1
FINANCE, EMPIRE AND THE BRITISH WORLD
In May 1985, this Journal published a special edition on ‘Money, Finance, and
Empire’ edited by Andrew Porter and Robert Holland. Many of the historiographical
concerns of the mid-1980s were well represented. Lance Davis and Ronald
Huttenback presented their new estimates of British overseas investment; D. C. M.
Platt compared the dynamics of Edwardian investment in Canada, Argentina, and
Australia; Youseff Cassis anatomised London’s banking community; Amiga Kumar
Bagchi, B. R. Tomlinson, and Scott Newton examined currency matters in AngloIndian relations and in the Attlee government’s early moves toward European
integration; while Jacques Marseilles offered a summary for an English-speaking
audience of his seminal study of the links between French commerce and
expansionism.1 The fact that the collection opened with an important article by Peter
Cain exploring J. A. Hobson’s theory of finance capitalism highlighted the degree to
which the historical agenda continued to be framed by the Edwardian critic of empire.
The role, or otherwise, of finance as the ‘governor’ of official imperialism still
preoccupied historians, while the questions Hobson raised about the distribution of the
empire’s costs and benefits soon produced a major study by Davis and Huttenback.2
Two and a half decades on, this new collection of essays enters the debate
about finance and empire at a particularly opportune moment because it does so in a
field dramatically transformed, and one which invites the blending of older and new
paradigms. The most obvious shift is geographical, for the focus here is on Britain’s
relations with the colonies of settlement, which only played a subsidiary role in 1985.
Indeed, at that time the impact of British investment in Latin America was much more
likely to attract the attention of historians stimulated by contemporary debates about
the ‘imperialism of free trade’ and the ‘dependency thesis’’.3 This shift in focus
2
reflects a broader re-discovery of the settlement empire since the 1980s inspired by
two important historiographical developments: first, the debate surrounding Cain and
Hopkins’ concept of ‘gentlemanly capitalism’;4 and second, the more general revival
of scholarly interest in the ‘British World’ which has now produced a rich crop of
publications.
Importantly the transformations have been as much conceptual as
geographical. While Cain and Hopkins may have owed a clear and explicit debt to
Hobson (as well as other ‘classical’ theories of imperialism’),5 they also emphasised a
form of informal imperialism in Latin America and the Dominions based on to what
Ronald Robinson described as ‘the meshing of autonomous private enterprises with
the internal politics of quasi-autonomous governments’ which Hobson conspicuously
failed to recognise.6 Their subsequent use of the concept of ‘structural power’ added a
further important and as yet under-explored refinement to an old historical theme.7
Cain and Hopkins thus both re-invigorated the debate about the nature of financial
imperialism and shifted its focus to the self-governing settler societies rather than the
tropical zones of annexation and coercion which originally drew Hobson’s gaze.8
At times in recent years, such concerns have been unfairly seen as a mere
reshuffling of the conceptual pack of ‘old’ imperial history as the centre of gravity in
the imperial studies has shifted away from supposedly ‘traditional’ interests in
economics and politics towards the cultural dynamics of empire.9 Indeed, a concern
with culture and identity lay at the heart of the second historiographical revival of
interest in the dominions.10 Originally the subject of a sequence of conferences, the
concept of a ‘British World’ sought to re-integrate the dominions into the history of
empire, and Britain into the history of the dominions, by directing attention to two
often insufficiently distinguished phenomena: the dense social networks primarily
3
forged by emigrants ‘from below’, which linked Britain to the dominions (and, to a
lesser extent, the dominions to each other); and the global dimensions and usages of
‘Britishness’.11 Although only occasionally employed by contemporaries, the term
‘British World’ has now been adopted and expanded by historians to refer to the
largely consensual and bottom up aspects of Britishness and the British experience
abroad as a corrective to the supposedly excessive concentration of earlier historians
on power relations and the ‘top down’ structures of formal empire.12 Accordingly the
first publications on the British World tended to focus on the social and cultural
aspects of the subject with only limited interest in economics or even political
interactions.13
Meanwhile, the intellectual context towards the end of the millennium was
being transformed by the contemporary phenomenon of ‘globalisation’ which could
not but have a profound effect on scholars of transnational structures like empires, or
more diffuse and broadly-based constructs like the British World. Niall Ferguson’s
popular and controversial account claimed that the history of the British Empire was
‘the history of globalization as it was promoted by Great Britain and her colonies–
“Anglobalization”, if you like’.14 More seasoned imperial historians took seriously
Tony Hopkins confident assertion that ‘Empires were transnational organizations …
created to mobilize the resources of the world’ (Hopkins having defined ‘transnational
