Bill Easterly concludes this important blog post by observing that
imperialism is not so clearly linked to capitalism and free markets after all; historically there has been a closer link between colonialism/imperialism and state-led approaches to development. People who like Imperialism are fond of a big military state presence, so it’s not so surprising that they are also fond of a big economic state presence.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 19 comments }
I could be wrong in this observation but somehow I still think it is valid.
We saw Russian imperialism before WWII and most certainly after WWII with the expansion of the “Soviet Union”, and that certainly did not bring capitalism or free markets, promote capitalism and free markets, and it officially discouraged (punished) capitalism and free markets.. Best example of the above quote I can think of.
It is obvious that communist and socialist imperialism is real.
Doesn’t it work in reverse too? Big state economic presence is the major cause behind many US interventions in Latin America, especially now that Latin America is such a fertile ground for the various wars on poverty, drugs, and terror. In the future, can we expect the US to change focus to its’ own hemisphere?
In most of those cases it was a defense of American property against theft by local thugs. Personally, I think that if people are going to go outside the US, they need to factor in the risk of operating outside US laws, and suffer the consequences without expecting sacrifice on the part of the rest of us. But other than a misuse of US treasure for reasons outside “the general welfare”, the use of direct force or tangled webs of intrigue on the part the US to undermine corrupt foreign agents is nothing to cry over.Of course, one way to simply avoid any criticism or blame is to just avoid foreign interventions altogether, and let the chips fall where they may. Often American voters simply don’t have the stomach for that.
I believe it was Hobson who started this idea. What I envision is groups of economic consultants/developers, perhaps from many different different countries joined in a true type of NGO, or just simply a private consulting/development company, disconnected from any state influence, which hires its services out to third world nations to develop economic growth and the structure to support it. This type of voluntary, contractual arrangement would be a superior means of third world economic growth. The problem is the despotic rule of most third world countries and whether they can hold to control, or some enlightened leaders gain control after despotic collapse.
Well imperialialism did open up the New World for industrialisation.
I think that imperialism is closely linked to mercantilism.
Exactly. It results from the belief that wealth comes from taking stuff, rather than the self-serving productive activities of free people. The world has grown wealthier because of capitalism and in spite of imperialism and mercantilism.
That’s a bold ass statement to make.
Not so much Gil.
Suppress the drive for individual profit and I don’t give a hoot what you call your government or social system, it will be a miracle if it can even maintain (None have yet), and avoid stagnation and degeneration.
Without individuals who are ambitious enough to get out of bed, pull on their clothes and go out to gain, there is no progress possible.
Without gain, without profit there is no capitalism.
For some reason people see businesses using and processing resources and getting money as “capitalism”, and that’s always the end of the story. I don’t understand why. I think it’s a confusion with the role of corporations in imperialism – people assume corporations = capitalism. Corporations were heavily involved in British imperialism at least. The problem is, these were granted government monopolies… not exactly capitalism.I sway back and forth between whether I am convinced by the “the U.S. is an empire” arguments – which I suppose suggests that if we are an empire, we’re a very different sort from past empires. Anyway, if we are imperial (in the world today I mean, not in the old West where we certainly were), perhaps we do offer a model of capitalist imperialism – because we don’t have the state monopoly-led expansion that Britain did. I disagree with Easterly’s point on military presence as a counter to capitalist imperialism. I military’s job is to defend the interests of a state and defend the state and it’s citizens – presumably including it’s corporate citizens. Fulfilling that task around the globe doesn’t NECESSARILY mean that state-led development is involved.
DK,
A rare post from you, but one I can treat gently.
“I(sic) military’s job is to defend the interests of a state and defend the state and it’s citizens – presumably including it’s corporate citizens.”
What you have to take into consideration is that the USA is unique among nations in that the “military” is prohibited from being used as a police force. State militias, on extremely rare circumstances, have been used to augment police forces, true, but never the military. In the old west, the “military” chased our “enemies” (Indians and occasional bandit gangs) but did not enforce any kind of control over the citizenry itself.
As to Easterly’s point, he may have something there, because capitalism never goes away, it is like breathing, but its practice can be forced into hiding (black markets) if there is enough force present, such as a military used as police.
But, Britain never suppressed or prohibited capitalism, in my humble view in was just dominated by the crown, state capitalism in other words.
“But, Britain never suppressed or prohibited capitalism, in my humble view in was just dominated by the crown, state capitalism in other words.”
How is telling people “you are not allowed to compete with the East India Trading Company” capitalism, vidyohs? You’re mistaking industrious pursuit of money with capitalism.
No DK, are you willing to tell me that the East India Trading Company(EITC) (favored of the crown) was non-capitalist? If not, then what was it?
Are you willing to say that the crown did not profit from the activities of the EITC? Are you thinking that the crown wasn’t heavily invested in the EITC? What naivity.
Are you claiming then that the crown and the EITC did not use those profits in turn to invest in opportunities offered by the Rothschilds bank, and other opportunities as well? You know they did, son.
Gotta expand your thinking. boy.
Profit and investment aren’t exclusive to capitalism, vidyohs. The East India Trading Company received special priveleges and monopolies from the crown. They orchestrated British mercantilism. They were the agents of British mercantilism. The fact that they turned a profit and invested has nothing to do with whether they were capitalist or not. I would say “they were no more capitalist than Gosplan in the USSR or IG Farben in Nazi Germany” to illustrate my point, but I think that would be overstating my case considerably. Still – profits and investment do not a capitalist make.
i don’t understand the role fo capitalism in the society
hippolyte,
Oh my Gosh!
It is simple. Without it, you die from lack.
If you really want to go farther than that simple explanation, I am fully prepared to offer you details.
Paul Johnson argues in his book, Modern Times, written in the 80s, that colonialism/imperialism was mainly for show and that not much was gained — many incidences cost the state for upkeep. It’s interesting though that the colonies where free tade was encouraged did much better than the protectionism in India.
It’s been reported that Johnson liked to be spanked and called a naughty boy, but, regardless, he makes some good points about colonialism and imperialism. He basically states that nothing much would have changed if colonialism had never happened, that it was pretty much a wash.
It is occasionally noted that the Roman conquests brought many benefits to conquered lands, such a good roads, sanitation, etc.
But the point such defenses miss is that these benefits can be introduced to a land without conquering people.
Trade is a much more beneficial way of spreading the fruits of good ideas.
Yeah, but when the barbarians don’t trade the way you want them to, then you have to resort to force. Or so some on this forum are arguing.