货币市场全球化的动态和影响：英国和法国的核心作用
根据米歇尔-奥利斯（Michel Oris）的课程改编[1][2]
地结构与乡村社会： 前工业化时期欧洲农民分析 ● 旧政体的人口制度：平衡状态 ● 十八世纪社会经济结构的演变： 从旧制度到现代性 ● 英国工业革命的起源和原因] ● 工业革命的结构机制 ● 工业革命在欧洲大陆的传播 ● 欧洲以外的工业革命：美国和日本 ● 工业革命的社会成本 ● 第一次全球化周期阶段的历史分析 ● 各国市场的动态和产品贸易的全球化 ● 全球移民体系的形成 ● 货币市场全球化的动态和影响：英国和法国的核心作用 ● 工业革命时期社会结构和社会关系的变革 ● 第三世界的起源和殖民化的影响 ● 第三世界的失败与障碍 ● 不断变化的工作方法： 十九世纪末至二十世纪中叶不断演变的生产关系 ● 西方经济的黄金时代： 辉煌三十年（1945-1973 年） ● 变化中的世界经济：1973-2007 年 ● 福利国家的挑战 ● 围绕殖民化：对发展的担忧和希望 ● 断裂的时代：国际经济的挑战与机遇 ● 全球化与 "第三世界 "的发展模式
世界金融和银行体系的历史，尤其是 19 世纪和 20 世纪的历史，是一部引人入胜的经济演变编年史，其特点是全球化的重大影响以及英国和法国等国家所发挥的主导作用。这两个国家拥有极具影响力的金融中心--伦敦金融城和巴黎金融中心--它们不仅主导着全球经济，而且走在金融创新和市场发展的前沿。它们积极参与世界各地的基础设施项目融资，并在管理金融危机方面发挥作用，这表明它们在塑造现代金融架构方面具有相当大的影响力。
然而，这一时期也充满了复杂的、有时甚至是相互矛盾的动态。这些国家对外投资的规模相当于其国内生产总值的 100%，这为经济全球化奠定了基础，但同时也造成了债务危机，尤其是在奥斯曼帝国和中国等帝国，借贷的恶性循环造成了重大的经济挑战。在这一时期，还出现了一个相互联系的全球资本市场，促进了前所未有的经济增长，尽管这种增长在世界各地的分布并不均衡。
这一时期特别值得注意的一点是，非洲被排除在金融和经济全球化的主要潮流之外。奴隶贸易结束后，非洲大陆在很大程度上被排除在全球经济发展之外，殖民政策和做法加剧了这种状况。全球经济史上的这一篇章不仅凸显了国家间权力和影响力的动态变化，还显示了由此产生的不平等和结构性挑战，这些问题在当代全球经济中仍有回响。
英国和法国： 全球金融和银行体系的支柱
英国和法国在全球金融和银行体系的建立和演变过程中发挥了至关重要的作用，其影响涉及多个关键方面。
几个世纪以来，伦敦金融城一直是世界上最具影响力的金融中心之一。它的崛起与大英帝国时代密切相关，当时国际贸易和金融都集中在伦敦。在这一时期，伦敦引入了许多金融创新，其中一些至今仍具有重要意义，如现代银行业和资本市场。大英帝国不仅扩大了其政治和文化影响力，还将殖民地经济体纳入全球金融体系，建立了全球贸易和投资网络。
以巴黎为金融中心的法国也发挥了重要作用，尤其是在欧洲。巴黎金融中心是银行业、股票经纪业和保险业的中心，在影响力和创新方面可与伦敦相媲美。法国的殖民影响与英国类似，帮助其殖民地融入全球经济，促进了西方资本主义和银行业的大规模扩张。法国也是金融政策和法规发展的关键参与者，不仅在国家范围内，在欧洲和全球范围内也是如此。
这两个国家是现代金融市场发展的支柱。它们塑造了股票市场、债券市场和货币市场的架构。从历史上看，在战后和经济重建背景下出现的国际货币基金组织和世界银行等国际金融机构的创建过程中，它们的影响至关重要。它们在管理金融危机、制定监管政策和制定国际会计准则方面发挥了重要作用。因此，英国和法国的金融史与世界经济史密切相关。它们的影响虽然一直存在，但随着新金融中心的出现和地缘政治的变化而演变，反映了全球经济力量的动态变化。
英国和法国在全球金融体系的演变中发挥了根本性的作用，通过创新和金融市场的发展脱颖而出。它们率先创造了创新的金融产品，包括政府债券和首批投资基金，彻底改变了资产的投资和管理方式。他们的影响力延伸到股票市场，伦敦和巴黎股票交易所是世界上历史最悠久、最具影响力的交易所之一。这些交易所引入了股票市场上市等重要概念，在调动储蓄用于投资和业务增长方面发挥了核心作用。在银行体系方面，英国和法国在先进性和监管方面树立了很高的标准。英格兰银行和法兰西银行一直是世界中央银行的典范，影响着货币政策和金融风险管理战略。这两个国家在制定金融市场监管框架方面也一直处于领先地位，旨在确保市场的透明度、稳定性和完整性。它们在国际金融机构的形成和发展中发挥了至关重要的作用，特别是在两次世界大战后构建全球金融架构方面。在应对几个世纪以来的各种金融危机时，英国和法国往往率先找到创新的解决方案，以稳定和改革金融体系。它们在危机管理方面的专长为国际社会应对金融动荡提供了指导，对全球金融格局产生了重大影响。
