Role of Economic Factors Behind Neo-imperialism Phenomenon - Essay Example

Introduction New Imperialism spans from 1870-1914 and is greatly motivated by economic factors (Henry, 2006). New Imperialism is a “policy and ideology of imperial colonial expansion” that describe the expansion activities of Europe, the United States and Japan in the latter part of the 19th century to the early part of the 20th century (“New Imperialism”, 2006, para. 1). To fully understand new imperialism of neo-imperialism, it is important to understand its relation to the imperialism of the 15th to 17th century. Though they share essential characteristics, the circumstances, motivation, eventual effects and implications may differ. Neo-imperialism is not considered just a resurgent of imperialism but is considered as separate and distinct subject. To understand neo-imperialism, it is essential to valuate its validity as either a political or economic phenomenon. Many of the activities and strategies employed in neo-imperialism resulted to or were caused by political measures to preserve influence and power in the home regions of the nation involved. Marxist and socialist critics point out the underlying economic motivation driving imperialistic movements. Regardless of the stated and actual motivations, neo-imperialism both has political and economic rationales. This paper aims to evaluate whether neo-imperialism is a political or economic phenomenon by evaluating its origins and consequences. In doing so, the paper will provide not only an understanding of neo-imperialism as a phenomenon but also provide insight into its current influence in the global arena. Understanding Imperialism and Neo-Imperialism Imperialism refers to the political domination by one group of another through. The term was coined to denote the expansion activities to claim the territories of the new world: predominantly of European countries into the Americas, Asia and Africa. It thrives between 1450-1650 but went into decline during the Age of Metternich1 and resurged again to give rise to neo-imperialism (Henry, 2006). According to Vladimir Lenin, imperialism is necessitated by the capitalist commercial motivations of accessing and expanding markets and to gain command of resources (“Imperialism”, 2006). Marxists saw imperialism as an engine of dominance providing advantage over less developed nations (“New Imperialism”, 2006). There were varied motivations for imperialism, aside from exploration: it became a symbol of status among European countries to be able to “discover” foreign lands signifying political, economic and cultural strength. Reasons In both instances, there were political and economic motivations expressed to give good reason for the imperial activities. In imperialism, the need to discover and develop new trade routes to supply the growing economic demands of European markets for raw materials and products, particularly spices encouraged the explorations (“Imperialism”, 2006). Though there were existent land routes, they were often hampered by local wars and politics. In the case of neo-imperialism, industrialization, effects of the long depression in Europe, inflation explosion and the triumph of industrial capitalists over finance capitalists in Europe and existing colonies was the reason for the expansion to discover new markets and resources (“New Imperialism”, 2006; Henry, 2006). Politically, participation into imperialism also aimed to maintain whatever status quo of power existing in Europe (“Imperialism”, 2006). According to Latourre (1997) one can take for this as an example is the competition that rose between of Portugal and Spain in the early 1500’s. Both were motivated in their explorations to claim land to advance Christianity to further their amity with the Papacy and to maintain their stature in the Iberian Peninsula. In neo-imperialism, the expansions were seen as a means of reinforcing dominance and power not just between traditional political rivals in Europe but also against emerging world leaders such as the Untied States and Japan (Porter, 1994). Mechanisms Essential, both imperialism and neo-imperialism used the same strategy that can be outlined through acquisition, control and protection. Commerce and policy was both ways as shown by the exchange of goods and establishment of corporations and development activities. In both imperialism and neo-imperialism, the objective is to gain control or dominating influence (“Vladimir Lenin”, 2006). In the case of imperialism, the standard course of action seems to be the acquisition of a territory first prior to the development of commercial and industrial interests. Military action was in a more offensive mode in comparison to neo-imperialism (Latourre, 1997). In the case of neo-imperialism, action was less direct and was more initially focused on access rather than control. Military action was viewed more as a protective element rather than as part of expansionary initiative (Harvey, 2006). Neo-imperialism also utilized a higher degree of involvement with politics and economics either in partnership with host countries or independently (Gowan et al, 2001). Influence Imperialism provided the foundations for internationalization of commerce and globalization. It also helped establish trade routes and practices still used today