Informal Empire: The Origin and Significance of a Key Term

Abstract

Ever since the publication of “The Imperialism of Free Trade” by John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson in 1953, “informal empire” has been a key term for historians. It has, however, always been contentious. The central issue was whether imperial historians were prepared to accept a new concept of empire. This article explains the paradox of informal empire by creating a stronger provenance for the term. Since the early nineteenth century, imperial metaphors have been used to characterize Britain's position in the world economy. Gallagher and Robinson—like their immediate predecessors, Charles Fay and Keith Hancock—wanted to understand British imperialism in the broader context of European expansion while also formulating an alternative to the radical liberal and neo-Marxist interpretations widely current after World War I. Ultimately, the difficulty of using “empire” as a single category led Gallagher and one of his most influential successors to choose an alternative term.

The Incoherence of Empire. Or, the Pitfalls of Ignoring Sovereignty in the History of the British Empire

“…26 Their account of Britain's role in the partition of Africa, while seeking to explain the assertion of formal empire (or territorial sovereignty), presented this as an attempt to preserve a mid-Victorian informal empire. 27 Informal empire never won universal acceptance. 28 Nonetheless, the concept remained central to subsequent synthetic accounts within the Robinson and Gallagher tradition: Peter Cain and Tony Hopkins's British Imperialism, 1688-2000, and John Darwin's trilogy on British and global empires.…”