Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:50:27.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Informal Empire? An Exploration in the History of Anglo-Argentine Relations, 1810–19141

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
Affiliation:
Andrew Thompson is a research student at Nuffield College, Oxford.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Introduction: the genesis of ‘informal empire’

In 1953 John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson published an article entitled ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, which has since become a landmark in the study of nineteenth-century British imperialism. Seeking to overturn long-cherished notions of a mid-Victorian ‘indifference’ and a late-Victorian ‘enthusiasm’ for empire, it proposed a basic continuity of policy whereby British industrialisation caused an ever-extending and intensifying development of overseas regions for both strategic and economic purposes. Hence the suggestion of a working definition of imperialism as ‘the sufficient political function of this process of integrating new regions into the expanding economy’. In switching the focus of a definition of imperialism from the way in which Britain was able to assert her superiority over weaker, subordinate nations to the impetus and motivation behind such expansion, traditional conceptions of empire were suddenly shattered. Indeed, as Robinson and Gallagher maintained, ‘The conventional interpretation of the nineteenth century empire continues to rest on the study of formal empire alone, which is rather like judging the size and character of icebergs solely from the parts above the water-line’.2

The whole framework of reference for a study of British imperialism was being recast, the revised assumption being that the empire of formal dominion, which can loosely be defined as control through annexation and constitutional subordination, is not comprehensible in isolation. Rather, the assertion of British paramountcy, which for Robinson and Gallagher lies close to the very heart of imperialism, was achieved by informal means if possible, or by formal annexation when this was deemed necessary.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 1992 , pp. 419 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

2 Gallagher, John and Robinson, Ronald, ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, Economic History Review, second series, vol. 6, no. 2 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Gallagher, J. and Robinson, R., Africa and the Victorians (New York, 1961).Google Scholar

4 Ferns, H. S., Britain and Argentina in the nineteenth century (Oxford, 1960).Google ScholarPlatt, D. C. M., ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade, Some Reservations’, Economic History Review, second series, vol. 21, no. 2 (Aug. 1968); and ‘Further Objections to an ‘Imperialism of Free Trade’, 1830–60’, Economic History Review, second series, vol. 26, no. I (1973).CrossRefGoogle ScholarLynn, M., ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade and the Case of West Africa c.1830–c. 1870’, The journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, vol. 15, no. 2 (Oct. 1968).Google Scholar For its adherents see, Winn, P., ‘British Informal Empire in Uruguay in the Nineteenth Century’, Past and Present, no. 73 (Nov. 1976)Google Scholar and Maclean, D., ‘Finance and “Informal Empire” before the First World War’, Economic History Review, second series, vol. 29, no. 2 (1976).Google Scholar

5 Mathew, W. M., ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade: Peru, 1820–70’, Economic History Review, second series, vol. 21, no. 3 (1968).Google ScholarOsterhammel, J., ‘Semi-Colonialism and Informal Empire in Twentieth Century China: Towards a Framework of Analysis’, in Mommsen, W. J. and Osterhammel, J. (eds.), Imperialism and After (German Historical Institute, 1986).Google Scholar

6 Ferns, ibid.

7 Burgin, M., Economic Aspects of Argentine Federalism, 1820–52 (Cambridge, 1946).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Platt, D. C. M., ‘Foreign Finance in Argentina for the First Half-Century of Independence’, Journal of Latin American Studies, vol. 15, part I (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Lynch, J., Argentine Dictator, Juan Manuel De Rosas, 1829–152 (Oxford, 1981).Google Scholar

10 Page, W., Commerce and Industry, Tables and Statistics for the British Empire from 1815 (London, 1919).Google Scholar

11 Brown, J., A Socio-economic History of Argentina, 1776–1860 (Cambridge, 1979).Google Scholar

12 Platt, D. C. M., Latin America and British Trade, 1806–1914 (London, 1972).Google Scholar

13 See Dean, B., ‘British Informal Empire: The Case of China’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, vol. 14, no. 2 (March 1976) who, for similar reasons, concludes that the economic dimension to Britain's relations with China in this period did not amount to ‘informal empire’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 A similar observation is made by Whitehead, L., ‘Mexico and the “Hegemony” of the US: Past, Present, and Future’, in Roett, R. (ed.), Mexico's External Relations in the iyyos (London, 1991)Google Scholar, where the harmony in Mexican-US relations since the Second World War is attributed to the convergence of assumptions and outlook between the two governments.

