Reinders Folmer-van Prooijen concludes that the MCC enterprise continued for
the first 35 years of its existence with a net loss, which raises questions regard
ing its continuing operations into the 19th century.20 The conclusion by Reinders
Folmer-van Prooijen is not disputed by De Kok, who argues that the question of
profitability is less relevant than initially assumed by historians. De Kok illustrates
that the effect of the MCC slave trade on the local economy of Walcheren was
substantial, regardless of MCC's losses in the books. Shareholders and directors
of the MCC would own local businesses which received privileges in supplying
goods, the MCC then fulfilled an intermediary role for local businesses owned by
the investors and directors. This theory has the implication that profits, and divi
dends would play a secondary role in the MCC.21 De Kok builds on the argument
by Fatah-Black and Van Rossum who reject the idea of profits as a central eco
nomic measure of the impact of slave trade on the Dutch economy. Fatah-Black
and Van Rossum note that the gross margin in the slave trade is a better indica
tor of the economic effect on the Dutch economy. This interpretation is different
from earlier work by historians such as Emmer or Johannes Postma, because it
regards the MCC 'losses' (expenses to finance its trading operation) as an impulse
to the local (European) economy, thus attributing a larger economic significance
to the slave trade.22
Considering the economic impact of the 18th century Dutch slave trade, the
history of economic thought needs to be considered to contextualize the actions
of the MCC. A central assumption in modern economics is that firms are prof
it-maximizing, but it may be fruitful to consider different economic incentives
in the early modern world, which are not explicit in the accounting records. The
Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) shows that apart from making profits,
the company also fulfilled a military role.23 Mercantilism provides a framework
through which some economic practices in the 17th and 18th world economy may
be explained, but it is important to keep in mind that mercantilism was an implic
it economic paradigm, rather than a coherent and explicit economic policy. Philip
J. Stern and Carl Wennerlind argue that Adam Smith, one of the foremost critics
of 'mercantilism, was also the one who defined it most clearly as a straw man
172
Accounting in the Dutch Transatlantic Slave Trade
20 Reinders Folmer-Van Prooijen, Van goederenhandel naar slavenhandel, 169-171.
21 De Kok, Cursed Capital, 22.
22 Fatah-Black and Van Rossum, Wat is winst?, 5-6, 24-25.
23 Jan De Vries and Ad van der Woude, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseve
rance of the Dutch Economy, 1500-1815. Cambridge, 1997, 384.
