1

FINANCE, EMPIRE AND THE BRITISH WORLD

In May 1985, this Journal published a special edition on ‘Money, Finance, and

Empire’ edited by Andrew Porter and Robert Holland. Many of the historiographical

concerns of the mid-1980s were well represented. Lance Davis and Ronald

Huttenback presented their new estimates of British overseas investment; D. C. M.

Platt compared the dynamics of Edwardian investment in Canada, Argentina, and

Australia; Youseff Cassis anatomised London’s banking community; Amiga Kumar

Bagchi, B. R. Tomlinson, and Scott Newton examined currency matters in Anglo-

Indian relations and in the Attlee government’s early moves toward European

integration; while Jacques Marseilles offered a summary for an English-speaking

audience of his seminal study of the links between French commerce and

expansionism.1 The fact that the collection opened with an important article by Peter

Cain exploring J. A. Hobson’s theory of finance capitalism highlighted the degree to

which the historical agenda continued to be framed by the Edwardian critic of empire.

The role, or otherwise, of finance as the ‘governor’ of official imperialism still

preoccupied historians, while the questions Hobson raised about the distribution of the

empire’s costs and benefits soon produced a major study by Davis and Huttenback.2

Two and a half decades on, this new collection of essays enters the debate

about finance and empire at a particularly opportune moment because it does so in a

field dramatically transformed, and one which invites the blending of older and new

paradigms. The most obvious shift is geographical, for the focus here is on Britain’s

relations with the colonies of settlement, which only played a subsidiary role in 1985.

Indeed, at that time the impact of British investment in Latin America was much more

likely to attract the attention of historians stimulated by contemporary debates about

the ‘imperialism of free trade’ and the ‘dependency thesis’’.3 This shift in focus

2

reflects a broader re-discovery of the settlement empire since the 1980s inspired by

two important historiographical developments: first, the debate surrounding Cain and

Hopkins’ concept of ‘gentlemanly capitalism’;4 and second, the more general revival

of scholarly interest in the ‘British World’ which has now produced a rich crop of

publications.

Importantly the transformations have been as much conceptual as

geographical. While Cain and Hopkins may have owed a clear and explicit debt to

Hobson (as well as other ‘classical’ theories of imperialism’),5 they also emphasised a

form of informal imperialism in Latin America and the Dominions based on to what

Ronald Robinson described as ‘the meshing of autonomous private enterprises with

the internal politics of quasi-autonomous governments’ which Hobson conspicuously

failed to recognise.6 Their subsequent use of the concept of ‘structural power’ added a

further important and as yet under-explored refinement to an old historical theme.7

Cain and Hopkins thus both re-invigorated the debate about the nature of financial

imperialism and shifted its focus to the self-governing settler societies rather than the

tropical zones of annexation and coercion which originally drew Hobson’s gaze.8

At times in recent years, such concerns have been unfairly seen as a mere

reshuffling of the conceptual pack of ‘old’ imperial history as the centre of gravity in

the imperial studies has shifted away from supposedly ‘traditional’ interests in

economics and politics towards the cultural dynamics of empire.9 Indeed, a concern

with culture and identity lay at the heart of the second historiographical revival of

interest in the dominions.10

Originally the subject of a sequence of conferences, the

concept of a ‘British World’ sought to re-integrate the dominions into the history of

empire, and Britain into the history of the dominions, by directing attention to two

often insufficiently distinguished phenomena: the dense social networks primarily

3

forged by emigrants ‘from below’, which linked Britain to the dominions (and, to a

lesser extent, the dominions to each other); and the global dimensions and usages of

‘Britishness’.11

Although only occasionally employed by contemporaries, the term

‘British World’ has now been adopted and expanded by historians to refer to the

largely consensual and bottom up aspects of Britishness and the British experience

abroad as a corrective to the supposedly excessive concentration of earlier historians

on power relations and the ‘top down’ structures of formal empire.12

Accordingly the

first publications on the British World tended to focus on the social and cultural

aspects of the subject with only limited interest in economics or even political

interactions.13

Meanwhile, the intellectual context towards the end of the millennium was

being transformed by the contemporary phenomenon of ‘globalisation’ which could

not but have a profound effect on scholars of transnational structures like empires, or

more diffuse and broadly-based constructs like the British World. Niall Ferguson’s

popular and controversial account claimed that the history of the British Empire was