influences … collectively’ as globalization).15 In this context, the creation of the
British World as a distinctive zone integration could be ranked in importance
alongside the growth of commerce and spread of imperialism more generally as a key
contributor to the first wave of modern globalisation.16
Thus a very contemporary preoccupation with the forces of global integration
in the late-twentieth century meant that economic forces came back strongly into
4
historiographical play, while the colonisation of the Dominions might now be viewed
within a larger transnational framework encompassing the entire anglophone settler
world. These have been the themes of two important recent monographs. James
Belich’s swashbuckling account of the settler revolution and the rise of the ‘Angloworld’ emphasises the boom mentality of ‘settlerism’. But fundamentally the cycles
of ‘explosive colonization’ and metropolitan ‘re-colonization’ he writes about so
vividly were also investment cycles requiring enormous transfers of capital and
technology to complement the sustained inflows of people.17 By contrast, Andrew
Thompson and Gary Magee have written an economic history of the British World
which explores how co-ethnic British networks shaped the pattern of trade, migration,
and investment. Ultimately British-world networks contributed to the creation of a
distinct, dense, and often racially-bounded zone of economic integration.18 In their
separate ways, Belich, and Magee and Thompson and argue that the British World—
or its broader correlative, the Anglo-world—lay at the heart of modern globalisation
before 1914.
Fittingly, these major historiographical currents converge in John Darwin’s
magisterial new study of the ‘empire project’. According to Darwin, the success of
this project depended on Britain’s ability to navigate a complex and shifting set of
global forces. The enormous accumulation of British assets abroad (the City’s ‘great
commercial republic’) and the ‘“awkward squad” of self-governing settlement
colonies’ were two of the main components of Britain’s world-system allowing it to
do so. Moreover, although the ‘commercial republic’ was treated separately from the
white dominions, Darwin acknowledged the close connections between the square
mile and the British World’; for: ‘“nation building” in the white dominions meant
5
greater dependence not less on the British market and on the financial machinery of
the City of London’.19
In summary, it ought to be a commonplace now that finance was as integral as
emigration to the formation of a British World. Without massive investment, the
settlement of ‘neo-Britains’ would have been impossible, or at the very least would
have taken a radically different form.20 Equally, finance was a vital element in the
power relations that developed between settler societies and the metropole. The
question of power and finance has been a perennial theme in the imperial
historiography. It is time now for the British World to be integrated into that
historiography and to broaden the perspective. The essays in this collection seek to
contribute to this task through case studies which explore the links between
investment, power and culture in the settler empire.
A central concern in the new historiography of globalisation has been the
interactions between the universal and the local.21 A connection can be made between
this and one of the fundamental issues in the debate over gentlemanly capitalism: the
extent to which colonial actors were able to make autonomous choices over local
economic policies and the management of capital. As we have already noted, Cain
and Hopkins attempted to address this by emphasising the distinction between
relational and structural power: colonial actors may have been participants in the
game of economic development (and hence, depending on circumstances, might have
exercised some relational power), but they had little capacity to choose the underlying
‘rules’ by which they played; rather, the rules were determined elsewhere.22 The first
two essays in this collection take up the question of structural power in two
contrasting studies of settler polities at quite different points in Australia’s economic
and political development.
6
The setting of Attard’s essay is the new colony of Queensland during the
1860s. It explores how far, in the economic and political conditions of a raw settler
community, a gentlemanly British governor, Sir George Bowen, and his quasi-official
colonial secretary, Robert Herbert, were willing to modify, and even depart from,
their own ideas of a desirable political economy. Yet, in 1866, when the colony’s
treasurer proposed to extract Queensland from a debt crisis by printing money, Bowen
and Herbert swiftly combined to stop any departure from one of the most sacrosanct
‘rules of the game’—a metallic monetary standard. Thus they reinforced the informal
power of the colony’s banks, re-asserted the colonial status of the local settler
community, and demonstrated the persistence of a form of imperial ‘bridgehead’ in
the supposedly self-governing colony. Attard, therefore, demonstrates the ways in
which structural power might be mediated in a settler community according to highly
contingent configurations of interests, institutions and external factors (not least the
state of long-distance communications). Even so, the ongoing interests of British
capital were a fundamental element of continuity.