15 This section is heavily based on Ferns, Britain and Argentina; and Halperín-Donghi, T., Politics, Economics and Society in Argentina in the Revolutionary Period (Cambridge, 1975).Google Scholar

18 Stone, I., ‘British Investment in Argentina’, Journal of Economic History, vol. 32, no. 2 (June 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Ferns, , Britain and Argentina.Google Scholar

18 Conde, R. Cortes and Hunt, S. J. (eds.), The Latin American Economies: Growth and the Export Sector, 1880–1930 (London, 1985).Google Scholar

19 Rock, D., Argentina if 1516–1982 (London, 1986).Google Scholar

20 Platt, D. C. M. (ed.), Cambridge Working Papers on Informal Imperialism in Spanish America (1974).Google Scholar

21 Ziegler, P., The Sixth Great Power: Barings, 1762–1929 (London, 1988).Google Scholar

22 Smith, P., Politics and Beef in Argentina. Patterns of Conflict and Change (New York, 1969).Google Scholar

23 For the precursor to this theory and in many ways to the idea of ‘informal empire’ itself see Lenin, V. I., Imperialism. The Highest Stage of Capitalism (London, 1933). For Lenin imperialism was an explanation of the configuration of the industrial world - monopoly capitalism - of which colonialism was only one derivative. Imperialism was a system of economic domination not coterminous with formal empire and embracing so-called ‘semi-colonies’, countries exploited but not formally occupied. Lenin went on to discuss ‘a number of transitional forms of national dependence’ including the ‘financial dependence’ of Argentina on the London capital market.Google Scholar

24 Dos Santos, Theotonio, La crisis norteamericanay América Latina (Chile, 1971).Google Scholar

25 Ford, A. G., ‘British Investment and Argentine Economic Development 1880–1914’, in Rock, D. (ed.), Argentina in the Twentieth Century (London, 1975).Google Scholar

26 Tercer Censo National 1914.

27 Marichal, C., A Century of Debt Crises in Latin America: From Independence to the GreatDepression, 1820–1930 (Princeton, 1989).Google Scholar

28 Kuznets, S., Modern Economic Growth: Kate, Structure, and Spread (New Haven, 1966).Google Scholar

29 For a more detailed analysis of the crisis of 1890 and the way it was resolved see H. Ferns, ‘The Baring Crisis Revisited’, in this issue of J.L.A.S. The measures put into place by Finance Minister Vicente López in the summer of 1890, as well as General Roca's proposal to buy back the Obras de Salubridad from the Buenos Ayres Water Supply & Drainage Company Limited, were just as important as the actions taken by the Bank of England in ensuring the survival of Barings.

30 Guy, D., ‘Dependency, the Credit Market, and Argentine Industrialisation, 1860–1940’, Business History Review, vol. 58, no. 4 (Winter 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Moran, T. H., ‘The Development of Argentina and Australia. The Radical Party of Argentina and the Labour Party of Australia in the Process of Economic and Political Development’, Comparative Politics, no. I (Oct. 1970). Moran discusses the failure of the Radical Civic Union to honour the pledges made before 1916 to destroy the traditional export system and reliance on foreign capital, and to promote national industry and land reform. He argues that because protection was not in the interests of any powerful section of the community it was not supported. Thus although the landed elite were excluded from political power between 1916–30 their economic power was strengthened.Google Scholar

32 Extracto estadistico de la República Argentina. Correspondiente al año 1915.

33 Wright, W., British-owned Railways in Argentina - Their Effect on Economic Nationalism 1854–1948 (Austin, 1979).Google Scholar

34 Lewis, C., British Railways in Argentina, 1857–1914, A Case Study of Foreign Investment (London, 1983).Google Scholar

35 Lewis, C., ‘Railways and Industrialisation in Argentina and Brazil’, in Lewis, C. and Abel, C. G. (eds.), Latin America - Economic Imperialism and the State: the political economy of the external connection from independence to the present (London, 1985).Google Scholar

36 The interests of the elite and the urban working and middle classes came into sharpest conflict over monetary policy where the paper currency and high rates of inflation greatly benefited the estancieros who sold meat and hides abroad and then converted their foreign currency into depreciated pesos, but meant that merchants and their customers found it increasingly difficult to pay for their imported goods in pesos. This in effect became a powerful instrument of income distribution in favour of the elite. Snow, P. G., Argentine Radicalism: The History and Doctrine of the Radical Civic Union (Iowa, 1965)Google Scholar and Rock, D., Politics in Argentina, 1890–1930: The Rise and Fall of Radicalism 1890–1930 (Cambridge, 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Goodwin, P. B., ‘The Central Argentine Railway and the economic development of Argentina, 1854–1881’, Hispanic American Historical Review, vol. 57 (Nov. 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 For the distinction between the first two levels see, Strange, S., States and Markets (London, 1988).Google Scholar Strange talks of ‘relational power’, the power of one nation to coerce another to do something it would not otherwise do, and ‘structural power’ the power to determine the rules and customs which govern international economic relations. Also Lukes, S., Power: A Radical View (London, 1974) which offers a definition of power based on a capacity to control the political agenda in such a way as to avert potential conflicts of interest. This would allow one nation, ‘A’, to exert power over another, ‘B’, in a manner contrary to the real interests of ‘B’, without ‘B’ being conscious of what those interests were.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 R. Robinson defines this as ‘some form of social integration with the stronger country, which tends to insert its beliefs and institutions into the weaker society’ in ‘The Excentric Idea of Imperialism, with or without Empire’, in Mommsen and Osterhammel (eds.) Imperialism and After.

40 Jones, M. A., The Limits of Liberty. American History 1607–1980 (Oxford, 1983).Google Scholar