in international trade. Imperialism provided for the foundations of neo-imperialism and its viability as a means to expand markets and territories to support declining local economies and financing developmental activities (Warren, 1980). Neo-imperialism has had the greater impact not only because it is more recent but because it has set the tone for the political and economic. Another reason why neo-imperialism still echoes in today’s international arena is that two of its proponents, the United States and Japan are currently leading the world’s economies (Brenner, 2002). Neo-imperialism was less hostile to existing governments but they became more invasive in terms of controlling industries and commerce (Redfern & Snedker, 2002). This was brought by a combination of decline in host countries’ economies, the advantages of technology by imperialists and the establishment of monopolies (Harvey, 2006). Politics or Economics? Neo-imperialism has been portrayed as an almost frantic quest of "empire for empires sake", the development of the colonial economies and the development of ethnic predominance movements and extra-territorial governance (“New Imperialism”, 2006, para. 1). Imperialism on the other hand was justified by religious mandate and scientific exploration to supposedly veil apparent economic and political motivations that may not have been considered positively (“Imperialism”, 2006). Imperialism had its motivations from politics and economics. Economic gain was the premise of expansionary exploration and political motivations2 jumpstarted the expansion activities but the eventual economic benefits fueled the activities (Twaddle, 1992). However, the political struggle in the home countries eventually was the reason for imperialistic activities to fall off. In this regard, Imperialism can be considered to lean more as a political phenomenon rather than a dominantly economic one. In the case of neo-imperialism, it began by being economically motivated as signified by the activities of the British East India and various trade companies in China, inter-Asian trade liberalization and partnerships in North Asia, the establishment of transport and cargo routes by the United States, Germany and the Netherlands (“New Imperialism”, 2006). To be able to establish whether neo-imperialism is really a economic or political phenomenon, its reasons, mechanisms and eventual results must all have significant political or economic in nature. Politics The political factors that drove neo-imperialism were also significant. The Panic of 1893 motivated Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley and Henry Cabot Lodge to call for more hard lined foreign policies to counter the effects of the economic depression suffered by the United States which also echoed in Europe as well as to stand against the alleged subjugation of colonies. The United States’ involvement resulted in a war against Spain that concluded with the United States control of Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico (“New Imperialism”, 2006). Among these territories, the United States only held onto the Philippines as a colony due to its strategic position in the Pacific region (Latourre, 1997). Imperial Chancellor Otto von Bismarck involved Germany into neo-imperialism to keep pace with the colonial expansion of other European countries. Another motivation was to intimidate Britain and other European countries to concede to Germany’s aspiration of leading Europe (“New Imperialism”, 2006). The Meiji Restoration in Japan in 1868 and set the industrial and militaristic expansionism of the country that lead to the cessation of Korea and Manchuria in last decade of the 19th century (Latourre, 1997). The Japanese was not so motivated by economic aspirations but rather was motivated by its vision of creating co-prosperity among Asian nations based on Japanese traditions and culture. Economics Like imperialism, economic incentives fueled the prominence of imperialism. The lucrative the trade systems and routes was not only a motivation for commerce but it incited military actions. By 1904, the US became the primary investor in Latin America as was intended by the passing of the Roosevelt Corollary as part of the Monroe Doctrine According to J. A. Hobson, the accumulation theory justified the military and political expenses of imperialism with the economic rewards. Before the 1880’s Europeans were already involved in trade Africa but was not much involved in African politics or society. When the gem trade and shipping grew into importance, it became important to employ strategic and political pressure in African governments to protect the commercial interests (“Theories of New Imperialism”, 2006). Following this theory, the industrial revolution is seen as one of the primary moving forces of neo-imperialism. Another theory that supports the economic rationale of neo-imperialism is through the world-systems theory proposed by Immanuel Wallerstein. Though this theory disagrees with Hobson’s theory, it is also based on neo-imperialism as an economic motivated movement. The theory itself is centered on the role of capitalism in imperialism and how it was a consequence of the need to sustain markets by expanding (Warren, 1980). Wallerstein points out that neo-imperialism was the strategy of