Saga - 1988, Blaðsíða 153

FORSENDUR OG FYRIRSTAÐA NÝSKÖPUNAR
151
Summary
Two points made by Gísli Gunnarsson in his book, Monopoly Tradeand Econo-
tnic Stagnation. Studies in the Foreign Trade oflceland 1602-1787, are discussed
here, the claim that the Icelandic ruling classes placed restrictions on the
development of the fishing industry for fear that their dominant position
might be undermined, and secondly that by influencing the price decrees of
the monopoly period they transferred profit from the fisheries to agriculture.
As a starting point, it is necessary to consider the conditions accorded the
public by a primitive economy. There was little money in circulation. Merc-
hants insisted on barter in their dealings with the Icelanders and did not al-
low people to remain in credit. Income fluctuated along with the fish-catches
and people were usually compelled to spend their income as soon as they
eamed it. In sheep-farming, conditions were different. Through sheep-
breeding, the households were able to acquire some cash in the autumn. The
possession of sheep was like having money on deposit, which could be
drawn according to need and circumstances.
It has been argued that various regulations applying to fishing operations,
the employment of workmen and projects undertaken by merchants may
have diminished the profit the Icelanders derived from the fisheries. These
arguments do not stand up to critcism. Even less can it be argued that such
regulations were enforced in order to discourage Icelandic enterprise. The
reason why new developments within the fishing industry happended so
late apperars to be that reforms did not seem profitable nor did attempts at
renewal prove so. There is no evidence that a fishing industry run by foreign
merchants might have become the basis of economic growth in Iceland.
There was disagreement about industrial policy among influential people
in Iceland during the latter part of the 18th century. The leader of those who
tumed against Skúli Magnússon's proposals, Govemor Ólafur Stefánsson
owned ships himself and ran a manufacturing workshop on a foreign model.
He wanted merchants to establish workshops in the trading centres in co-
operation with the Icelanders. His attitude to Skúli Magnússon's proposals
cannot be explained as opposition against any changes in the fisheries which
might prove profitable, nor as opposition against a solidly-based industry in
the trading centres.
The price rates imposed by the govemment on the monopoly were not in
proportion to the value of the produce nor the cost of foreign input. The
govemment appropriated for the armed forces a quantity of the mutton
'vhich was put up for export and paid less than the current price. The farm-
*ng population in the sheep-breeding areas profited by selling woollen goods
Ulegally without the knowledge of the monopoly merchants. It has not been
calculated what would have been fair price-rates for the produce derived
from the major sources of livelihood, agriculture and fishing.
Translated by Steinunn Einarsdóttir