‘the history of globalization as it was promoted by Great Britain and her colonies–

“Anglobalization”, if you like’.14

More seasoned imperial historians took seriously

Tony Hopkins confident assertion that ‘Empires were transnational organizations …

created to mobilize the resources of the world’ (Hopkins having defined ‘transnational

influences … collectively’ as globalization).15

In this context, the creation of the

British World as a distinctive zone integration could be ranked in importance

alongside the growth of commerce and spread of imperialism more generally as a key

contributor to the first wave of modern globalisation.16

Thus a very contemporary preoccupation with the forces of global integration

in the late-twentieth century meant that economic forces came back strongly into

4

historiographical play, while the colonisation of the Dominions might now be viewed

within a larger transnational framework encompassing the entire anglophone settler

world. These have been the themes of two important recent monographs. James

Belich’s swashbuckling account of the settler revolution and the rise of the ‘Anglo-

world’ emphasises the boom mentality of ‘settlerism’. But fundamentally the cycles

of ‘explosive colonization’ and metropolitan ‘re-colonization’ he writes about so

vividly were also investment cycles requiring enormous transfers of capital and

technology to complement the sustained inflows of people.17

By contrast, Andrew

Thompson and Gary Magee have written an economic history of the British World

which explores how co-ethnic British networks shaped the pattern of trade, migration,

and investment. Ultimately British-world networks contributed to the creation of a

distinct, dense, and often racially-bounded zone of economic integration.18

In their

separate ways, Belich, and Magee and Thompson and argue that the British World—

or its broader correlative, the Anglo-world—lay at the heart of modern globalisation

before 1914.

Fittingly, these major historiographical currents converge in John Darwin’s

magisterial new study of the ‘empire project’. According to Darwin, the success of

this project depended on Britain’s ability to navigate a complex and shifting set of

global forces. The enormous accumulation of British assets abroad (the City’s ‘great

commercial republic’) and the ‘“awkward squad” of self-governing settlement

colonies’ were two of the main components of Britain’s world-system allowing it to

do so. Moreover, although the ‘commercial republic’ was treated separately from the

white dominions, Darwin acknowledged the close connections between the square

mile and the British World’; for: ‘“nation building” in the white dominions meant

5

greater dependence not less on the British market and on the financial machinery of

the City of London’.19

In summary, it ought to be a commonplace now that finance was as integral as

emigration to the formation of a British World. Without massive investment, the

settlement of ‘neo-Britains’ would have been impossible, or at the very least would

have taken a radically different form.20

Equally, finance was a vital element in the

power relations that developed between settler societies and the metropole. The

question of power and finance has been a perennial theme in the imperial

historiography. It is time now for the British World to be integrated into that

historiography and to broaden the perspective. The essays in this collection seek to

contribute to this task through case studies which explore the links between

investment, power and culture in the settler empire.

A central concern in the new historiography of globalisation has been the

interactions between the universal and the local.21

A connection can be made between

this and one of the fundamental issues in the debate over gentlemanly capitalism: the

extent to which colonial actors were able to make autonomous choices over local

economic policies and the management of capital. As we have already noted, Cain

and Hopkins attempted to address this by emphasising the distinction between

relational and structural power: colonial actors may have been participants in the

game of economic development (and hence, depending on circumstances, might have

exercised some relational power), but they had little capacity to choose the underlying

‘rules’ by which they played; rather, the rules were determined elsewhere.22

The first

two essays in this collection take up the question of structural power in two

contrasting studies of settler polities at quite different points in Australia’s economic

and political development.

6

The setting of Attard’s essay is the new colony of Queensland during the

1860s. It explores how far, in the economic and political conditions of a raw settler

community, a gentlemanly British governor, Sir George Bowen, and his quasi-official

colonial secretary, Robert Herbert, were willing to modify, and even depart from,

their own ideas of a desirable political economy. Yet, in 1866, when the colony’s

treasurer proposed to extract Queensland from a debt crisis by printing money, Bowen

and Herbert swiftly combined to stop any departure from one of the most sacrosanct

‘rules of the game’—a metallic monetary standard. Thus they reinforced the informal

power of the colony’s banks, re-asserted the colonial status of the local settler

community, and demonstrated the persistence of a form of imperial ‘bridgehead’ in

the supposedly self-governing colony. Attard, therefore, demonstrates the ways in

which structural power might be mediated in a settler community according to highly

contingent configurations of interests, institutions and external factors (not least the

state of long-distance communications). Even so, the ongoing interests of British

capital were a fundamental element of continuity.

In Dilley’s essay, the setting shifts to New South Wales at the beginning of the

twentieth century at a very different point in the settler debt cycle. Technological

constraints had by now eased to the extent that communications between the

antipodes and Britain were practically instantaneous. The imaginative space between

the two hemispheres had thus also contracted so that the state of metropolitan opinion

might be an immediate concern of politicians in the most distant parts of the British

World. Dilley shows how, in response to both the crisis of the 1890s and curtailed

credit in the City in 1903, New South Wales appointed its fiery statistician, T. A.

Coghlan, agent-general (representative in London) in large part to improve his state’s

image in the City. Coghlan did battle with the London press, and reflected deeply on

7

the political repercussions of financial dependence. Through a reconstruction and

contextualization of Coghlan’s activities and thinking, Dilley illustrates a variety of

links between City opinion and Australian politics. In the process, he seeks to show

that the political impact of financial dependence (‘the politics of finance’) can only be

fully charted by paying attention to the cultural meanings attached to the bare

economic facts of indebtedness in both the borrowing and lending societies. Dilley

shows how structural power might be given its own ‘cultural turn’.

The links between politics, culture and finance also lie at the heart of Andrew

Smith’s explorations of British investment in Canada. In this essay the focus shifts

from the implications of financial power to the recent debate over why the British

chose to invest their money in the British settler colonies in the first place. Smith

raises two questions about the colonies of settlement which are fundamental to an

understanding of the cultural economy of the British World: first, what distinguished

the settler colonies from other investment destinations within the Empire; second,

how to account for the British preference for investments in the British settler world,

even though by Magee and Thompson’s reckoning they shared many of the same

informational advantages in Britain as the United States (and, most likely, other settler

destinations). Smith thus contests Ferguson and Schularik’s assumption of a

generalised ‘empire effect’ based on British political control,23

and Magee and

Thompson’s argument about the extent to which migrant settler networks were

sufficient to explain the preference of British investors for putting their savings into

the Dominions. He suggests that the political and legal institutions of empire with

their associated cultures and loyalties gave British investors additional reasons (if in

retrospect misguided) for considering Canada a less risky prospect than her republican

neighbour. Smith therefore makes the distinction between an informal ‘Anglo-world

8

effect’ based on the informational asymmetries emphasised by Magee and Thompson

and an ‘Empire Effect’ generated by a close adherence to British institutions and a

culture of empire-loyalism, but which did not rely on political control.

The final essay in this collection moves away from questions of power and

investors’ preferences to consider the ways in which direct investments in settler

societies created some of the key transmission mechanisms for the movement of

people, ideas, technology, values, even flora and fauna, in the British World. The

liberalisation of British company law in the mid-nineteenth century had a profound

effect on the how capital for overseas investment was raised in Britain and managed

abroad.24

In particular, it created a permissive legal framework for the formation of

what became a ubiquitous institutional device for the conduct of British foreign direct

investment: the free-standing company.25

Kevin Tennant offers a study of one such

free-standing company, the New Zealand Agency and Australia Land Company

(NZALC), whose properties were in New Zealand, New South Wales and

Queensland. The company was symptomatic of the changing organisational and

ownership structures of British direct investment, as well as an example of how

corporate organisation started to connect the pastoral frontier with British capital (in

this case Scottish rather than London-based) and European markets. In the process the

NZALC and similar companies facilitated the development of one of the most

important segments of the antipodean export economy.26

Thus Tennant demonstrates

the pertinence of Mira Wilkins’ observation that, ‘Capital was not exported by itself

… but rather it was embodied in a business organisation’, and shows that business

historians have long asked important questions about the power dynamics within, and

the economic forces acting on, such networks.27

Further studies of such organisations

are clearly needed to deepen our understanding of how businesses were one (indeed

9

one of the more significant) of many species of trans-national network operating

within the British World, and of the forces shaping those networks.

