Suchergebnisse

J. A. Hobson (18581940) was an English economist and early socialist, whose writings on capitalism and industrialism influenced Lenin and Trotsky, and were highly regarded by John Maynard Keynes. Imperialism, published in 1902, is considered his most important work. Employed as a war correspondent by the Manchester Guardian to report on the Second Boer War, he became convinced that imperial expansion was driven by the desire to find new markets and investment opportunities, resulting in capitalistic exploitation of the colonies. He argued that imperial policies were a fundamental cause of international conflict, as greed led to aggression and militarism. While modern critics have seen weaknesses in his arguments, such as his failure to examine the development of the British Empire out of early private trading enterprises, Hobson was a very influential and prolific writer and social theorist, who helped shape British welfare policy in the twentieth century

Cover -- Contents -- List of Tables -- Foreword -- Acknowledgements -- 1 Introduction - Imperialism: What's in a Name? -- Empire and Imperialism: Histories and Definitions -- Rethinking Imperialism: a Brief Summary -- 2 Early Capitalism and Mercantile Imperialism -- The Origins Debate: Core, Periphery and Global History -- The New Global History: a Critique -- Conclusion: Imperialism and Early Capitalist Development -- 3 Liberal Imperialism and Capitalist Expansion -- Classical Political Economy and the Critique of Empire -- Liberalism and the Case for Empire -- Free Trade Imperialism -- Conclusion: Advanced or Backward British Imperialism? -- 4 Classical Imperialism, 1882-1945 -- Classical Theories of Imperialism -- Liberal Imperialism Revisited -- Assessing Classical and Liberal Theories of Imperialism -- Conclusion -- 5 The Cold War, Post-War Boom and New Theories of Imperialism -- The US State and the Post-War Liberal International Order -- The Cold War, Military Imperialism and the Third World -- Theories of Imperialism after 1945 -- Conclusion: Imperialism and International Relations, 1945-1989 -- 6 Neo-liberalism, Globalization and Geo-Politics in the Post-Cold War World -- From Bretton Woods to Neo-Liberalism -- Theorizing Restructuring, Hegemony and Globalization -- State Theory Revisited -- Post-Cold War Geo-Politics: Lenin and Kautsky Revisited -- Conclusion -- 7 The Political Economy of Neo-Liberal Imperialism -- The Globalization of Production: Capitalist Diffusion at Last? -- The Reality of Global Uneven Development -- Imperialism, Neo-Liberalism and Uneven and Combined Development -- Conclusion -- 8 Liberalism and 'Humanitarian Imperialism' -- The Rise of the Discourse of Humanitarian Intervention -- The Case against Liberal Imperialism -- Conclusion.

Scholars of modern imperialism have conventionally defined it in clear contrast against the ostensibly legitimate rule of the sovereign territorial state. From this conventional perspective, the theoretical distinctiveness of imperialism as a phenomenon appears in juxtaposition against normal sovereign state rule and effectively 'begins' at the transgressions of state power beyond some accepted space of normalized sovereign dominion. While the spatial and temporal dimensions of sovereignty have been well explored and the spatial distinctiveness of imperialism has mirrored that of sovereignty, the temporality of imperialism has not been as carefully considered. While the problems of what imperialism 'is' and what it 'does' have been thoroughly examined, 'when' imperialism is has not. This article aims to correct this by offering a critique of the conventional temporality of imperialism and its subjection to a spatial ideology, and instead articulating a critical temporality of imperialism that avoids some of the conventional conception's limitations, especially that of naturalizing state rule and its claims to legitimacy.

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

This essay approaches the neoliberal tradition of thought through the lens of liberal imperialism. Seeking to bring scholarship on the history of neoliberal ideas together with research on liberal defences of empire, I show that the neoliberal tradition of thought contains a number of formal, explicit, and systematic defences of (European) colonialism. In the first section of the essay, I contextualise neoliberal imperialism by showing that many prominent early neoliberals had close ties to the British Colonial Office. I then offer a close reading of two highly influential instances of the neoliberal defence of empire. The first was articulated between the 1930s and 1940s by Herbert Frankel, who saw colonisation as a form of civilisational improvement that places a heavy ethical and political burden on the coloniser. The second was articulated by Lewis Gann and Peter Duignan between the 1960s and 1970s. In contrast to Frankel's civilisational justification of colonialism, Gann and Duignan articulated a more dispassionate cost-benefit argument, claiming that colonialism's advantages outweigh its disadvantages. The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of this shift from a civilisational to a consequentialist frame both for the neoliberal tradition and for liberal imperialist discourse at large.

With increasing interest in media power across media policy and the cultural industries, this is a timely revisting of the classic idea of 'media imperialism'. Boyd-Barrett presents a thorough retake for the 21st Century, exploring how structures of power still regulate our access to media

Abstract
Economic Imperialism is the claim of some economists that the methodology of neoclassical economics has superior scientific qualities and should be adopted by most or all social sciences. The paper first shows why such a dominant claim could develop among economists but in no other science and then goes on to point out the shortcomings of this claim of methodological superiority. These critical remarks are also relevant for methodological controversies within economics between a mainstream and heterodox economists.

If an important part of the political scientist's mission is to anticipate and explain "the critical problems that generate turbulence" in that part of the world which attracts his attention, then, in the study of administration, bureaucratic "imperialism" must be of compelling interest. If systematic data directly assembled for the purpose are lacking, and if there are some signal problems of theory which have been little investigated, there is still enough evidence from studies of other political problems that it seems worthwhile to set out some trial-run ideas in the hope that they will elicit further discussion.Bureaucractic imperialism seems pre-eminently a matter of inter-agency conflict in which two or more agencies try to assert permanent control over the same jurisdiction, or in which one agency actually seeks to take over another agency as well as the jurisdiction of that agency. We are thus primarily concerned with the politics of allocation and shall, except incidentally, bypass some other interesting aspects of inter-agency politics such as cooperation between agencies sharing missions, competition for favorable "one-time-only" decisions which do not involve jurisdictional reallocation, or the critical problems of the "holding company" administrative organization and its internal politics. For the moment, our concern with the politics of allocation leads to a focus on what would appear to be the likely behaviors of those decisionmakers who have both inclination and opportunity to look after the institutional well-being of agencies.