Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:16:51.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Business Imperialism’ and Argentina, 1875–1900: A Theoretical Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Charles Jones
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The facts are by now sufficiently clear for it to be common ground in any discussion of late nineteenth-century imperialism that the British State was disinclined to interfere on behalf of British capitalists with Latin American interests when these were threatened by local firms or States. Equally it is clear that British capitalists did not invest in Argentina in the belief that, by so doing, they were actively assisting the foreign policy of the British State. The State provided no grounds for this belief and no inducement to invest, and had it done so it is unlikely that the capitalists concerned – a pretty liberal bunch by and large – would have responded to any greater extent than they felt was consistent with their economic advantage. Again, there were not, in Britain, territorially ambitious militarists and aristocrats with their sights set on the South American republics. This element was quite adequately catered for in the Empire. In short, the models of imperialism favoured by Hobson, Schumpeter, and other conspiracy theorists, however appropriate they may be in particular cases, cannot be generalized and have very little relevance to Argentina.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , November 1980 , pp. 437 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This seems to have been the view of Hobson. It is also the reading placed on Lenin by Robinson, and Gallagher, and Fieldhouse, D. K.: mistakenly in the view of Eric Stokes, ‘Late Nineteenth-Century Colonial Expansion and the attack on the Theory of Economic Imperialism: a Case of Mistaken Identity?’ The Historical Journal, 12, 2 (1969), pp. 286–8 and passim. Stokes convincingly argues that these authors fail to distinguish clearly between the quite distinct arguments of Hobson and Lenin.Google Scholar

2 This is consistent with Lenin who, however, by no means confines himself to this usage.Google Scholar

3 Elton, G. R., ed., The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge, 1960), p. 344.Preamble to the Act of Appeals of 1533: ‘… this realm of England is an empire… governed by one supreme head…into whom a body politic…be bounden and owe…obedience; he being also institute and furnished … with plenary, whole and entire power, preeminence, authority, prerogative and jurisdiction to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of folk resiants or subjects within this realm in all causes, matters, debates and contentions happening to occur…without restraint or provocation to any foreign princes or potentates of the world:…’Google Scholar

4 See Nishimura, Shizuya, The Decline of the Inland Bill of Exchange, 1855–1913 (Cambridge, 1971), p. 78 nl;Google ScholarParliamentary Papers, 1878, LXXIII, Report by Consul Murray on the Trade and Commerce of Buenos Aires for the Year 1876;Google ScholarHadfield, William, Brazil and the River Plate, 1870–76 (London, 1877), p. 277;Google ScholarMackenzie, Compton, Realms of Silver: one hundred years of banking in the East (London, 1954), p. 69–70;Google ScholarAllen, G. C. and Donnithorne, A. G., Western Enterprise in Far Eastern Economic Development: China and Japan (London, 1954), p. 110;Google Scholar and Marriner, Sheila, Rathbones of Liverpool, 1845–73 (Liverpool, 1961), p. 206.Google Scholar

5 Bank of London and South America Archives, University College, London, D.35, 14 November 1879 and DI, 9 March 1882;Google ScholarPlatt, D. C. M., Latin America and British Trade (London, 1972), pp. 139–43.Google Scholar

6 Dean, Warren, The Industrialization of São Paulo, 1880–1945 (Austin, Texas, 1969), p. 20.Google Scholar

7 Most accessibly, in Platt, D. C. M. (ed.), Business Imperialism, 1840–1930 (Oxford, 1977), chapters 1–3.Google Scholar

8 See Chiaramonte, José C., Nacionalismo y liberalismo económicos en Argentina, 1860–1880 (Buenos Aires, 1971) on the intellectual background of López.Google Scholar

9 Stokes, Eric, op. cit., p. 293. (See note 1).Google Scholar

10 This line of argument relies largely on Polanyi, Karl, Origins of Our Time: the Great Transformation (London, 1945).Google Scholar