In conclusion, these essays raise important questions about the relationships

between finance, imperialism, and the British World. Attard, Dilley, and Smith

highlight the roles of British institutions and imperial agencies (governors, legal

frameworks, agents-general and high commissioners) in structuring the interactions

that occurred, as well as transmitting normative expectations and assumptions about

economic governance. Collectively they suggest that, the recent emphasis on

informality (whether Cain and Hopkins re-worked model of informal imperialism, or

Bridge and Fedorowich’s ‘globalisation from below’28

) should not blind us to the

important role played by the institutional and political dimensions of formal empire.

Dilley and Attard point out that financial dependence might create a fraught and

charged politics (indeed, a ‘politics of finance’) which was an important, and often

disruptive, element in Anglo-Australian relations. The gyrations of this politics, and

moments of imperial intervention, were disruptive elements in a British World often

portrayed otherwise as a rather harmonious affair. They deserve fuller treatment.29

Dilley and Smith show that imperial loyalties might influence both the politics of

finance and the very activity of investment itself. Finally Tennent qualifies the

essentially binary spatial paradigm of metropole and periphery which is frequently

deployed in the studies of investment. He not only demonstrates the importance of

intra-antipodean linkages binding the Tasman world, but also highlights how parts of

Britain outside London and the southeast had significant business, commercial,

demographic and cultural connections in the British World.

Yet it is left to Peter Cain to draw out the collection’s broadest significance.

For, as he rightly points out, it embodies a renewed concern with economic history,

10

albeit one which is also deeply interested in political and cultural processes. As he

argues, economies like nations are in many respects ‘imagined’; investment is

ultimately driven forward by frequently fallible calculations of a still unrealised

future. Cain concludes by calling on a new generation of historians to re-integrate the

cultural and economic. Now, as the 2008 global financial crisis translates into

government spending cuts and sovereign debt crises, squeezed personal incomes, and

tighter credit, a new generation is reminded of the perils of unregulated international

finance in a global world. In an earlier era of rapid globalisation, the same perils were

faced by the settler communities of the British World. It is a pertinent moment then

for imperial historians, both ‘new’ and ‘old’, to re-examine this experience and to

give it a firmly political and cultural turn. To paraphrase Pocock, it would be untrue to

say that histories of finance and empire in the British world are unknown, but they are

certainly subjects in need of detailed surveying.30

11

[1] Porter and Holland, Money, Finance and Empire.

[2] Hobson, Imperialism, 59; Davis and Huttenback, Mammon and the Pursuit of

Empire. Similar issues lay at the heart of a two volume collection published in

the same year; see University of London, City and Empire.

[3] For a historiographical overview see Thompson, ‘Informal Empire?’; also see

Platt, ed., Business Imperialism; Abel and Lewis, eds., Latin America,

Economic Imperialism and the State; Platt and Di Tella, eds., Argentina,

Australia and Canada; Marichal, A Century of Debt Crises.

[4] The origins of this debate can be seen in 1985 when Cain and Hopkins and

Andrew Porter clashed over the nascent concept of ‘pecuniary capitalism’; see

Porter, ‘Which City, What Empire?’

[5] Cain, ‘Hobson Lives?’; Cain and Hopkins, British Imperialism, 1688–2000,

31–3.

[6] Robinson, ‘Excentric Idea of Imperialism’, 274; Cain, ‘J. A. Hobson’; Cain

and Hopkins, British Imperialism, 1688–2000, chs. 8, 9.

[7] Cain and Hopkins, ‘Theory and Practice’, 208; Hopkins, ‘Informal Empire’,

204–9; Hopkins, ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’.

[8] The main criticisms and refinements are, Davis, ‘Late Nineteenth-Century

British Imperialist’; Kubicek, ‘Economic Power ‘; Redish, ‘British Financial

Imperialism’; McAloon, ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’; Smith, British

Businessmen; Attard, ‘Free-trade Imperialism to Structural Power’; Dilley,

‘Rules of the Game’.

