WI No Move To 'State Colonialism' In The Late 18th/19th centuries?

One of the notable developments in the history of colonialism in the late 18th and particularly 19th centuries was the move towards what might be described as ‘state colonialism’, whereby nations in areas such as Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and the South Pacific increasingly fell under the direct control of European nations.

This contrasted with the previous model of ‘economic colonialism’ whereby European nations had (with the exception of Latin America) a ‘hands-off’ approach, preferring economic domination of Africa and Asia, often via corporations such as the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company.

So, how would the world be different today, if there had never been a move towards ‘state colonialism’ and the previous model of economic domination (but no direct political control) of non-European nations had continued in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries?

What POD would be required for this to occur?

I am thinking here of a world where European powers are content to leave political control to native elites (for instance tribal leaders in many parts of Africa), in return for Europeans being allowed to trade and to settle freely.

I assume that Australia and Canada would still be administered under state colonialism; New Zealand probably also, although I can see the possibility that a more hands-off approach would persist longer there (for a variety of reasons in OTL, the British were more inclined to deal with the Maori as equals, than the indigenous Australians or Canadians).

What would be the effects on both the Europeans and non-Europeans? I am thinking here of both the positive and negative effects no state colonialism; notwithstanding the exploitative nature of colonialism, I do know that one of the prime motivations for moving to direct state control of colonies, was to stop the most extreme abuses of the native populations by profit-drive European corporations.

In particular, how would it impact the immigration of white settlers to these nations, in particular in Southern Africa?

Many of these nations (South Africa, Zimbabwe and to a lesser extent Kenya, etc) were obviously of great attraction to a significant number of white settlers for economic reasons. Would the economic prospects of the region still attract them; or would the prospect of not having direct political control be a deterrent? Whites in Southern Africa in this ATL would represent more of a traditional ‘Model Minority’ being economically powerful, but effectively politically dis-enfranchised.
 
for starters, we will see more belgian congo style exploitation, because there will be more territories that will be run by companies/private person like it was happening in the congo. With economic domination being the norm, countries won't care what happens in these territories, as long they are on their side.
 
Last edited:
I think so long as Australia is organised similar to OTL (on same timeframe), with a large British presence and growing settler population, NZ will fall under a similar regime. You’d need a few PODs to change that.

NZ is a large and hospitable land and quite attractive to immigrants. It is also the closest “easy” territory to Australia. So if Australia is British, then Britain will not be too happy if another colonial power takes NZ, as it might be a threat to Australia.

Australian traders and settlers saw NZ as part of their hinterland and indeed NZ supplied a lot of raw material and trade to Australia in early colonial times, pre Treaty of Waitangi. That economic relationship will continue.

The South Island is, from a European point of view, largely unoccupied. Colonial settlement will always be easy there, from a point of lack of local opposition. North Island Maori will attempt to fill the area with their superior numbers and resources, but they were OTL rather distracted by local issues (resource/ new technology based war – see the Musket Wars). So, without major PODs the South Island will probably attract settlement from privately organised settlement groups like IOTL (NZ Company, the Free Church etc) right up until someone fills it with people and asserts control
 
It depends what you mean by "economic domination". If it's non-state actors exercising political power over these areas for their own commercial ends, like the Congo Free State or India during the EIC days, then colonialism will be a lot worse. As bad as the European powers were, public opinion influencing their governments via elections meant there was at least some ethical restraint - this would be gone if corporate power ran completely unchecked.

On the other hand, if "economic domination" just means heavy ownership and trade over these countries, as Britain did to Brazil and Argentina, colonialism is likely to be a lot better. In indigenous power structures, which usually had some forms of checks and balances, would not be swept away. As I subscribe to a rather whiggish view of history, I imagine there would be some sort of organic development towards more progressive regimes just through being exposed to Western ideas. Either this happens in countries gradually, or through revolution because autocracy is so unpleasant.
 
I think so long as Australia is organised similar to OTL (on same timeframe), with a large British presence and growing settler population, NZ will fall under a similar regime. You’d need a few PODs to change that.

NZ is a large and hospitable land and quite attractive to immigrants. It is also the closest “easy” territory to Australia. So if Australia is British, then Britain will not be too happy if another colonial power takes NZ, as it might be a threat to Australia.

Australian traders and settlers saw NZ as part of their hinterland and indeed NZ supplied a lot of raw material and trade to Australia in early colonial times, pre Treaty of Waitangi. That economic relationship will continue.

The South Island is, from a European point of view, largely unoccupied. Colonial settlement will always be easy there, from a point of lack of local opposition. North Island Maori will attempt to fill the area with their superior numbers and resources, but they were OTL rather distracted by local issues (resource/ new technology based war – see the Musket Wars). So, without major PODs the South Island will probably attract settlement from privately organised settlement groups like IOTL (NZ Company, the Free Church etc) right up until someone fills it with people and asserts control

I admit there was some equivocation when I said that New Zealand might be different to Australia for instance.

The main reason I said this, and I am trying to word this carefully to avoid sounding racist, but the New Zealand Maori were from a 19th European point-of-view considered to be 'civilised natives' as opposed to indigenous Australians who were considered 'uncivilised natives'. In particular, history would show that the Maori were un-usually quick at adapting to many Western social and political norms.

Therefore I can see at least in the North Island with a large Maori population, the Europeans being willing to accept continued political control by Maori leaders, provided the rights of Europeans are respected.

Of course at some stage, as the White population increases, eventually there would an eventual move to state colonialism, but I can see it being delayed quite a bit.
 
Top