AHC: Corporation with sovereignty

the Dutch East India Company (the VOC) fits the bill perfectly.
They had sovereignty over the colonies they operated, had their own (well armed) fleet, their own legal system there , etc etc.
It was after all the first true multinational/ megacorp.
 
The British South Africa Company arguable had some sorvereigty up until the 1920s over S Rhodesia although it very much was a creature of the British Establishment all the same.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_South_Africa_Company"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_South_Africa_Company[/URL]

And the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_North_Borneo_Company"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_North_Borneo_Company[/URL] effectively controlled 'North Borneo', which is now the Malaysian state of 'Sabah', for several decades too until WW2 intervened: The place was only a British 'protectorate' rather than a British colony, meaning less actual control by Britain, and so arguably that company shouldn't be counted as "an agent of the British government".. unless you're willing to apply the same label to their neighbours the Sultan of Brunei and the Rajah of Sarawak, who likewise enjoyed imperial protection, too...
 
And the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_North_Borneo_Companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_North_Borneo_Company effectively controlled 'North Borneo', which is now the Malaysian state of 'Sabah', for several decades too until WW2 intervened: The place was only a British 'protectorate' rather than a British colony, meaning less actual control by Britain, and so arguably that company shouldn't be counted as "an agent of the British government".. unless you're willing to apply the same label to their neighbours the Sultan of Brunei and the Rajah of Sarawak, who likewise enjoyed imperial protection, too...

Yes, and the most incredible thing about them was that they provided an example for something resembling "positive colonialism". They actually developed their colony instead of only exploiting in inhuman ways.
Even
The North Borneo Chartered Company successfully run their territory like a nation. They were responsible for taxes, recruitment of police officers, making laws, planning infrastructure and other things normaly associated with a sovereign state. Most interestingly they were also best at developing their colony.

Here is a short description by Abdul Hadi Pasha who was as far as I remember not a friend of European imperialism:

"You would think a chartered company with responsibility to shareholders would be rapacious, but it was actually perhaps the most responsible, humane, and conscientious colonial state ever founded. The management early on decided to establish order and infrastructure, and then make money through surpluses on taxation of economic developments encouraged by a favorable atmosphere. Also, being very weak with regard to force, it couldn't afford to be arrogant or overbearing, so it worked closely with the natives and brought them into the administration through relationships of mutual advantage. If not for the devastating and brutal Japanese occupation, Sabah would be one of the richest places in Asia. This is one of those rare cases of positive imperialism, and ironically it was done through pure capitalism and private enterprise."
 
Yes, and the most incredible thing about them was that they provided an example for something resembling "positive colonialism". They actually developed their colony instead of only exploiting in inhuman ways.
Even
The North Borneo Chartered Company successfully run their territory like a nation. They were responsible for taxes, recruitment of police officers, making laws, planning infrastructure and other things normaly associated with a sovereign state. Most interestingly they were also best at developing their colony.

Here is a short description by Abdul Hadi Pasha who was as far as I remember not a friend of European imperialism:

"You would think a chartered company with responsibility to shareholders would be rapacious, but it was actually perhaps the most responsible, humane, and conscientious colonial state ever founded. The management early on decided to establish order and infrastructure, and then make money through surpluses on taxation of economic developments encouraged by a favorable atmosphere. Also, being very weak with regard to force, it couldn't afford to be arrogant or overbearing, so it worked closely with the natives and brought them into the administration through relationships of mutual advantage. If not for the devastating and brutal Japanese occupation, Sabah would be one of the richest places in Asia. This is one of those rare cases of positive imperialism, and ironically it was done through pure capitalism and private enterprise."
We call that Enlightened self interest, something a modern American corporation seems thoughroughly incapable of.
 
The most likely way to achieve this is if the British East India Company, Hudson's Bay Company, or Duch East India Company somehow survivied when thier homeland collapsed to revolution, but that would probably require a pre-1900 PoD.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
And the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_North_Borneo_Company"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_North_Borneo_Company[/URL] effectively controlled 'North Borneo', which is now the Malaysian state of 'Sabah', for several decades too until WW2 intervened: The place was only a British 'protectorate' rather than a British colony, meaning less actual control by Britain, and so arguably that company shouldn't be counted as "an agent of the British government".. unless you're willing to apply the same label to their neighbours the Sultan of Brunei and the Rajah of Sarawak, who likewise enjoyed imperial protection, too...

The most likely way to achieve this is if the British East India Company, Hudson's Bay Company, or Duch East India Company somehow survivied when thier homeland collapsed to revolution, but that would probably require a pre-1900 PoD.

Combine these two and the challenge is fulfilled.
 
We call that Enlightened self interest, something a modern American corporation seems thoughroughly incapable of.
To be fair, I think that that's because shareholders are more likely to take a short-term view nowadays than they were back then and that forces company managements to focus more on short-term gains...
 
Top