The term informal empire describes the spheres of influence which a polity may develop that translate into a degree of influence over a region or country, which is not a formal colony, protectorate, tributary, or vassal state of an empire, as a result of its commercial, strategic, or military interests.
In a 2010 article, Gregory Barton and Brett Bennett defined informal empire as:
A willing and successful attempt by commercial and political elites to control a foreign region, resource, or people. The means of control included the enforcement of extraterritorial privileges and the threat of economic and political sanctions, often coupled with the attempt to keep other would-be imperial powers at bay. For the term "informal empire" to be applicable, we argue, historians have to show that one nation's elite or government exerted extraterritorial legal control, de facto economic domination, and was able to strongly influence policies in a foreign country critical to the more powerful country's interests.
An informal empire may assume a primarily economic guise, or it may be enforced by gunboat diplomacy. Strategic considerations or other concerns may bring about the creation of an imperial influence over a region not formally a component of an empire.
Origins The city-state of Athens exerted control over the Delian League through an informal empire in the 5th century BCE. According to historian Jeremy Black, the role of chartered companies such as the Muscovy Company, the Levant Company, the East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, which operated beyond official state channels, was a forerunner to the concept of "informal empire".
United Kingdom
The concept of an informal empire is most commonly associated with the British Empire, where it is used to describe the extensive reach of British interests into regions and nations not formally under Britain's control. Among the most notable elements of the British informal empire was Britain's trade relationships with Qing China and South America. Britain's informal empire consisted primarily of three elements: extraterritoriality, a trade system that heavily favoured Britain and interventionist tools such as military force and diplomatic pressure. Several unequal treaties were signed between Britain and China, resulting in concessions being established in Chinese port cities, such as the Shanghai International Settlement. This system broke down after the fragmentation of China during the Warlord Era, leading Britain and other Western powers to be unable to effectively enforce their privileges in mainland China.
Historians have noted Britain's informal empire differed between different regions. The informal empire in China was established only in the aftermath of the Opium Wars, and was maintained through military force and diplomatic pressure. Developments in the 1890s led to a shift from more informal to more formal control at the turn of the century, with the establishment of more concessions and the carving of spheres of influence. These rights were returned during the Second World War so that China would continue resisting Japan.Encyclopedia of Chinese-American Relations (McFarland, 2015) edited by Yuwu Song, p.288-289 Conversely, the informal empire in South America was supported by local governments were often willing partners in the extension of British commercial influence, though military action was sometimes taken against nations which maintained protectionist policies. A report from the British General Staff declared that the British military intervention in the Russian Civil War on behalf of the White Army was motivated in part by a desire to establish an informal empire of political influence and economic ties in Southern Russia, to deny Germany access to these assets and block their passage to British colonies in Asia.
In the economic sphere, the British informal empire was driven by the free trade economic system of the Empire. In the so-called "Imperialism of Free Trade" thesis, as articulated by historians Ronald Robinson and John "Jack" Gallagher, the British Empire expanded as much by the growth of informal empire as it did by acquiring formal dominion over colonies.John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, "The Imperialism of Free Trade", The Economic History Review, Second series, Vol. VI, no. 1 (1953) An online version of this seminal article is available at: Furthermore, British investment in empire was to be found not only in the formal Empire, but also in the informal empire—and, by Robinson and Gallagher's account, was indeed predominantly located in the informal empire. It is estimated that between 1815 and 1880, £1,187,000,000 in credit had accumulated abroad, but no more than one-sixth was placed in the formal empire. Even by 1913, less than half of the £3,975,000,000 of foreign investment lay inside the formal Empire.A. H. Imlah, 'British Balance of Payments and Exports of Capital, 1816-1913', Econ. Hist. Rev. 2nd ser. V (1952), pp. 237, 239; Hancock, op. cit. p. 27.
The British historian David Reynolds has claimed that during the process of decolonisation, it was hoped that as an alternative to the declining formal empire, informal influence, marked by economic ties and defense treaties, would hold sway over the former colonies. Reynolds suggested that the establishment of the Commonwealth was an attempt to maintain some form of indirect influence over the newly independent countries.
United States U.S. foreign policy from the late 19th century onward, under Presidents such as Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and New Deal leaders, has been described as "informal empire". 20th century U.S. policy of establishing international influence through friendly regimes, military bases and interventions, and economic pressure, has drawn comparisons with the informal empires of European colonial powers. The fundamental elements involved a clientelistic relationship with the elite, sometimes established forcibly; effective veto power over issues pertaining to the Great Power's interests; and the use of military threats, regime change, or multilateral pressure to accomplish diplomatic aims. The policy is intended to create an international economic order that benefits the Great Power by creating markets for export and investment, improving the profitability of their capitalists. This commitment to an open economy is selective and applied only when it benefits their producers. The Philippines, