According to these college class notes, the purpose of colonization was to "open markets and obtain raw materials." Anyone care to take a stab at it?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Not that I really study colonization, but it seems to me that at least early on colonization was a "private-public" venture, where an explorer of some sort (a military leader) would receive funding from the state in order to explore some territory. In return, the explorer claimed said territory for his patron state. Economically speaking, I don't think the idea of colonization as one with the primary aim of increasing access to raw materials is off the mark. With that said, I don't think there was any intention of "opening markets". Obviously, the only market that is opened is that which involves the patron state and the colony. More often than not, the state was quick to shut access to these markets to opposing countries.
I think the theory of colonization fits in with Mises' theory of conquest (and war) and the quest for autarky, as written in Human Action. European states were looking to colonize to provide for some degree of self-sustainability. Why trade for gold when a Spanish mining company could do it itself in the Andes?
I think the modern view expounded by those lecture notes, which is that of "open markets", is a result of a more modern perspective. It is certainly true, regardless of the actual intentions of the European leadership, that colonization was to some degree a form of globalization (admitting, of course, that the term is used loosely, as globalization has taken place since the beginning of time—it is a byproduct of the extension of the division of labor and entrepreneurship). However, "globalization", I don't think, was what on Europe's mind, at the time.
Yeah, opening markets is a laugh. Closing markets is more like it. It was not the initiative of monarchs, though. It was the conquistadors that talked them into it.
Are you allowed to bring up the Greeks?
The porpuse of colonization was to make money. Anything that makes money will have its market.
This is not an interesting question for what I see.
Corporatism is using state means to enhance market share and profitability of a few favored firms, at the expense of the citizen.
The "reply" function is voluntary, you know.
Absolute rubbish.
If colonisation were for obtaining raw materials, how come it is that Japan could import goods cheaper from its former colonies than it could when it was running those areas? How come Japan soared in industrial development without ever having a colony with raw materials throughout the 1960s?
If colonisation were to open markets, how come it is that the biggest markets and the biggest buyers are still in First World nations, where much of the First World (US, UK, Australia, Spain, Italy) import most of their goods, and how come even poor countries like Nigeria rather export to those rich nations and buy very little? How come the biggest exporters - Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China - are much poorer than US or UK?
Colonisation was for strictly military purposes and done through ventures heavily subsidised by their governments. The ones who got rich merely benefitted from a redistribution of resources, just for setting up colonies in poor remote areas where it was too expensive to do business and where there was a low return to be earned from the businesses.
First of all, the ‘colonization” of the Americas came as a shock to everybody, as the moment the Europeans set foot ion the content, the locals where doomed to die form disease. I’m hard put to see why should the Europeans have abstained form occupying an empty continent.
As for other pars of the world, I believe that Empires began as trading posts, fully private enterprises, and then when it became clear that the locals where unwilling to trade more than a few goods, it became profitable to just occupy them and bring about ‘forced’ trade. When the locals saw that trade made sense, the days of European colonialism where over.
Norse colonization.
This is the perspective on colonialism from someone who lives in a country that was one of the last colonialists - Portugal!
We started it in the XIV century and the reasons were simple, but multiple: military dominance, strategic control of maritime trade, also raw material (particularly gold), religious motives (catholic expansion), and we must say, also for fun... Portugal was, then, a country of 1,5 million inhabitants! And had colonies from Brazil till East Timor, with important settlements in China, India, Japan, and relevant colonies in Africa...
While motives were multiple and - sometimes - divergent, one can argue that, in fact, it was a public-private venture, highly subsidized by the state... who won a lot from this: got "bigger" and more powerful. Leviathan is a consequence of the mercantilism that was served by colonialism.
Saying that it was a way of opening markets it's a big laugh... actually it closed them, and this was clearly an objective set by european states at the time.
Guys come on, if colonization did not open markets, how come that opium was “legalized” in China only after the brits bombed the hell out of the country? Don’t you consider that an increase in trade, both between the British Empire and China and within China (please leave aside the morality of this, I’m NOT making any moral case for colonialism here)?
Does anyone think that Angola traded with Somalia before the age of Empire, because they certainly do afterwards. Or did Africans export minerals to Europe before colonization? Did any such thing as globalization, in the worldwide economic integration sense, exist prior to Empire? International sound money? Global free trade? Privately developed colonies?
The historic record (and theoretical reasoning) seems to be pointing clearly at opening markets as the only possible reason for colonialism.
That makes no sense regardless of what you point to as evidence, because everyone of significance was a mercantilist back then.
I believe Merlin is focusing on one answer to two completely different things: reasons for colonialism and consequences of colonialism! I may agree with his assessment of the consequences of Empires (with subsequent ‘canals’ of trade that were the embryo of globalisation); however, opening markets was not the reason behind colonialism (although we must distinguish different forms of colonialism… i.e. the Portuguese and the British were rather different). However, none were focused on opening markets – exactly the opposite: control them!
