1
The Economic Motives of New Imperialism
Michelle Puccinelli
Boise State University, 2015
The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century changed the economic expectations and practices
of Europe. Products, such as textiles and steel tools, could now be made by machines in factories.
Manufacturing became faster, more efficient, and more diverse. To compensate for this massive
increase of products, industrialized nations needed to expand their economic horizons and find new
places to mine raw materials to be used in production and new markets to sell those manufactured
goods. European empires, such as Germany, Great Britain, and France, set their sights on Africa and
Asia.
Raw Materials
When Europeans began to further explore the interiors of Africa and Asia, they discovered a
trove of raw materials, from the luxuriously exotic to the practical and useful. From Africa there was
gold, diamonds, ivory, coffee, and rubber and from Asia there was tea, spices, and silver. Food stuffs
were particularly important, and wheat, dairy products, oil seeds, and tropical fruits were imported from
around the world.1 Europeans quickly became accustomed to these new goods and by the end of the
19th century, exotic importation was an
important component of the European
economy. For example, tea became wildly
popular in Great Britain, and British companies
greedily manipulated the market, both in
colonized countries like India and with trading
“partners” like China. By 1900 over 6,000 tea
estates were established in India and Ceylon
(Sri Lanka) alone.2 One of the most brutal
examples of removing raw materials was in the
Congo, held by Belgian King Leopold II, where
the Congolese were forced to meet quotas of
rubber extraction or face the removal of their
limbs. The operation was highly profitable for
small Belgium; by 1902, rubber was bringing in
Image 1: South African miners in a British operated gold
41 million francs a year.3 Usually European
mine outside of Johannesburg
colonists oversaw the estates, farms, and
mines in the colony, while the indigenous
Citation: IRC, Miners in a Gold Mine at Johannesburg,
photograph, 2005,
population served as the labor force. Native
http://www.discoveryeducation.com/.
1
Patrick K. O’Brien, “The Costs and Benefits of British Imperialism 1846-1914,” Past & Present, no. 120 (1988): pg.
167.
2
British Library, “Global Trade and Empire,” Text, accessed October 15, 2015,
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/asians/empire/theempire.html.
3
Saul David, “BBC - History - British History in Depth: Slavery and the ‘Scramble for Africa,’” February 2, 2011,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/scramble_for_africa_article_01.shtml.
Michelle Puccinelli, New Imperialism Unit
The Hybrid Classroom 2016
2
workers were often treated like slaves, subsisting on meager compensations and enduring oppressive
administrations.
New Markets
Colonial markets were far more beneficial for the imperial powers than the native population.
Traders could sell their manufactured goods in these foreign markets without paying import taxes. They
could corner the market as well, forcing locals to only buy from them. Because European currency was
useless in many Asian and African cities, transactions often occurred through barter. For example,
gunpowder and cheap textiles were traded for valuable rubber in Africa, while opium was traded for tea
in China.4 Cheap imported goods hurt local artisans
in the colonies. It was cheaper to buy a cotton
textile made in a factory in Great Britain, than a
hand-woven shirt by a local weaver.
Despite the obvious advantages, these
colonial markets were not as profitable as many
imperial powers would have hoped. While the
intention of many imperialists was to force a
mercantilist policy on their new colonies, the native
population rarely had the finances to purchase the
imported manufactured goods of their colonial
masters. The bulk of economic prosperity from
colonization came from the acquisition of cheap (or
free!) raw goods.
Conclusion
Of course, the story is never so simple as “A
led to B, which caused C.” Not every industrialized
European country engaged in imperialism, and
many lacked the industrial complex which would
require new markets and raw materials. For
example, imperialist historian, Carlton J. H. Hayes
notes, “Neither Russia nor Italy had surplus
manufactures to dispose of or surplus wealth to
invest; yet both engaged in the scramble for
imperial dominion…Germany exported little capital
until after she had acquired an extensive colonial
empire, and France secured a far more extensive
one while her industrial development lagged
behind Germany’s…Norway, whose ocean-borne
4
Image 2: Map of Treaty Ports and Foreign Leased
th
Areas, ca. late 19 century
Citation: “European Scramble for Trading Ports in
China” (Instructional Resources Corporation,
2005),
http://www.discoveryeducation.com/.
Jelmer Vos, “Of Stocks and Barter: John Holt and the Kongo Rubber Trade, 1906-1910,” In Global Histories,
Imperial Commodities, Local Interactions, Jonathan Curry-Machado, ed. (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire;
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pg. 89.
Michelle Puccinelli, New Imperialism Unit
The Hybrid Classroom 2016
3
commerce was exceeded only by Great Britain’s and Germany’s, remained consistently aloof from
overseas imperialism.”5
As we continue learning about imperial Europe, keep in mind that while the three largest
imperial powers, Germany, France, and Great Britain, share many similarities, they were not identical
and many nuances exist. Nor should we forget other countries like Italy and Russia, who contributed less
to the imperial game, but still played a role. We will examine general themes and trends of Europe
alongside of studying individual stories.
5
Carlton J.H. Hayes, “New Imperialism – New Nationalism.” In The Economic Causes of Imperialism. Martin Wolfe,
ed., (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1972) pg. 68.
Michelle Puccinelli, New Imperialism Unit
The Hybrid Classroom 2016