英法殖民帝国的殖民地和全球影响在扩大其全球金融和银行业影响力方面发挥了至关重要的作用。通过其庞大的帝国，这两个强国扩大了其金融和银行体系，促进了广泛金融网络的建立。大英帝国凭借其全球影响力，在其殖民地和领地建立了金融和银行机构。这种扩张不仅促进了英国资本在这些地区的流通，还将殖民地经济融入了全球金融体系。例如，英国对印度和非洲铁路等基础设施的投资是经济扩张的重要推动力，同时也加强了英国的金融主导地位和影响力。同样，法国殖民帝国在扩大法国金融影响力方面也发挥了类似的作用。法国银行在殖民地设立分行，促进了本土与殖民地之间的贸易和投资。这种一体化促进了殖民地的经济发展，同时也通过控制殖民地的资源和市场为法国的金融利益服务。这些殖民行动对全球金融体系的格局产生了深远影响。它们使英国和法国控制了世界贸易和资本流动的大部分份额，加强了其作为全球金融中心的地位。然而，这种殖民影响也带来了复杂的后果，特别是在殖民地的经济依赖性和全球经济发展失衡方面。
英格兰银行和法兰西银行在国际金融领域发挥了重要作用，对国际金融体系产生了重大影响。这些机构影响了全球金融的许多重要方面。英格兰银行成立于 1694 年，是世界上历史最悠久的中央银行之一。它在现代货币政策的发展中发挥了核心作用，影响了当今中央银行的运作方式。它对英镑这一主要储备货币的管理对国际货币体系产生了深远影响。英格兰银行也是国内和国际债务管理的重要参与者，并在国际金融协议中，尤其是在金融危机期间发挥了重要作用。成立于 1800 年的法兰西银行也对国际金融体系产生了相当大的影响。它是欧洲货币政策发展的支柱，尤其是在欧元和欧洲中央银行成立之前。管理法国债务和法兰西银行参与各种国际金融协议也是其在全球金融中发挥作用的关键因素。这些机构还在设计和实施已成为国际规范的金融体系和标准方面发挥了主导作用。它们的影响还延伸到金融监管、市场稳定和金融危机预防等领域。因此，英格兰银行和法兰西银行帮助塑造了国际金融格局，确定了影响远远超出其国界的做法和政策。
英国和法国发展的金融教育和专业知识在形成和影响全球金融实践方面发挥了关键作用。两国一直是金融领域的知识和创新中心，培养了一代又一代的高技能专业人才。英国，特别是通过伦敦经济学院（LSE）和剑桥大学等机构，培养了大量世界知名的经济学家、银行家和金融专家。这些院校对研究和创新的重视使得经济和金融理论取得了重大发展。这些大学的毕业生和研究人员经常在国际金融机构、中央银行和金融监管机构中发挥领导作用。法国拥有巴黎综合理工学院、巴黎高等商学院和巴黎政治学院等著名学府，也是孕育金融专业人才的沃土。这些院校培养了一批既掌握技术技能又了解全球经济和政治问题的独特人才。这些院校培养的专业人才往往在银行、国际金融机构和政府中担任有影响力的职位。英国和法国培养的高级金融专业人才不仅丰富了本国的金融体系，还产生了全球影响。在这些国家接受培训的专业人员将他们的专业知识带到国外，影响了许多国家的金融实践和政策。知识和专业技能的传播促进了全球金融实践的统一性和复杂性。
面对历史上的各种金融危机，英国和法国往往在制定监管对策和救援措施方面表现突出。它们在管理这些危机中发挥了至关重要的作用，稳定了全球金融体系，防止了进一步的混乱。英国的伦敦金融城是世界领先的金融中心之一，经常站在金融危机的最前沿。例如，在 2008 年金融危机期间，英国当局采取了迅速果断的行动来稳定银行系统，包括为陷入困境的银行注入流动性和实施救援计划。此外，英格兰银行在调整货币政策和实施支持经济的措施方面发挥了至关重要的作用。法国在应对这些危机方面也发挥了重要作用。作为欧盟和欧元区的主要参与者，法国一直参与制定管理和预防金融危机的政策和法规，特别是在欧洲。欧洲主权债务危机就是一个很好的例子，法国与其他欧元区国家合作，致力于制定救援计划和加强欧盟内部的金融监管。在这两种情况下，英国和法国都表现出了在危机时期做出快速有效反应的能力，其实施的政策往往成为其他国家的典范。它们的监管和危机管理方法有助于形成国际金融标准和惯例，在加强全球金融稳定方面发挥了关键作用。这些经验也凸显了有效的金融监管和国际合作在相互关联的经济环境中管理系统性风险的重要性。
在此期间，政府是主要的借款人，主要是为战争、基础设施和工业化等支出提供资金。这些借款通常以政府债券的形式出现，由投资者购买。这些投资所产生的利润被重新投入到国家的工业化进程中，推动了经济增长的循环。工业化进程导致了工业家财富的积累，他们随之寻找安全的资本投资方式。银行成为这些存款的首选，它不仅提供了一个安全的储钱场所，还提供了使资金增长的手段。拥有这些资金的银行随后将其投入金融市场。这些市场，主要是伦敦和巴黎的市场，提供了各种投资机会，包括政府债券、公司股票和其他金融工具。这种动态加强了伦敦和巴黎作为全球金融中心的地位。1820-1830 年前后，政府的融资需求、工业化带来的财富积累以及银行在调动资本方面的作用等因素汇聚在一起，巩固了伦敦和巴黎作为世界主要金融中心的地位。这一时期对于奠定现代金融体系的基础至关重要，标志着金融成为全球经济核心支柱时代的开始。
