An early modern naval revolution? The relationship between ‘economic reason of state’ and maritime warfare

Rommelse, Gijs

doi:10.1080/21533369.2011.622889

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Strangely enough, however, he does not actually provide a definition for "mercantilist warfare", nor does he identify the "mercantilist" aspect during this period which did not exist before 1500 or after 1815. Rommelse (2011) does not use the word "mercantilist warfare", but he makes a link between mercantilism and warfare. He argues that committed mercantilist policymakers in Europe of the 1600s believed that naval military power, and the ability to apply it over long distances, was an "essential tool for economic policymaking", since "fleets could be used to protect trade and shipping, expand colonial presenceif necessary at the expense of other statesand inflict harm on competing economies" (Rommelse, 2011, p 142).…”

Section: Literature Review 31 Military Power In Neomercantilist Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neomercantilist War: the US military and Middle East oil (1980–2003)

Mahdi

2022

REPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper aims to argue that the Global Political Economy (GPE) theory of neomercantilism provides a sound explanation to the American military involvement in the Persian Gulf. Accordingly, this paper also proposes the concept of “Neomercantilist War” which analyses the use of military force to protect a strategically vital economic resource (such as Gulf oil). Neomercantilist War is a point of similarity between the GPE school of neomercantilism and the International Relations (IR) school of realism.Design/methodology/approachThe 1991 Gulf War and the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 are two major events of American military involvement to protect and/or seize Gulf oil. These two events will be tested for neomercantilism, in addition to the concept of “Neomercantilist War” as presented in the paper. The first feature, or definitional component, of neomercantilism is the major role of the state, the second is the preponderance of security/geopolitical goals over economic goals and the third is the zero-sum, relative gains mentality to dealing between states IR.FindingsThe GPE school of neomercantilism and the concept of Neomercantilist War do offer a sound explanation of American military involvement in the Gulf.Originality/valueThe American military involvement in the Gulf region has been analysed using the IR schools of realism and liberalism, but never using GPE theory. Even though GPE is mostly concerned with economic activity, the scope of GPE should be expanded to include military policies if they affect economic resources and activity.

show abstract

Section: Literature Review 31 Military Power In Neomercantilist Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neomercantilist War: the US military and Middle East oil (1980–2003)

Mahdi

2022

REPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In expanding commercial opportunities, the Dutch VOC developed colonies in the New World as well as an ‘informal’ empire across the Indian Ocean from Cape Town in South Africa to Dejima in Japan (Van Welie, 2008: 70). The decentralised structure of the Dutch Republic ‘guaranteed a prominent place for economic interests on the political agenda’ and ensured that the Dutch state followed a strategy of economic-based reason of state (Rommelse, 2011: 140). The development of Dutch financial innovations are well known (Acemoglu et al, 2005; Israel, 1998), but the widespread selling of government bonds to Dutch households meant that even ‘artisans and shopkeepers’ had an invested interest in seeking both an independent republican form of government and the success of commercial expansion abroad (Hart, 2000: 223).…”

Section: The Voc As a Merchant Empirementioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the expansion thesis: international society and the role of the Dutch East India company as a merchant empire

Blachford

2020

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper breaks new ground by looking at the role played by merchant empires, such as the Dutch East India Company (VOC), in shaping European interactions with the non-Western world. It offers a critique of the English School’s state-centric narrative of the expansion of international society by looking to how the VOC and its expansion in Asia influenced developments within Europe. As a non-state actor, the VOC developed networks of trade and power, which were intertwined with the Dutch struggle against Iberian hegemony. As this paper shows, the development of international law, sovereign equality and European international society needs to be understood as being constituted through these colonial encounters. Looking to the VOC as a merchant empire presents a more nuanced approach to the expansion narrative that recognises that states, empires and early modern companies developed in a co-evolutionary manner. This critical approach calls for the recognition of international society as an ongoing process formed by the contestation of hybrid cultures.

show abstract

State Formation and the Private Economy: Dutch prisoners of war in England, 1652–1674

Rommelse¹,

Downing²

2018

The Mariner's Mirror

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An early modern naval revolution? The relationship between ‘economic reason of state’ and maritime warfare

Cited by 5 publications

References 23 publications

Neomercantilist War: the US military and Middle East oil (1980–2003)

Neomercantilist War: the US military and Middle East oil (1980–2003)

Revisiting the expansion thesis: international society and the role of the Dutch East India company as a merchant empire

State Formation and the Private Economy: Dutch prisoners of war in England, 1652–1674

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About