followed after Britain lost the fight to keep its American colonies.30 This concession has prompted materialists to insist that Smith's ideas were embraced because they fit Britain's new circumstances.For centuries,the story goes,London's policymakers had been in the pockets of England's "merchants and manufacturers."Fearful of international competition,these special interests promoted mercantilism as an intellectual justification for protecting them from foreign competitors and developing complementary colonies "as captive markets and monopolized suppliers."3 By the middle of the eighteenth century,however, keeping the colonies within the system had become remarkably expensive while British industry and trade were becoming competitive abroad.Entrenched inter- ests hesitated to abandon the system that served them so well,but military defeat made American independence "inevitable."32 With the American colonies lost, British policymakers had to reconsider their commercial strategy.33 Thus,the reforms were really attempts to find new revenue streams,to keep the American market open,and to open new foreign markets-so-called "free trade imperial- ism."34 When these policymakers discovered the serendipitous fit between their policies and Smith's prescriptions,they retroactively anointed him the progenitor of their movement.35 Thus the timing of Britain's shift from mercantilism to laissez-faire proves cru- cial.Smith had been lobbying leading policymakers to abandon the mercantilist project in America since the 1760s.After repeated failures,he took to the presses, publishing his Wealth of Nations shortly before the Americans declared indepen- dence.According to all previous accounts,however,Smith's ideas were embraced only after the military contest in America had been decided.If this were true,it would be difficult not to conclude that the shocking loss of the American colonies played a critical role in the adoption of Smith's ideas. 30.See Heckscher 1922,19-21;Harlow 1952,223,228,488-89;Crowley 1993;and Hamilton 2008. 31.Crowley 1993,xiii. 32.Harlow1952,210-28. 33.See ibid..228:and Willis 1979.528. 34.See Fay 1934;Gallagher and Robinson 1953;Harlow 1952,201,210,228;Henderson 1957; and Semmel 1970,7-8. 35.Ehrman 1962,49;Willis 1979;and Ritcheson 1983 emphasize policymakers'opportunistic use of Smith's arguments and limited implementation of his prescriptions.Others argue that the esteem accorded to Smith's Wealth of Nations resulted from Britain's shift toward liberalism rather than vice versa.See Teichgraeber 1987,360;Crowley 1990,340;and Rashid 1998.do not behave as monolithic actors, such scholars examine the interplay of ideas, interests, and institutions within Britain+ These scholars all confront the correla￾tion between the meteoric rise of Smith’s ideas and the commercial reforms of the 1780s+ Traditionally, scholars assumed that Smith’s ideas must have sparked the reforms+ They point to the reforms’ Smithian character and the homage that leading reform￾ers paid to Smith+ All these scholars concede, however, that this intellectual re￾orientation followed after Britain lost the fight to keep its American colonies+ 30 This concession has prompted materialists to insist that Smith’s ideas were embraced because they fit Britain’s new circumstances+ For centuries, the story goes, London’s policymakers had been in the pockets of England’s “merchants and manufacturers+” Fearful of international competition, these special interests promoted mercantilism as an intellectual justification for protecting them from foreign competitors and developing complementary colonies “as captive markets and monopolized suppliers+”31 By the middle of the eighteenth century, however, keeping the colonies within the system had become remarkably expensive while British industry and trade were becoming competitive abroad+ Entrenched inter￾ests hesitated to abandon the system that served them so well, but military defeat made American independence “inevitable+”32 With the American colonies lost, British policymakers had to reconsider their commercial strategy+ 33 Thus, the reforms were really attempts to find new revenue streams, to keep the American market open, and to open new foreign markets—so-called “free trade imperial￾ism+”34 When these policymakers discovered the serendipitous fit between their policies and Smith’s prescriptions, they retroactively anointed him the progenitor of their movement+ 35 Thus the timing of Britain’s shift from mercantilism to laissez-faire proves cru￾cial+ Smith had been lobbying leading policymakers to abandon the mercantilist project in America since the 1760s+ After repeated failures, he took to the presses, publishing his Wealth of Nations shortly before the Americans declared indepen￾dence+ According to all previous accounts, however, Smith’s ideas were embraced only after the military contest in America had been decided+ If this were true, it would be difficult not to conclude that the shocking loss of the American colonies played a critical role in the adoption of Smith’s ideas+ 30+ See Heckscher 1922, 19–21; Harlow 1952, 223, 228, 488–89; Crowley 1993; and Hamilton 2008+ 31+ Crowley 1993, xiii+ 32+ Harlow 1952, 210–28+ 33+ See ibid+, 228; and Willis 1979, 528+ 34+ See Fay 1934; Gallagher and Robinson 1953; Harlow 1952, 201, 210, 228; Henderson 1957; and Semmel 1970, 7–8+ 35+ Ehrman 1962, 49; Willis 1979; and Ritcheson 1983 emphasize policymakers’ opportunistic use of Smith’s arguments and limited implementation of his prescriptions+ Others argue that the esteem accorded to Smith’s Wealth of Nations resulted from Britain’s shift toward liberalism rather than vice versa+ See Teichgraeber 1987, 360; Crowley 1990, 340; and Rashid 1998+ Origins of the First Era of Globalization 401