1850 年以后的时期是英国和法国巩固金融实力的一个重要转折点，国内和国际大型基础设施的融资和建设进一步扩大了这一转折点。工业化带来的资本积累在这一扩张中发挥了关键作用。这些资本主要投资于铁路和港口等大型基础设施项目，不仅改变了国家的自然景观，还极大地改善了交通和通信手段。这些发展促进了贸易以及货物和人员的流动，对经济效率产生了直接影响。与此同时，这些资本的很大一部分被用于城市改造项目。包括伦敦和巴黎在内的欧洲城市经历了重大变革，新建了建筑，改善了公共服务，扩大了城市基础设施。这些改善极大地提高了居民的生活质量，标志着现代城市发展迈出了重要一步。更重要的是，这些积累的资本不仅在国内投资，还借给了其他地区。它还被借贷到世界其他地区，促进了全球化。欧洲在殖民地和其他国家的投资促进了全球基础设施的扩张，如铁路和电信系统，这反过来又加强了世界各地的经济和贸易联系。这种金融和投资循环加强了英国和法国作为主要金融中心的地位。它们不仅促进了本国的经济和城市发展，还在全球经济一体化中发挥了至关重要的作用，为我们今天所熟知的全球化奠定了基础。
资本输出： 英法模式比较
The export of capital in the 19th and early 20th centuries was a crucial element of economic expansion and global influence, with Britain and France adopting distinct models in the process.
The British model was strongly oriented towards international trade. Britain, as the leading industrial power, sought to expand its markets for industrial goods. This often meant investing in overseas infrastructure, such as railways, telecommunications and mining, not only in its colonies but also in independent countries such as the United States and the nations of Latin America. British banks and the City of London played a central role in raising and distributing this capital, making London the world's main financial centre for international investment. On the other hand, the French model was more oriented towards stability and political influence. Much French investment went into its colonies to strengthen economic and political ties and develop local infrastructure, as in North Africa. The French government and the big banks had a more direct influence on the direction of investment, unlike the British model where the market played a more decisive role.
In comparison, the UK had a wider geographical scope for its investments and was driven by the development of markets for its industrial products. France, on the other hand, focused on its colonies and certain strategic regions in Europe, emphasising the stabilisation and extension of its political and economic influence. British financing relied more on financial markets and private banks, while the French model involved more direct intervention by the state and major financial institutions. These different approaches reflect the distinct economic and political strategies of Britain and France, contributing significantly to the formation of the modern global economy.