Nevertheless we must acknowledge its consequences.
"That makes no sense regardless of what you point to as evidence, because everyone of significance was a mercantilist back then."
A good point, but I’m not holding that someone presented the King of Spain with a plan to “Increase the division of labor and thus lift form misery the masses of pauperized Spaniards through trade” and thus colonization got a go.
Sure enough, the individual ‘on the spot’ merchants called for armed assistance form the state to exact personal profit, and the state sought strategic ends in colonialism and yet, I pursuing their self –interest, guided as if by an invisible hand (OK, that was over the top), this furthered the division of labor. It wasn’t ‘planned’, any more that the butcher plans to do me a favor by selling meat. It just so happened that when the other guy does not want to trade and grow richer, it pays to force him (again, leave morals aside).
" I believe Merlin is focusing on one answer to two completely different things: reasons for colonialism and consequences of colonialism! I may agree with his assessment of the consequences of Empires (with subsequent ‘canals’ of trade that were the embryo of globalisation); however, opening markets was not the reason behind colonialism (although we must distinguish different forms of colonialism… i.e. the Portuguese and the British were rather different). However, none were focused on opening markets – exactly the opposite: control them!
Nevertheless we must acknowledge its consequences."
I agree, the reasons individuals had to push colonialism where purely centered on self-interest, and you point them out, but in pursuing these interest what they got was a furthering of the division of labor. That seems to be the general case with the State: if everyone was willing to get rich, i.e. had some ambition at all, we’d have no state. Colonialism is just a special case of this.
Colonization: PDAs (Private/public "Defense" Agencies) increasing their "customer" bases, revenues, and market shares?
For states, the purpose of colonisation was to increase their relative power and influence.
For the individuals who got on the boats and went, there were a lot of possible reasons. To escape persecution of some kind, for religious reasons, to try to make money one way or another...
@Prateek Sanjay
What's the difference between 'colonisation' and imperial conquest and annexation? "Colonising" East Asia resembles the latter far more than the Jamestown settlement or the VOC's trading post at Cape Town, imo... The imperial conquest came later in those places.
Colonization had several purposes.
1. To spread religion.
2. To obtain resources including land and slaves.
3. To rid the State of undesirables (see Australia).
4. In response to famine or disease.
5. To exploit monopolistic conditions granted by the State (see Virginia Colony).
6. To avoid the State (in the case of colonies that broke off).
7. To hook up with foreign women.
8. In response to natural disaster or climate changes.
9. To create a buffer civilization more similar to the State than the barbarians beyond (see Rome).
10. For military advantage (although the cost to defend an empire is much higher).
Patekk Sanjay,
Well, just because colonialism seeked out do something doesn't mean it was successful over all (and, besides, it's not fair to compare trade in the 17th century to that of the 20th century).
We completely forgot the supposed intentions of original explorers, which was to find trade routes to the Indias which circumnavigated the Ottoman Empire. Colombus had no intention of finding the Americas on his original trip. I think, though, that once the Americas were found the intentions changed. Colombus brought back mass riches in terms of precious metal to the Spanish monarchy to sell the idea of further expeditions. The Spanish Empire funded these expeditions of colonialism in order to gain access to these precious metals. To the Spanish monarchy, this was a great way of "increasing wealth" without having to increase productivity (the result was the great price revolution in Europe and the bubble in Sevilla).
All considered, intentions behind colonization changed as colonization progressed. I don't think Britain's intentions when colonizing Africa were the same as they were when colonizing what is now the United States. As another post suggests, it seems to me that Britain's intentions in Africa were much more sinister then those in the United States. In the thirteen colonies it is true that the intentions were more for persecuted Britons to find a new haven, free of British monarchial tyranny (or, as free as they could get). The British Empire was happy to allow for this as long as they had access to colonial markets in North America, and as long as they could still tax the people living there.
Another example of changing intentions was the reason for Spain's long war with the Riffian tribes in Morocco. Spain's loss in 1898 was a huge hit in pride. Spain lost the majority of its remaining empire to the United States (all of its overseas colonies, except that off the coast of Morocco). Spain fought a number of Rif wars, including the potentially disastrous Rif war fought between 1919 and 1925 (which included the Battle of Annual, which was the worst European disaster in Africa up until Italy's disastrous campaign in Ethiopia). Spain's intentions in Morocco, although perhaps influenced by private businesses (including Spanish mining firms), were mostly related to pride and the concept of Spain remaining a "great European empire" (by this time, Spain was little more than a third world country with a very displeased citizenry). There were, for the most part, little economic reasons to remain in Morocco (in fact, the Western Sahara was prob. more valuable in terms of natural resources).
The purpose of colonization was to civilize the native savages and bring philosophy and freedom to the barbaric tribal peoples. That it did not do its job fully is a different issue altogether.
Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set. - Ludwig von Mises