In Dilley’s essay, the setting shifts to New South Wales at the beginning of the
twentieth century at a very different point in the settler debt cycle. Technological
constraints had by now eased to the extent that communications between the
antipodes and Britain were practically instantaneous. The imaginative space between
the two hemispheres had thus also contracted so that the state of metropolitan opinion
might be an immediate concern of politicians in the most distant parts of the British
World. Dilley shows how, in response to both the crisis of the 1890s and curtailed
credit in the City in 1903, New South Wales appointed its fiery statistician, T. A.
Coghlan, agent-general (representative in London) in large part to improve his state’s
image in the City. Coghlan did battle with the London press, and reflected deeply on
7
the political repercussions of financial dependence. Through a reconstruction and
contextualization of Coghlan’s activities and thinking, Dilley illustrates a variety of
links between City opinion and Australian politics. In the process, he seeks to show
that the political impact of financial dependence (‘the politics of finance’) can only be
fully charted by paying attention to the cultural meanings attached to the bare
economic facts of indebtedness in both the borrowing and lending societies. Dilley
shows how structural power might be given its own ‘cultural turn’.
The links between politics, culture and finance also lie at the heart of Andrew
Smith’s explorations of British investment in Canada. In this essay the focus shifts
from the implications of financial power to the recent debate over why the British
chose to invest their money in the British settler colonies in the first place. Smith
raises two questions about the colonies of settlement which are fundamental to an
understanding of the cultural economy of the British World: first, what distinguished
the settler colonies from other investment destinations within the Empire; second,
how to account for the British preference for investments in the British settler world,
even though by Magee and Thompson’s reckoning they shared many of the same
informational advantages in Britain as the United States (and, most likely, other settler
destinations). Smith thus contests Ferguson and Schularik’s assumption of a
generalised ‘empire effect’ based on British political control,23 and Magee and
Thompson’s argument about the extent to which migrant settler networks were
sufficient to explain the preference of British investors for putting their savings into
the Dominions. He suggests that the political and legal institutions of empire with
their associated cultures and loyalties gave British investors additional reasons (if in
retrospect misguided) for considering Canada a less risky prospect than her republican
neighbour. Smith therefore makes the distinction between an informal ‘Anglo-world
8
effect’ based on the informational asymmetries emphasised by Magee and Thompson
and an ‘Empire Effect’ generated by a close adherence to British institutions and a
culture of empire-loyalism, but which did not rely on political control.
The final essay in this collection moves away from questions of power and
investors’ preferences to consider the ways in which direct investments in settler
societies created some of the key transmission mechanisms for the movement of
people, ideas, technology, values, even flora and fauna, in the British World. The
liberalisation of British company law in the mid-nineteenth century had a profound
effect on the how capital for overseas investment was raised in Britain and managed
abroad.24 In particular, it created a permissive legal framework for the formation of
what became a ubiquitous institutional device for the conduct of British foreign direct
investment: the free-standing company.25 Kevin Tennant offers a study of one such
free-standing company, the New Zealand Agency and Australia Land Company
(NZALC), whose properties were in New Zealand, New South Wales and
Queensland. The company was symptomatic of the changing organisational and
ownership structures of British direct investment, as well as an example of how
corporate organisation started to connect the pastoral frontier with British capital (in
this case Scottish rather than London-based) and European markets. In the process the
NZALC and similar companies facilitated the development of one of the most
important segments of the antipodean export economy.26 Thus Tennant demonstrates
the pertinence of Mira Wilkins’ observation that, ‘Capital was not exported by itself
… but rather it was embodied in a business organisation’, and shows that business
historians have long asked important questions about the power dynamics within, and
the economic forces acting on, such networks.27 Further studies of such organisations
are clearly needed to deepen our understanding of how businesses were one (indeed
9
one of the more significant) of many species of trans-national network operating
within the British World, and of the forces shaping those networks.