The direction of British and French investment abroad reflects their distinct economic and geopolitical strategies, which have had a significant impact on the economic development of both countries. Britain invested mainly in the United States and its colonies. These investments were not concentrated in Western Europe. The attraction of the United States lay in its rapid industrial and economic development, offering a high return on investment. British investment in its colonies also served strategic purposes, facilitating commercial and political control in these regions. France, on the other hand, concentrated a significant proportion of its investments in Europe, particularly in Russia. These investments were motivated by political and economic considerations, aimed at strengthening diplomatic and economic ties with Russia, a major player on the European stage at the time. However, the choice of investment areas had significant consequences for both countries. Great Britain benefited from the meteoric growth of the United States. The American economic boom ensured lucrative returns on British investment. On the other hand, the situation was less favourable for France. After the 1917 Revolution, Russia defaulted on its foreign debts, including those owed to France. This default had a significant impact on the French economy. The situation became even more different during the Second World War. While the United States repaid its debts to Great Britain not in cash, but in military equipment under the Lend-Lease programme, France did not recover its investments in Russia. This repayment in military equipment was a key element of the British war effort, while France had to deal with the consequences of its unpaid investments. This divergence in international investment outcomes illustrates the importance of strategic foreign investment decisions and their long-term impact on the economic health of nations.
The claim that France and Britain lent the rest of the world an amount equivalent to 100% of their GDP highlights their pre-eminent role in the global economy at the time and reveals several important aspects of their financial power. Firstly, it demonstrates their considerable financial capacity. Their ability to raise and invest huge sums abroad reflects not only their national wealth, but also their economic influence on the world stage. These massive investments were not just economic decisions, but also strategic foreign policy tools, used to extend their geopolitical influence and stabilise strategic regions of the globe. Secondly, these loans had a major impact on economic development worldwide. They facilitated the construction of key infrastructure in many countries and played a key role in financing industrialisation around the world. These foreign investments were crucial vectors of progress and modernisation, helping to shape the global economic landscape. However, investing such a colossal sum carried significant risks. Defaults, such as Russia's with France, could have severe economic consequences. On the other hand, when these investments bore fruit, as in the case of British loans to the United States, the benefits could be substantial, stimulating economic growth in the creditor country. Finally, the scale of these investments symbolises the transition to a more interconnected global economy. This laid the foundations for modern financial and economic systems, characterised by increased interdependence and complexity. The ability of France and the UK to invest an amount equivalent to their total GDP illustrates their central role in the global economy of their time, marking both their power and their vulnerability in a changing international financial system.
The massive capital flows of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries can be understood from two distinct perspectives, each reflecting different aspects of the global economic dynamics of the period.
One interpretation highlights the risks associated with the accumulation of sovereign debt and dependence on external borrowing. This is illustrated by examples such as the Ottoman Empire and the Chinese Empire, which, faced with the inability to repay their debts and the associated interest, were drawn into a vicious circle of continuous borrowing. This pattern of financing led to increased economic dependence and political influence of the creditor countries, significantly impacting the sovereignty and economic development of these nations. Lenin particularly highlighted these dynamics in Third World countries, identifying them as symptoms of the flaws in capitalism and imperialism.
On the other hand, this period also saw the emergence of a global and interconnected capital market. Characterised by large volumes and great financial mobility, this market allowed capital to move fluidly across international borders. Despite restrictions on human movements, as in the United States, capital flows were considerable, facilitating industrialisation and economic development in various regions of the world. This phenomenon played a crucial role in international economic integration, laying the foundations for the economic and financial interconnection seen today.
These perspectives on capital flows at the time highlight the complexities and paradoxes of global finance. On the one hand, excessive debt created structural challenges for some countries, while on the other, the fluidity of capital stimulated unprecedented economic growth and expansion.
Africa's exclusion from capital flows and economic globalisation
Africa's exclusion from major capital flows and economic globalisation after the end of the slave trade represents a critical chapter in global economic history. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, while many parts of the world were integrating into an expanding global economy, Africa remained largely outside this process.
This was mainly due to colonialism, which saw European powers focus on extracting Africa's natural resources rather than developing local infrastructure or industries. The investments that were made on the continent were often designed to serve colonial interests, with little attention paid to Africa's overall economic development.
In addition, the lack of modern infrastructure such as railways and ports limited the continent's ability to participate actively in globalisation. Existing infrastructure was mainly geared towards the export of natural resources to Europe, not conducive to integrated economic development.
The situation was also complicated by political instability and conflict, often exacerbated by colonialism. These conditions made Africa less attractive to foreign investors than other regions considered more stable and profitable.
In addition, Africa's role in world trade has been essentially that of a supplier of raw materials. This dynamic has prevented the continent's economic diversification and limited its participation in more sophisticated and lucrative capital flows.
So, while other parts of the world began to reap the benefits of the globalised economy, Africa was largely left behind, establishing structural inequalities that continued to affect its economies long after the end of colonialism. This period profoundly affected Africa's economic development and influenced its position in the contemporary world economy.