In the age of empire, colonial conquest is often thought to have been directly effectuated by the ruling impulses and dictates of the crown. However, recent scholarship by Philip J. Stern in Empire Incorporated reveals that empire-building was often an informal process governed by so-called “company states” – private corporations such as joint-stock enterprises funded by private shareholders. Stern, an Assistant Professor of History at Duke University, argues that the advent of the royal charter, which granted recipients special legal rights to jurisdictional immunity and commercial privileges, spearheaded what he calls “venture colonialism” – public statecraft by private means. Through legal procedure, British colonialism across the globe was both normalized and democratized. Investors, entrepreneurs, and even speculators could now throw in their lots with newfangled corporations to engage in finance, trade, and politics abroad.

Stern probes a potpourri of corporate ventures, established for various purposes such as manufacturing, mining, agriculture, or trade. Corporations adopted various functions, quickly becoming specialized vessels for proselytizing natives, laying telegram wire, and even establishing universities. Others became the precursors to successful colonies in the New World. For example, William Penn, the incorporator of Pennsylvania, established a thriving colony seeded with legal privileges such as the right to convene baronial courts, sue, conduct self-governance, and promote the public and private good. Other endeavors, such as the South Sea Company and the Mississippi Company, became disastrous spectacles of rampant speculation and financial ruin. As Stern elucidates, for every successful corporation, there were ample more that were failures, plagued by dubious origins and unstable legality.

Stern’s writing functions as a mix of corporate law and colonial history. However, he often dabbles too much in the legal arcana of corporate finance without equivalent attention to the political moorings that sanctioned these ventures. He also devotes insufficient space to some of the more successful ventures such as the British East India Company, the most profitable corporate endeavor of the British empire. The narrative is also unfocused and makes frequent digressions into all types of corporate legal procedure, not solely those which facilitated British statecraft. This book is an illuminating plunge into a “new history” of empire, but it is not a relaxed history for the uninitiated. 3 s Andy25

Fantastic read, very informative. It offers a perspective often overlooked, especially in our current social climate, of colonialism and imperialism.
Seen from the point of view of corporate interest, this is both an acute analysis of the past and its reverberations on current affairs, and the possible future perspectives, with corporate interest assuming control of our public life covertly and overtly.3 s Quentin15 5

Eye-opening account of the role of private companies in colonialism. This book answered my questions.nonfiction2 s Laura Jordan426 15

I’m sure there was much of great interest in this book — and I had been really looking forward to getting to it — but it’s unnecessarily dense and nearly unreadable as a result. The introduction offered a few over-arching ideas, but the rest of the book strained to offer any kind of thesis and just moved from example to example without a clear argument or through line. And I was surprised that it offered no real discussion of the East India Company and the origins of the Opium Wars, very strange for a book about corporate colonialism. 1 Gauri Pande87 5

A difficult book to get through even if full of very interesting nuggets

- the notion that indigenous peoples of the world dispossessed themselves of property and sovereignty by violating conditions of the law became the ideological and legal foundation of European colonialism. The concept pf private property was upheld by British law for Ty e most specious and outrageous claims abroad

- the joint stock company was a perfect vehicle to colonise - because of its jurisdictional evasiveness , while trouble abroad reverberated at home , its powers abroad served as arguments for upholding its powers at home . For shareholders it was limited liability to support legal and physical violence in faraway places that would be unthinkable otherwise . They were political chameleons. Sovereigns abroad and supplicant subjects at home


- portfolio colonialists abounded - shares in colonising joint stock companies helped them own a share in the sovereignty of many places without ever leaving home

- chaos and anarchy were an effective weapon for colonial expansion and violence. Ordered patterns existed to what seemed random irregular events . Empire May be uncoordinated but it certainly wasn’t unintentional

- through history corporate colonialism demonstrates how porous borders our nations and empire and companies were in the first place

- Bombay was acquired from the Portrugese in an alliance between King Charles and Princess Catarina de Braganza . Crown being unwilling to administer it , hence handed to East India company

- the British used telegraphy to anhilate Father Time ( Kipling ) . As all roads led to Rome all telegraphy lines led to London stringing as pearls together colonies of the crown . Reuters became the largest telegraphy service . The BBC was also started to maintain the consolidated empire against anti colonial nationalism and communism ( Radio Moscow )

- Berlin west Africa conference in 1884 carved Africa into spheres of influence between European powers setting off a mad scramble for colonies . Rhodes set up de beers , gold fields with funds from Rothschild

- a chartered company has no dignity to humiliate , no flag to avenge . It could stoop to conquer, redeem defeat with diplomacy and money where the prestige of a great power would compel a crushing display of force


- anti colonial nationalism led to new centers of corporate power the Tatas , which fashioned themselves as sovereigns with workers as subjects Marks541,441 1,182

This is an historical survey of the British Empire from the perspective that to a nearly exclusive degree, the Empire was outsourced. Key components of the empire were established by a process in which some colonizing agent - a established colony, an entrepreneurial venture, a charitable or religious group, or some other organization - make an agreement with the British Crown and as a result obtained a permit or charter to establish operations in a given locale for a given period. This permission frequently included extensive governmental authority to raise money, establish and maintain a civil environment, including policing powers, and even raise and army and go to war with some enemy. All this was done in the name of the British Government, which was not infrequently called upon to enforce the actions of these contractor colonies. The Opium Wars provide an example.

While this sort of contracting out of empire was common - indeed the norm - it seems odd to more modern sensitivities. The legitimate exercise of governmental authority seems very different from the work we have come to associate with contractors - indeed the legitimacy of such action quickly comes to mind. Other ideas of how private nongovernmental actors are ly better suited to profit-making activities are also common, fueled for the British experience by Thatcher’s privatizing of much public industry after 1979. Privatizing of “governmental” functions today seems much more strange - consider the reactions to private prisons and contract policing.

What is especially thought provoking about the book is how long the traditional contract view of empire persisted in Britain, only changing sharply within the last fifty years or so.

The book is fairly clear, but there are so many examples over such a long time frame that it is hard to keep track of all the developments over multiple centuries. Eric43

garbage. please don't buy this book. an example of an excessively well-researched book that conveys zero information. feels a ramble of random facts with no context or narrative thread. in every chapter it's not clear at all what point the author is trying to make. i only bought it cause the cover has a cool design i guess Christy Matthews149 3

Interesting subject matter focused on how British corporations colonized much of the world outside of the explicit supervision of the crown. Book was too detail oriented and read more a chronological set of facts as opposed to something with high level summaries and key points. The end of the book improved a bit in this sense, but the beginning was borderline painful to get through. Dylan55

I was really looking forward to this book, but about halfway through I have to give up (>1/2). The book has flashes of interesting points, but there's not a lot of structure to the chapters that assists with making the book accessible. 2023 Edvin4

It is a shame that I have to rate it poorly, especially as the subject matter is fascinating, but the lack of coherent structure, overtly detailed legal arcana, and a lack of political history made it quite an uninteresting and dry read. Kevin Postlewaite362 3

Interesting perspective on colonial history. Nick Harriss338 4

A very interesting book, which is particularly strong on the early era of chartered companies.finance general-history politics Reuben Herfindahl110

Autor del comentario:
=================================