countries like Germany, the United States and Japan to gain a greater stake in international economies that were dominated by England in the global capitalist and economic system (“Theories of New Imperialism”, 2006). In this theory, capitalism is seen as the mastermind of imperialism. Conclusion Like in imperialism, neo-imperialism had both political and economic motives. When imperialism may have more political factor involved in its mechanism, it was its economic propositions that eventual motivated its revival in the late 19th century to create the platform for internationalization of emerging world leaders like the United States, Japan and Germany to set itself at par with Britain (“Imperialism”, 2006). Even Britain itself sought to revive its economy by its control of South Asian trade and commerce changing its previous style of imperialism to a more mercantile or commercial approaches (Henry, 2006). The need for competitive advantage drove the need for political policies that were programmed to protect trade interests that lead to the acquisition of territories and military action. Imperialism can be more arguably politically motivated because it lost steam when Europe had to focus more internally in its politics during the Age of Metternich. In the case of neo-imperialism, the political elements were a consequence of economic interest rather than the desire to establish the territories as political states. In the resolution of conflicts during the imperial period territories were the central issues while in neo-imperialism, trading rights were seen as more important than physical occupation. For example, one of the United States’ motivation in maintaining its colony in the Philippines, and thus control over its waters and strategic location, was due to its desire to preserve competitive advantage in South East Asian region were the Dutch, Chinese, Japanese, British among other colonial partners all had territories (Latourre, 1997). In doing so, the United States maintained exclusive rights and control to the country’s products as well as kept in check the activities of other colonists in the region. The intimacy of government and economics allows for both economic and political elements in neo-imperialism. The political motivation behind this phenomenon are should not be considered as less that of the economic motivations. Both of them significantly have influenced the course of neo-imperialism and the rest of history. The economic rewards remain at the core and purpose of neo-imperialism but political will acted its arm in enforcing its objectives (Putzel, 2004). Finally, it is concluded that neo-imperialism is more of an economic phenomenon because it can find its motivations in the economics. Its mechanism was to exploit markets and trade to establish presence in the global community. Its costs also find its justification in the financial rewards. Ultimately, its greatest contributions have been in the establishment of trade and commercial systems. Therefore, neo-imperialism proves itself to be a dynamic economic force that has helped shape the global economy s we know it today. References Age of Metternich (2006). Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on November 5, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Metternich Brenner, R. (2002). The boom and the bubble: the U.S. in the world economy. London: Verso Buchanan, James M. (1994). Ethics and Economic Progress. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Gowan, P., Panitch, L. and Shaw, M. (2001). The state, globalization and the new imperialism: a round table discussion. Historical Materialism. pp. 93-138 Harvey, David (2006). The New Imperialism: On Spatio-Temporal Fixes and Accumulation by Dispossession. Retrieved on November 5, 2006 from http://titanus.roma1.infn.it/sito_pol/Global_emp/Harvey.htm Henry, (2006). New Imperialism (1870 - 1914). Retrieved on November 5, 2006 from http://www.wpunj.edu/history/study/ws2/set10b.htm. Imperialism (2006). Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on November 5, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism Latourre, Kenneth Scott (1997). A Short History of the Far East, Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing New Imperialism (2006). Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on November 5, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism Porter, A. N. (1994). European imperialism, 1860-1914. Hampshire : Macmillan Publishing Putzel, James (2004) The new imperialism and possibilities for coexistence. Paper presented to the Crisis States Research Centre. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Redfern, A. and Snedker, P. (2002). Creating Market Opportunities for Small Enterprises: Experiences of the Fair Trade Movement. International Labor Office. p4 Theories of New Imperialism (2006). Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on November 5, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_New_Imperialism Twaddle, Michael (1992). Imperialism, the state, and the Third World. London: British Academic Press Vladimir Lenin (2006). Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on November 5, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin Warren, B. (1980). Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism. London: Verso Press. Read More