A critique of Gallaher & Robinson's 'The Imperialism of Free Trade'

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

A critique of Gallaher & Robinson's 'The Imperialism of Free Trade'

"The Imperialism of Free Trade" was written by John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson in 1953, and marked a sharp break with the orthodox theory of Victorian imperialism.

In the article, Gallagher and Robinson rejected the idea of a supposed mid-Victorian period of anti-imperialism ("mid-Victorian indifference"), arguing that in order to properly understand the phenomenon of nineteenth century imperialism it was necessary to redefine the historiographical approach, to include the concept of "informal empire", which to them "ought to be a commonplace."

Gallagher and Robinson proposed a new definition of imperialism, as being a process of integrating new regions into an expanding economy by political means (through an active government policy).

The final component of the hypothesis was the theme of continuity in this process of imperialism. As briefly mentioned earlier, Gallagher and Robinson rejected the idea that imperialism could be neatly categorized into distinct and separate phases of "indifference" and "enthusiasm", dependent upon the rise and fall of free trade. For them, imperialism was a continuous event that operated through various methods, informal and formal - a view expressed in the phrase, "trade with informal control if possible: trade with rule when necessary."

The major critic of "The Imperialism of Free Trade" was undoubtedly D.C.M. Platt, who wrote two articles criticising it, in 1968 and 1973.

Platt criticized the idea of an informal empire in the mid-Victorian period but reserved his main criticism for the (intertwined) themes of British policy and its continuity throughout the Victorian era - the fundamental tenets of Gallagher and Robinson's theory.

In order to determine which of Platt's criticisms is the most decisive it will be necessary to discuss the articles concerned in greater detail. It remains to be seen if the theory can still be of value or whether it was, as Platt states, merely a "catchy phrase".

Platt's first article, "The Imperialism of Free Trade: Some Reservations", was concerned with what Platt called "the core of the Gallagher and Robinson thesis" - the belief in an active and continuous imperial policy. It was written in a similar style to the original - as with his predecessors, Platt stated his argument almost immediately and then set out to corroborate and validate it.

It seems to me that Platt's argument is, essentially, a reversal of Gallagher and Robinson's own position. They had accused previous historians of failing to see imperialism in a wider, international context but for Platt, their own hypothesis was simply not compatible with what was actually going on in Britain at the time. Platt's yardstick for measuring imperial policy was "laissez-faire". So convinced was Platt of the effect that "laissez-faire" had on British policy that he stated, "there can be no doubt (my own emphasis) that, back in the mid-Victorian period, "laissez-faire" and its economic expression, free trade were unchallenged ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Platt did not go to the extreme of claiming that was no relationship between policy and economic activity - his concern was the extent. He believed it was restricted to "equal favour and open competition" as opposed to the forcible opening up of markets, propping up governments and naked coercion suggested by Gallagher and Robinson.

Platt endeavoured to illustrate his reasoning by looking at the regions falling under the term, "informal empire" - Latin America and the Far East (in this case, China).

As one might expect, Platt came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the British government did not pursue the vigorous interventionist policy described by Gallagher and Robinson.

This is not unexpected - Gallagher and Robinson did make some very sweeping statements concerning South America notably Canning's recognition of the independence of the former Spanish colonies, which elicited the response, "it would be hard to imagine a more spectacular example of a policy of commercial hegemony in the interests of high politics or of the use of informal political supremacy in the interests of commercial enterprise." All this from two remarks made by Canning! As Platt went on to show, setting up a favourable trade treaty with another country is not the same as forcibly opening up markets, encouraging stable governments et al.

It is interesting to note, that in this article, Platt's sources are not dissimilar to those of Gallagher and Robinson - quotes from leading political figures and actual historical events. So is it a question of interpretation? Platt did use more primary sources (Gallagher and Robinson's article was, on the whole, sketchy) and was prepared to trace chains of events at greater length - does this make his criticisms more damaging?

Platt's argument concerning the Far East was in a similar vein. Adopting the same approach as before (a blend of primary sources and historical events) he demonstrated that in the case of China whilst the British government did help to open up new markets and avenues of trade, that was as far as it was prepared to go, and to suggest that Britain had a political hold on China (as Gallagher and Robinson had done which in retrospect was another sweeping statement) was to "exaggerate beyond recognition".

As with Latin America Platt clarified his point with precision - just as a trade treaty was not the same as political intervention, Britain's control over China's ports was the not the same as control over all of China. Again the question of interpretation must be asked. The Opium (Anglo-Chinese) Wars could be seen as political intervention on the interests of trade (as they usually are) but Platt would argue (and did) that they were fought to protect existing channels of trade and that they were an exception in this period.

In both cases it seems that Platt's criticisms are convincing merely because they are argued in more detail than the original premise. It is tempting to say that if Gallagher and Robinson had written at greater length on the informal empire, their argument would stand up better to criticism (although to be honest, this didn't stop equally fierce criticisms of their later, more detailed works).