[9] Kennedy, ‘Imperial History’, 345. For an outline of the ‘new’ imperial history,

see Wilson, ‘Introduction’.

12

[10] Although this literature too has been accused of intellectual and

methodological conservatism, and its often explicit references to late-

Victorian writers such as J. R. Seeley, Charles Dilke, and J. A. Froude and to

the conservative father of ‘New British History’, J. G. A. Pocock, have done

little to allay such suspicious. See Chilton, ‘Canada and the British Empire’.

[11] Bridge and Fedorowich, eds., The British World; Buckner and Francis, eds.,

Canada and the British World; Buckner and Francis, eds., Rediscovering the

British World; Darian-Smith, Grimshaw, and Macintyre, Britishness Abroad.

On the origins of the British World, see also Buckner and Bridge, ‘Re-

inventing the British World’.

[12] For discussion of the term British World, see Bridge and Fedorowich, ‘The

British World’; Buckner and Francis, ‘Introduction’. That said, authors

supposedly writing on the British World frequently use it as a synonym for

settlement empire or the imperial connection.

[13] Bridge and Fedorowich, ‘The British World’. There were exceptions,

particularly Simon Potter’s work on the press which played a close attention to

business. See Potter, News and the British world.

[14] Ferguson, Empire, xxiv.

[15] Hopkins, ‘Back to the Future’, 203, 205. See also, Hopkins, ed., Globalization

in World History; Hopkins, ed., Global History; O’Brien, ‘Historiographical

Traditions’; Osterhammel and Petersson, Globalization; Bayly, Birth of the

Modern World; Darwin, After Tamerlane.

[16] Cf. Belich, Replenishing the Earth, 21–23.

[17] Belich, Replenishing the Earth.

[18] Magee and Thompson, Empire and Globalisation.

13

[19] Darwin, Empire Project; for quotes, 9, 10, 11, 282.

[20] Not least because settlement depended on the construction of ‘lumpy’ social

overhead capital, particularly railways, which only fully deliver returns when

completed (and often long after completion). The shallow capital markets of

the mid-Victorian settler colonies could hardly have provided the

infrastructure for their late-nineteenth century expansion. See Cain and

Hopkins, British Imperialism, 207–8; Belich, Replenishing the Earth, 86–89,

181–208.

[21] Hopkins, ‘Introduction’, together with the other essays in Hopkins, ed., Global

History.

[22] E.g. Hopkins, ‘Informal Empire’ and ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’; Thompson,

‘Informal Empire?’; McAloon, ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’; Kubicek,

‘Economic Power ‘; Schreuder and Ward, ‘What Became of Australia’s

Empire?’, 17; Buckner, ‘Creation of the Dominion of Canada’, 68–70.

[23] Ferguson and Schularick, ‘The Empire Effect’.

[24] Cottrell, ‘London’s First “Big Bang”‘, 69–72.

[25] Wilkins, ‘Free-Standing Company’; Wilkins and Schröter, eds., Free-Standing

Company.

[26] See also Ville, Rural Entrepreneurs; Barnard, ed., Simple Fleece; Bailey,

Hundred Years.

[27] Wilkins, ‘Significance of the Concept ‘, 422.

[28] For the phrase, see Bridge and Fedorowich, ‘The British World’, 6.

[29] Here the British World displays its origins as an antidote to ‘nationalist’

historiographies and their tendency to exaggerate the significance of moments

14

of friction. For recent criticisms of the approach along these lines, see

Korneski, ‘Britishness, Canadianness, Class, and Race’.

[30] Pocock, ‘Limits and Divisions’.

15

References

Abel, Christopher, and Colin M. Lewis, eds. Latin America, Economic Imperialism

and the State: The Political Economy of the External Connection from

Independence to the Present. London: Athlone, 1985.

Attard, Bernard. ‘From Free-Trade Imperialism to Structural Power: New Zealand

and the Capital Market, 1856–68’. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth

History 35 (2007): 505–27.

Bailey, J. D. A Hundred Years of Pastoral Banking: A History of the Australian

Mercantile Land & Finance Company, 1863–1963. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1966.

Barnard, Alan, ed. The Simple Fleece: Studies in the Australian Wool Industry.

Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1962.