In conclusion, these essays raise important questions about the relationships
between finance, imperialism, and the British World. Attard, Dilley, and Smith
highlight the roles of British institutions and imperial agencies (governors, legal
frameworks, agents-general and high commissioners) in structuring the interactions
that occurred, as well as transmitting normative expectations and assumptions about
economic governance. Collectively they suggest that, the recent emphasis on
informality (whether Cain and Hopkins re-worked model of informal imperialism, or
Bridge and Fedorowich’s ‘globalisation from below’28) should not blind us to the
important role played by the institutional and political dimensions of formal empire.
Dilley and Attard point out that financial dependence might create a fraught and
charged politics (indeed, a ‘politics of finance’) which was an important, and often
disruptive, element in Anglo-Australian relations. The gyrations of this politics, and
moments of imperial intervention, were disruptive elements in a British World often
portrayed otherwise as a rather harmonious affair. They deserve fuller treatment.29
Dilley and Smith show that imperial loyalties might influence both the politics of
finance and the very activity of investment itself. Finally Tennent qualifies the
essentially binary spatial paradigm of metropole and periphery which is frequently
deployed in the studies of investment. He not only demonstrates the importance of
intra-antipodean linkages binding the Tasman world, but also highlights how parts of
Britain outside London and the southeast had significant business, commercial,
demographic and cultural connections in the British World.
Yet it is left to Peter Cain to draw out the collection’s broadest significance.
For, as he rightly points out, it embodies a renewed concern with economic history,
10
albeit one which is also deeply interested in political and cultural processes. As he
argues, economies like nations are in many respects ‘imagined’; investment is
ultimately driven forward by frequently fallible calculations of a still unrealised
future. Cain concludes by calling on a new generation of historians to re-integrate the
cultural and economic. Now, as the 2008 global financial crisis translates into
government spending cuts and sovereign debt crises, squeezed personal incomes, and
tighter credit, a new generation is reminded of the perils of unregulated international
finance in a global world. In an earlier era of rapid globalisation, the same perils were
faced by the settler communities of the British World. It is a pertinent moment then
for imperial historians, both ‘new’ and ‘old’, to re-examine this experience and to
give it a firmly political and cultural turn. To paraphrase Pocock, it would be untrue to
say that histories of finance and empire in the British world are unknown, but they are
certainly subjects in need of detailed surveying.30
[1]
Porter and Holland, Money, Finance and Empire.
[2]
Hobson, Imperialism, 59; Davis and Huttenback, Mammon and the Pursuit of
Empire. Similar issues lay at the heart of a two volume collection published in
the same year; see University of London, City and Empire.
[3]
For a historiographical overview see Thompson, ‘Informal Empire?’; also see
Platt, ed., Business Imperialism; Abel and Lewis, eds., Latin America,
Economic Imperialism and the State; Platt and Di Tella, eds., Argentina,
Australia and Canada; Marichal, A Century of Debt Crises.
[4]
The origins of this debate can be seen in 1985 when Cain and Hopkins and
Andrew Porter clashed over the nascent concept of ‘pecuniary capitalism’; see
Porter, ‘Which City, What Empire?’
11
[5]
Cain, ‘Hobson Lives?’; Cain and Hopkins, British Imperialism, 1688–2000,
31–3.
[6]
Robinson, ‘Excentric Idea of Imperialism’, 274; Cain, ‘J. A. Hobson’; Cain
and Hopkins, British Imperialism, 1688–2000, chs. 8, 9.
[7]
Cain and Hopkins, ‘Theory and Practice’, 208; Hopkins, ‘Informal Empire’,
204–9; Hopkins, ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’.
[8]
The main criticisms and refinements are, Davis, ‘Late Nineteenth-Century
British Imperialist’; Kubicek, ‘Economic Power ‘; Redish, ‘British Financial
Imperialism’; McAloon, ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’; Smith, British
Businessmen; Attard, ‘Free-trade Imperialism to Structural Power’; Dilley,
‘Rules of the Game’.