Platt finished his article by reasserting the established conviction of imperial history - post 1880 imperialism was a distinct and separate phase in the history of imperialism (which Platt assumed he had made apparent in his analysis of South America and China).

I feel it is important to note that Platt agrees with Gallagher and Robinson that British governments' interest in trade and the need to safeguard it was always continuous. As Platt readily conceded, "there was an indisputable continuity in official policy" - what Platt disagreed with were the methods used in conducting this policy - in that respect mid- and late Victorian imperialism could be distinguished.

For his second article ("Further Objections to an "Imperialism of Free Trade", 1830-1860"), Platt employed a detailed economic approach, using extensive statistics to substantiate his claims.

Whether or not this different type of evidence (not specifically used by Gallagher and Robinson) adds more weight to his criticisms is debateable. Numerical sources, as much as verbal sources are open to interpretation but to go the extreme of discounting all statistics would be as questionable.

A good example of the usefulness of statistical data is the table of British exports to selected areas 1831-1860. Between 1831 and 1860 British exports rose from £37.2 million to £135.9 million. Of this, only £22.4 million went to the areas contained within Gallagher and Robinson's formal empire (Spanish America, Brazil, Ottoman Empire, China and Hongkong). This one table alone casts serious doubts on the idea of an informal empire in the mid-Victorian period - added with other figures and historical events it could prove fatal.

This is indeed the main thrust of Platt's article. Using a wealth of statistical evidence, Platt examined the economies of Latin America, The Levant and China. He also discussed the potential markets for foreign exports, the role of home markets in the informal empire, even the British economy and its effect on economic expansion. From these detailed studies Platt reached the conclusion that the idea of an informal empire in the mid-Victorian period was simply not feasible.

The lack of reciprocal trade from the informal empire (caused by a lack of exportable products and the demands of the home markets) coupled to a period of economic instability in Britain ("short booms ... disastrous slumps ... long slow periods ...") made it extremely unlikely that investors would risk investing in foreign ventures - a fact clearly shown by the table of British exports.

The irony of the article (for me) is that Platt didn't actually criticize the concept of informal empire proposed by Gallagher and Robinson. What he in fact criticized was their timing - The Imperialism of Free Trade "antedates by several decades the importance of the "informal empire" ... as a destination for British investment and a supplier of foodstuffs and industrial raw materials." As seen earlier though, for Platt timing was the major issue that had to be addressed. Platt believed that he had proven beyond doubt that the mid-Victorian period (1830-1860) was a separate, distinct phase of imperialism, the calm indifference before the aggressive storm of the '80s and '90s - what Platt referred to as "distinct phases in a simple and logical economic development." What Gallagher and Robinson had done was to paint the mid-Victorian period as a time of active politically-assisted economic expansion, when to Platt it was obvious that enthusiasm and expansion were at their lowest ebb.

What then are the decisive criticisms of "The Imperialism of Free Trade"?

This is not an easy problem to resolve. From reading Platt's work I would argue that he did not see the theory as composing of separate parts, but as a series of entwined themes, a perspective reflected in his criticisms.

It would be difficult for me therefore to say that parts of the theory are more valid than others, since criticism of one part is also criticism of the other parts. If I were forced to make a choice though, I would say that Platt's argument against the informal empire is the most persuasive. By its content and nature Platt's second article is laborious yet it is precisely this that makes it so convincing. The detail and factual evidence Platt used to authorize his own statements is in stark contrast to Gallagher and Robinson, who had a very authoritative hypothesis but little hard evidence. It is worth pointing out that very few of Platt's sources are post-1953 (based on the sources cited in his footnotes -it may well be that his general bibliography has the benefit of 20 years new research), which points to a case of selectivity on the part of Gallagher and Robinson. This ties in with my earlier point of interpretation - if the facts clearly favour an orthodox view of imperialism, then did Gallagher and Robinson merely take what facts suited their argument and ignore the rest? If that were the case then Platt's criticisms would be superior simply because he was reiterating the correct theory all along!

To conclude, I think Platt was too hard to dismiss "The Imperialism of Free Trade" as a catchy phrase, but it was a flawed idea and fails to stand up on closer inspection. However, at the risk of stating the obvious, Platt's own (comprehensive) version of events only exists thanks to the work of Gallagher and Robinson. At the very least they deserve credit for giving fresh impetus to the debate on imperialism.

Bibliography.

C.C.Eldridge, Victorian Imperialism.(Hodder and Staughton, Great Britain, 1978).
John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, "The Imperialism of Free Trade". The Economic History Review, Vol.6 (1953-4).
D.C.M. Platt, "The Imperialism of Free Trade: Some Reservations. The Economic History Review, Vol.21 (1968).
D.C.M.Platt, "Further Objections to an "Imperialism of Free Trade", 1830-1860." The Economic History Review, Vol.26 (1973).