Bayly, Christopher A. The Birth of the Modern World, 1780–1914: Global

Connections and Comparisons. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.

Belich, James. Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the

Anglo-World, 1783–1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Bridge, Carl, and Kent Fedorowich, eds. The British World: Diaspora, Culture, and

Identity. London: F. Cass, 2003.

———. ‘Mapping the British World’. In The British World: Diaspora, Culture, and

Identity, edited by Carl Bridge and Kent Fedorowich. London: F. Cass, 2003.

Buckner, Phillip. ‘The Creation of the Dominion of Canada, 1860–1901’. In Canada

and the British Empire edited by Phillip Buckner . Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2008.

16

Buckner, P. A. and Carl Bridge. ‘Re-Inventing the British World’. The Round Table

92 (2003): 77–88.

Buckner, Phillip A., and R. Douglas Francis. ‘Introduction’. In Rediscovering the

British World, edited by Phillip A. Buckner and R. Douglas Francis, 10–17.

Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2005.

Buckner, Phillip A., and R. Douglas Francis, eds. Rediscovering the British World.

Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2005.

———. Canada and the British World: Culture, Migration, and Identity. Vancouver:

UBC Press, 2006.

Cain, Peter. ‘J. A. Hobson, Finance Capitalism and Imperialism in Late Victorian and

Edwardian England’. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 14

(1985): 10–27.

———. ‘Hobson Lives? Finance and British Imperialism 1870–1914’. In State and

Trade : Government and the Economy in Britain and the Netherlands since the

Middle Ages, edited by S. Groenveld and M. J. Wintle, 90–102. Zutphen:

Walburg Pers, 1992.

Cain, P. J., and A. G. Hopkins. British Imperialism, 1688–2000. 2nd ed. Harlow:

Longman, 2001.

———. ‘Afterword: The Theory and Practice of British Imperialism’. In Gentlemanly

Capitalism and British Imperialism: The New Debate on Empire, edited by

Raymond E. Dumett. London: Longman, 1999.

Chilton, Lisa. ‘Canada and the British Empire: A Review Essay’. Canadian Historical

Review 89 (2008): 89–95.

17

Cottrell, Philip L. ‘London’s First "Big Bang"? Institutional Change in the City,

1855–83’. In In the World of Private Banking, edited by Philip L. Cottrell and

Youseff Cassis. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009.

Darian-Smith, Kate, Patricia Grimshaw, and Stuart Macintyre. Britishness Abroad :

Transnational Movements and Imperial Cultures. Carlton: Melbourne

University Press, 2007.

Darwin, John. After Tamerlane: The Global History of Empire since 1405. London:

Allen Lane, 2007.

———. The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World-System, 1830–

1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Davis, L. E. ‘The Late Nineteenth-Century British Imperialist: Specification,

Quantification and Controlled Conjectures’. In Gentlemanly Capitalism and

British Imperialism: The New Debate on Empire, edited by Raymond E.

Dumett. London: Longman, 1999.

Davis, L. E., and Robert A. Huttenback. ‘The Export of British Finance, 1865–1914’.

Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 14 (1985): 77–92.

———. Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire: The Political Economy of British

Imperialism, 1860–1912. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Denoon, Donald. Settler Capitalism: The Dynamics of Dependent Development in the

Southern Hemisphere. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.

Dilley, Andrew R. ‘“The Rules of the Game”: London Finance, Australia and Canada,

C.1900–1914’. Economic History Review 63 (2010): 1003–31.

Ferguson, Niall. Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. London: Penguin,

2003.

18

Ferguson, Niall, and Moritz Schularick. ‘The Empire Effect: The Determinants of

Country Risk in the First Age of Globalization, 1880–1913’. Journal of

Economic History 66 (2006): 283–312.

Hobson, John Atkinson. Imperialism: A Study. London: Archibald Constable & Co,

1905.

Hopkins, A. G. ‘Informal Empire in Argentina: An Alternative View’. Journal of

Latin American Studies 26 (1994): 469–84.

———. ‘Back to the Future: From National History to Imperial History’. Past and

Present 164 (1999): 198–243.

———. ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism in New Zealand’. Australian Economic History

Review 43 (2003): 287–97.