[9]
Kennedy, ‘Imperial History’, 345. For an outline of the ‘new’ imperial history,
see Wilson, ‘Introduction’.
[10]
Although this literature too has been accused of intellectual and
methodological conservatism, and its often explicit references to lateVictorian writers such as J. R. Seeley, Charles Dilke, and J. A. Froude and to
the conservative father of ‘New British History’, J. G. A. Pocock, have done
little to allay such suspicious. See Chilton, ‘Canada and the British Empire’.
[11]
Bridge and Fedorowich, eds., The British World; Buckner and Francis, eds.,
Canada and the British World; Buckner and Francis, eds., Rediscovering the
British World; Darian-Smith, Grimshaw, and Macintyre, Britishness Abroad.
On the origins of the British World, see also Buckner and Bridge, ‘Reinventing the British World’.
[12]
For discussion of the term British World, see Bridge and Fedorowich, ‘The
British World’; Buckner and Francis, ‘Introduction’. That said, authors
12
supposedly writing on the British World frequently use it as a synonym for
settlement empire or the imperial connection.
[13]
Bridge and Fedorowich, ‘The British World’. There were exceptions,
particularly Simon Potter’s work on the press which played a close attention to
business. See Potter, News and the British world.
[14]
Ferguson, Empire, xxiv.
[15]
Hopkins, ‘Back to the Future’, 203, 205. See also, Hopkins, ed., Globalization
in World History; Hopkins, ed., Global History; O’Brien, ‘Historiographical
Traditions’; Osterhammel and Petersson, Globalization; Bayly, Birth of the
Modern World; Darwin, After Tamerlane.
[16]
Cf. Belich, Replenishing the Earth, 21–23.
[17]
Belich, Replenishing the Earth.
[18]
Magee and Thompson, Empire and Globalisation.
[19]
Darwin, Empire Project; for quotes, 9, 10, 11, 282.
[20]
Not least because settlement depended on the construction of ‘lumpy’ social
overhead capital, particularly railways, which only fully deliver returns when
completed (and often long after completion). The shallow capital markets of
the mid-Victorian settler colonies could hardly have provided the
infrastructure for their late-nineteenth century expansion. See Cain and
Hopkins, British Imperialism, 207–8; Belich, Replenishing the Earth, 86–89,
181–208.
[21]
Hopkins, ‘Introduction’, together with the other essays in Hopkins, ed., Global
History.
[22]
E.g. Hopkins, ‘Informal Empire’ and ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’; Thompson,
‘Informal Empire?’; McAloon, ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’; Kubicek,
13
‘Economic Power ‘; Schreuder and Ward, ‘What Became of Australia’s
Empire?’, 17; Buckner, ‘Creation of the Dominion of Canada’, 68–70.
[23]
Ferguson and Schularick, ‘The Empire Effect’.
[24]
Cottrell, ‘London’s First “Big Bang”‘, 69–72.
[25]
Wilkins, ‘Free-Standing Company’; Wilkins and Schröter, eds., Free-Standing
Company.
[26]
See also Ville, Rural Entrepreneurs; Barnard, ed., Simple Fleece; Bailey,
Hundred Years.
[27]
Wilkins, ‘Significance of the Concept ‘, 422.
[28]
For the phrase, see Bridge and Fedorowich, ‘The British World’, 6.
[29]
Here the British World displays its origins as an antidote to ‘nationalist’
historiographies and their tendency to exaggerate the significance of moments
of friction. For recent criticisms of the approach along these lines, see
Korneski, ‘Britishness, Canadianness, Class, and Race’.
[30]
Pocock, ‘Limits and Divisions’.
14
References
Abel, Christopher, and Colin M. Lewis, eds. Latin America, Economic Imperialism
and the State: The Political Economy of the External Connection from
Independence to the Present. London: Athlone, 1985.
Attard, Bernard. ‘From Free-Trade Imperialism to Structural Power: New Zealand
and the Capital Market, 1856–68’. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth
History 35 (2007): 505–27.
Bailey, J. D. A Hundred Years of Pastoral Banking: A History of the Australian
Mercantile Land & Finance Company, 1863–1963. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1966.
Barnard, Alan, ed. The Simple Fleece: Studies in the Australian Wool Industry.
Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1962.
Bayly, Christopher A. The Birth of the Modern World, 1780–1914: Global
Connections and Comparisons. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
Belich, James. Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the
Anglo-World, 1783–1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Bridge, Carl, and Kent Fedorowich, eds. The British World: Diaspora, Culture, and
Identity. London: F. Cass, 2003.
———. ‘Mapping the British World’. In The British World: Diaspora, Culture, and
Identity, edited by Carl Bridge and Kent Fedorowich. London: F. Cass, 2003.
Buckner, Phillip. ‘The Creation of the Dominion of Canada, 1860–1901’. In Canada
and the British Empire edited by Phillip Buckner . Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008.
15
Buckner, P. A. and Carl Bridge. ‘Re-Inventing the British World’. The Round Table
92 (2003): 77–88.
Buckner, Phillip A., and R. Douglas Francis. ‘Introduction’. In Rediscovering the
British World, edited by Phillip A. Buckner and R. Douglas Francis, 10–17.
Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2005.
Buckner, Phillip A., and R. Douglas Francis, eds. Rediscovering the British World.
Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2005.
———. Canada and the British World: Culture, Migration, and Identity. Vancouver:
UBC Press, 2006.
Cain, Peter. ‘J. A. Hobson, Finance Capitalism and Imperialism in Late Victorian and
Edwardian England’. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 14
(1985): 10–27.
———. ‘Hobson Lives? Finance and British Imperialism 1870–1914’. In State and
Trade : Government and the Economy in Britain and the Netherlands since the
Middle Ages, edited by S. Groenveld and M. J. Wintle, 90–102. Zutphen:
Walburg Pers, 1992.
Cain, P. J., and A. G. Hopkins. British Imperialism, 1688–2000. 2nd ed. Harlow:
Longman, 2001.
———. ‘Afterword: The Theory and Practice of British Imperialism’. In Gentlemanly
Capitalism and British Imperialism: The New Debate on Empire, edited by
Raymond E. Dumett. London: Longman, 1999.
Chilton, Lisa. ‘Canada and the British Empire: A Review Essay’. Canadian Historical
Review 89 (2008): 89–95.
16
Cottrell, Philip L. ‘London’s First "Big Bang"? Institutional Change in the City,
1855–83’. In In the World of Private Banking, edited by Philip L. Cottrell and
Youseff Cassis. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009.
Darian-Smith, Kate, Patricia Grimshaw, and Stuart Macintyre. Britishness Abroad :
Transnational Movements and Imperial Cultures. Carlton: Melbourne
University Press, 2007.
Darwin, John. After Tamerlane: The Global History of Empire since 1405. London:
Allen Lane, 2007.
———. The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World-System, 1830–
1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Davis, L. E. ‘The Late Nineteenth-Century British Imperialist: Specification,
Quantification and Controlled Conjectures’. In Gentlemanly Capitalism and
British Imperialism: The New Debate on Empire, edited by Raymond E.
Dumett. London: Longman, 1999.
Davis, L. E., and Robert A. Huttenback. ‘The Export of British Finance, 1865–1914’.
Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 14 (1985): 77–92.
———. Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire: The Political Economy of British
Imperialism, 1860–1912. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Denoon, Donald. Settler Capitalism: The Dynamics of Dependent Development in the
Southern Hemisphere. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.
Dilley, Andrew R. ‘“The Rules of the Game”: London Finance, Australia and Canada,
C.1900–1914’. Economic History Review 63 (2010): 1003–31.
Ferguson, Niall. Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. London: Penguin,
2003.
17
Ferguson, Niall, and Moritz Schularick. ‘The Empire Effect: The Determinants of
Country Risk in the First Age of Globalization, 1880–1913’. Journal of
Economic History 66 (2006): 283–312.
Hobson, John Atkinson. Imperialism: A Study. London: Archibald Constable & Co,
1905.
Hopkins, A. G. ‘Informal Empire in Argentina: An Alternative View’. Journal of
Latin American Studies 26 (1994): 469–84.
———. ‘Back to the Future: From National History to Imperial History’. Past and
Present 164 (1999): 198–243.
———. ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism in New Zealand’. Australian Economic History
Review 43 (2003): 287–97.
