Role of State and Private Companies during the Colonial Period

The period of major colonization and trade throughout the world saw the creation of state funded and created; and private funded and created trade and colonization ventures. Such examples include Christopher Columbus was funded by the Monarchs of Spain, Vasco de Gama, Conquistadors of various ranks and backgrounds cut a path through North and Central America, the Hudson Bay Company, the famous Zheng He expeditions funded by the Ming, the Zheng Clan which dominated Ming era Overseas private trade through their own navy and outposts and drove the next example out of Taiwan, the British East Indies Company, Dutch East Indies Company and so forth. Some remained from beginning to end as private ventures and others were taken over by their various home governments. History speaks of their rise and fall.

Which was more effective? State or Private funded cases? State driven settlement or private funded settlement of colonies? In what cases were either or more effective then the other and etc.
 
The period of major colonization and trade throughout the world saw the creation of state funded and created; and private funded and created trade and colonization ventures. Such examples include Christopher Columbus was funded by the Monarchs of Spain, Vasco de Gama, Conquistadors of various ranks and backgrounds cut a path through North and Central America, the Hudson Bay Company, the famous Zheng He expeditions funded by the Ming, the Zheng Clan which dominated Ming era Overseas private trade through their own navy and outposts and drove the next example out of Taiwan, the British East Indies Company, Dutch East Indies Company and so forth. Some remained from beginning to end as private ventures and others were taken over by their various home governments. History speaks of their rise and fall.

Which was more effective? State or Private funded cases? State driven settlement or private funded settlement of colonies? In what cases were either or more effective then the other and etc.

Most (all?) private stock holding colonial ventures were nationalised (and most did not turn a profit if you include the cost of defending them).

So I'd say that State sponsored colonialism was ultimately more effective. Of course left to the State, most colonies would never have begun (which may have been a good thing but that is another discussion).
 
The period of major colonization and trade throughout the world saw the creation of state funded and created; and private funded and created trade and colonization ventures. Such examples include Christopher Columbus was funded by the Monarchs of Spain, Vasco de Gama, Conquistadors of various ranks and backgrounds cut a path through North and Central America, the Hudson Bay Company, the famous Zheng He expeditions funded by the Ming, the Zheng Clan which dominated Ming era Overseas private trade through their own navy and outposts and drove the next example out of Taiwan, the British East Indies Company, Dutch East Indies Company and so forth. Some remained from beginning to end as private ventures and others were taken over by their various home governments. History speaks of their rise and fall.

Which was more effective? State or Private funded cases? State driven settlement or private funded settlement of colonies? In what cases were either or more effective then the other and etc.

I don't think that it was either or - there were a third class of settlements that might be authorised by the State (whoever that was), but were funded and run by religious or charitable or social movements.

My home city (well, not really), was founded under the aegis of a Company set up in the 1820s. It then went into abeyance, before being revived to try settling South Australia or NZ. The Colonial Office was aware of their activities, forcing them to become a Joint Stock Company. Then, just before everyone thought NZ would be declared a protectorate, the Company rushed to send settlers/surveyors to NZ, as all land sales between Maori and Europeans would from that point need to go via the British Crown's agents.

Then there were several years of political scandal in the UK over this issue, then a Treaty with the Maori, then Crown mediated land sales.

My ancestors came with the Free Church movement, who negotiated with the above to set up a new Scottish town in the South Island, called Dunedin.

So, the organisation was certainly private, for money making reasons, with a strong social goal, but who had to defy the British government in order to achieve its goals
 
Last edited:
Which was more effective? State or Private funded cases? State driven settlement or private funded settlement of colonies? In what cases were either or more effective then the other and etc.

The 13 original US states where all private ventures and they seemed to work quite well.
 
The 13 original US states where all private ventures and they seemed to work quite well.

Sanctioned by the Crown and mostly taken over by the Crown directly (Penn. and Mass. were the exceptions I believe)

Private Stock companies or Charities / Religious groups would go where Governments wouldn't but generally didn't have the money or authority to retain any independence if they succeeded.
 
The classic example of a privately run colony was Southern Rhodesia, which was founded by the British South Africa Company and run by them - generally not too badly - until 1923 as I recall, under Royal Charter. This possibly was a major factor leading to UDI, as SR was never actually a directly ruled Crown Colony until 1980 with the collapse
 
The classic example of a privately run colony was Southern Rhodesia, which was founded by the British South Africa Company and run by them - generally not too badly - until 1923 as I recall, under Royal Charter. This possibly was a major factor leading to UDI, as SR was never actually a directly ruled Crown Colony until 1980 with the collapse

Add to that Sir George Goldie and the Royal Niger Company running huge chunks of Nigeria until the early 1900s.
 

Flubber

Banned
Which was more effective?

That's like asking whether chocolate or vanilla is better.

Each had it's strengths, each had it's weaknesses, and each can only really be judged within it's own context.

There also were many more models than the simplistic binary options you presented. Colonial venture were never static, often shifting from one model to another as the situation changed.
 
It seems to me that a private company will be able to exploit an already in place population, but you need government support to bring in settlers (it is a much longer process).

So... a private company could operate in Africa if there was a population to exploit, but (one) reason that Livingstone's new settlement failed was that there was no existing population and no government backing.
 
Top