———. Global History: Interactions between the Universal and the Local.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

———. ed. Globalization in World History. London: Pimlico, 2002.

Kennedy, Dane. ‘Imperial History and Post-Colonial Theory’. Journal of Imperial

and Commonwealth History 24 (1996): 345–63.

Korneski, Kurt. ‘Britishness, Canadianness, Class, and Race: Winnipeg and the

British World, 1880s–1910s’. Journal of Canadian Studies 41 (2007): 161–84.

Kubicek, R. V. ‘Economic Power at the Periphery: Canada, Australia, and South

Africa, 1850–1914’. In Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Imperialism: The

New Debate on Empire, edited by Raymond E. Dumett. London: Longman,

1999.

Magee, Gary Bryan, and Andrew S. Thompson. Empire and Globalisation: Networks

of People, Goods and Capital in the British World, C.1850–1914. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2010.

19

McAloon, J. ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism and Settler Capitalists: Imperialism, Dependent

Development and Colonial Wealth in the South Island of New Zealand’.

Australian Economic History Review 42 (2002): 204–24.

O’Brien, Patrick. ‘Historiographical Traditions and Modern Imperatives for the

Restoration of Global History’. Journal of Global History 1 (2006): 3–39.

Osterhammel, Jurgen, and Niels P. Petersson. Globalization: A Short History.

Princeton, N.J.; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Platt, D. C. M., ed. Business Imperialism, 1840–1930: An Inquiry Based on British

Experience in Latin America. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

Platt, D. C. M., and Guido Di Tella, eds. Argentina, Australia and Canada: Studies in

Comparative Development 1870–1965. London: Macmillan, 1985.

Pocock, J. G. A. ‘The Limits and Divisions of British History: In Search of the

Unknown Subject’. The American Historical Review 87 (1982): 311–36.

Porter, A. N. ‘Which City, What Empire? Shipping, Government, and the Limits of

Co-operation, 1870–1914’. In The City and the Empire. Collected Seminar

Papers, no. 35. London: Institute of Commonwealth Studies, 1985.

Porter, A. N., and R. F. Holland, eds. Money, Finance and Empire, 1790–1950.

Special Issue, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 13, no. 3

(1985): 1–184.

Potter, Simon James. News and the British World: The Emergence of an Imperial

Press System, 1876–1922. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003.

Redish, A. ‘British Financial Imperialism after the First World War’. In Gentlemanly

Capitalism and British Imperialism: The New Debate on Empire, edited by

Raymond E. Dumett. London: Longman, 1999.

20

Robinson, Ronald. ‘The Excentric Idea of Imperialism: With or without Europe’. In

Imperialism and After: Continuities and Discontinuities, edited by Wolfgang

J. Mommsen and Jurgen Osterhammel. London: Allen & Unwin, 1986.

Schreuder, Deryck, and Stuart Ward. ‘Introduction: What Became of Australia’s

Empire?’. In Australia’s Empire, edited by Deryck Schreuder and Stuart

Ward. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Schwartz, Herman M. In the Dominions of Debt: Historical Perspectives on

Dependent Development. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989.

Smith, Andrew. British Businessmen and Canadian Confederation: Constitution-

Making in an Era of Anglo-Globabization. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s

University Press, 2008.

Thompson, Andrew. ‘Informal Empire? An Exploration in the History of Anglo-

Argentine Relations, 1810–1914’. Journal of Latin American Studies 24

(1992): 419–36.

University of London, Institute of Commonwealth Studies. The City and The Empire.

Collected Seminar Papers, nos. 35–36. London: Institute of Commonwealth

Studies, 1985, 1987.

Ville, Simon P. The Rural Entrepreneurs: A History of the Stock and Station Agent

Industry in Australia and New Zealand. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2000.

Wilkins, Mira. ‘The Free-Standing Company, 1870–1914: An Important Type of

British Foreign Direct Investment’. Economic History Review 41 (1988): 259–

82.

21

———. ‘The Significance of the Concept and a Future Agenda’. In The Free-

Standing Company in the World Economy, 1830–1996, edited by Mira

Wilkins and Harm G. Schröter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Wilson, Kathleen. A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity, and Modernity in

Britain and the Empire, 1660–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2004.