———. Global History: Interactions between the Universal and the Local.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
———. ed. Globalization in World History. London: Pimlico, 2002.
Kennedy, Dane. ‘Imperial History and Post-Colonial Theory’. Journal of Imperial
and Commonwealth History 24 (1996): 345–63.
Korneski, Kurt. ‘Britishness, Canadianness, Class, and Race: Winnipeg and the
British World, 1880s–1910s’. Journal of Canadian Studies 41 (2007): 161–84.
Kubicek, R. V. ‘Economic Power at the Periphery: Canada, Australia, and South
Africa, 1850–1914’. In Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Imperialism: The
New Debate on Empire, edited by Raymond E. Dumett. London: Longman,
1999.
Magee, Gary Bryan, and Andrew S. Thompson. Empire and Globalisation: Networks
of People, Goods and Capital in the British World, C.1850–1914. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
18
McAloon, J. ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism and Settler Capitalists: Imperialism, Dependent
Development and Colonial Wealth in the South Island of New Zealand’.
Australian Economic History Review 42 (2002): 204–24.
O’Brien, Patrick. ‘Historiographical Traditions and Modern Imperatives for the
Restoration of Global History’. Journal of Global History 1 (2006): 3–39.
Osterhammel, Jurgen, and Niels P. Petersson. Globalization: A Short History.
Princeton, N.J.; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Platt, D. C. M., ed. Business Imperialism, 1840–1930: An Inquiry Based on British
Experience in Latin America. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.
Platt, D. C. M., and Guido Di Tella, eds. Argentina, Australia and Canada: Studies in
Comparative Development 1870–1965. London: Macmillan, 1985.
Pocock, J. G. A. ‘The Limits and Divisions of British History: In Search of the
Unknown Subject’. The American Historical Review 87 (1982): 311–36.
Porter, A. N. ‘Which City, What Empire? Shipping, Government, and the Limits of
Co-operation, 1870–1914’. In The City and the Empire. Collected Seminar
Papers, no. 35. London: Institute of Commonwealth Studies, 1985.
Porter, A. N., and R. F. Holland, eds. Money, Finance and Empire, 1790–1950.
Special Issue, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 13, no. 3
(1985): 1–184.
Potter, Simon James. News and the British World: The Emergence of an Imperial
Press System, 1876–1922. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003.
Redish, A. ‘British Financial Imperialism after the First World War’. In Gentlemanly
Capitalism and British Imperialism: The New Debate on Empire, edited by
Raymond E. Dumett. London: Longman, 1999.
19
Robinson, Ronald. ‘The Excentric Idea of Imperialism: With or without Europe’. In
Imperialism and After: Continuities and Discontinuities, edited by Wolfgang
J. Mommsen and Jurgen Osterhammel. London: Allen & Unwin, 1986.
Schreuder, Deryck, and Stuart Ward. ‘Introduction: What Became of Australia’s
Empire?’. In Australia’s Empire, edited by Deryck Schreuder and Stuart
Ward. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Schwartz, Herman M. In the Dominions of Debt: Historical Perspectives on
Dependent Development. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989.
Smith, Andrew. British Businessmen and Canadian Confederation: ConstitutionMaking in an Era of Anglo-Globabization. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s
University Press, 2008.
Thompson, Andrew. ‘Informal Empire? An Exploration in the History of AngloArgentine Relations, 1810–1914’. Journal of Latin American Studies 24
(1992): 419–36.
University of London, Institute of Commonwealth Studies. The City and The Empire.
Collected Seminar Papers, nos. 35–36. London: Institute of Commonwealth
Studies, 1985, 1987.
Ville, Simon P. The Rural Entrepreneurs: A History of the Stock and Station Agent
Industry in Australia and New Zealand. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000.
Wilkins, Mira. ‘The Free-Standing Company, 1870–1914: An Important Type of
British Foreign Direct Investment’. Economic History Review 41 (1988): 259–
82.
20
———. ‘The Significance of the Concept and a Future Agenda’. In The FreeStanding Company in the World Economy, 1830–1996, edited by Mira
Wilkins and Harm G. Schröter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Wilson, Kathleen. A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity, and Modernity in
Britain and the Empire, 1660–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004.