Imperialist Expansion, 1880s-1914

European powers increasingly occupied populated lands in the context of competitive colonial expansion after the 1880s. Free trade was increasingly abandoned in favor of colonial monopolies.

There are several theories, but few complete explanations of this expansion. The problem with many theories is that they posit causes that did not exist until the late 1890s, after the scramble had begun.

Theories

• Trade. Rising tariffs and increased competition between North Atlantic nations and Japan demanded more secure access to cheap resources and markets that could be guaranteed through exclusive trade with colonies. Colonies could also provide secure coaling stations. But tariffs did not really become strong until late 1890s, and nobody even made this argument outside of France until the 1890s. Also, the new colonies never accounted for a substantial portion of European trade.
• Capital. Monopolistic dominance had led to an excess of cash and/or increased competition had reduced profits at home. Improved transportation made overseas investment more attractive, while the growth of large corporations, cartels and trusts made transnational organziation more effective. Colonial annexation and military protection could provide the stability for capital investments (Lenin/Hobson thesis). But most overseas investment was from France and Britain, countries without big cartels. And little of this investment went to the new colonies, still thought to be instable.
• International Status. A country could hardly hold its head up as a civilized and advanced nation withough a few colonies of its own. Successful conquest also brought prestige. But most statesmen were wary of the expense, risks and hassles of operating a colony. Perhaps only France and Japan had a strong pro-colonial lobby as a matter of prestige.
• Jingoism. Popular nationalism and sensationalist press encouraged colonial adventures. But this was not largely the case until the late 1890s.
• Race and "Civilization." The hardening of racial, civilizational ideals and the "White Man's Burden" of assisting backwards people led to increasing disdain and conquest. But even though these divisions were often used to justify existing colonialism, it was rarely used as a call for more expansion.

A Possible Bundle of Causes

• Local Ambitions. Local settlers and occassional military men often engaged in their own expansive adventures. This was especially true in the mid-19th century. Home governments could not easily denounce their ventures.
• Special Interests. Some theorists and big businessmen and lobbies had undue influence on home governments. Cecil Rhodes of South Africa was one such man. They made politicians believe that expansion was economically necessary, even if this was never borne out.
• Protect Existing Interests. Home governments might intervene if mercantile interests were being threatened or local states were unable to pay back loans, as was common in North Africa in the 1870s and 80s. This often led to a customs receivorship or protectorate rather than outright colonization.
• Strategic. Statesmen and generals often proposed taking small colonies for the sake of strategic interests, to protect trade, establish bases or forestall other powers from entering the area.
• Preventative. Much annexation in the 1870s and 80s was done to prevent other nations, especially Germany, from doing so first and restricting trade. The Berlin conference of 1885 set out the terms by which states could annex African territory. This encouraged the "scramble" for Africa.
• Snowball Effect. With a rise in strategic and preventative annexations, states responded with competitive tariffs, jingoism and more status competition. In short, the forces of economic and military power were increasingly coming up against each other and engaging in preventative measures to halt the advance of the others.