Robinson and Gallagher: The Imperialism of Free Trade

R Robinson and J Gallagher, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” Economic History Review 6, no. 1 (1953): 1-15.

The authors begin by arguing that standard definitions and explorations of imperialism and empire are lacking, as they focus solely on formal rule. "The conventional interpretation of nineteenth-century empire continues to rest upon study of the formal empire alone, which is rather like judging the size and character of icebergs solely from the parts above the water line" (1).

One argument put forth and reinforced through example is that both standard, 19th century accounts of imperialism as well as radical critiques of imperialism reinforced one another in understanding imperialism as formal rule as opposed to less formal economic control.

"To sum up: the conventional view of Victorian imperial history leaves us with a series of awkward questions. In the age of 'anti-imperialism' why are all colonies retained? Why were so many more obtained? Why were so many new spheres of influence set up? Or again, in the age of 'imperialism', as we shall see later, why was there such reluctance to annex further territory? Why did decentralization, begun under the impetus of anti-imperialism, continue? In the age of laissez-faire why was the Indian economy developed by the state? These paradoxes are too radical to explain as merely exceptions which prove the rule or by concluding that imperial policy was largely irrational and inconsistent...The contradictions, it may be suspected, arise not from the historical reality but from the historians' approach to it. A hypothesis which fits more of the facts might be that of a fundamental continuity in British expansion throughout the nineteenth century" (5).

"Therefore, the historian who is seeking to find the deepest meaning of the expansion at the end of the nineteenth century should look not at the mere pegging out of claims in African jungles and bush, but at the successful exploitation of the empire, both formal and informal, which was then coming to fruition in India, in Latin American, in Canada and elsewhere" (15).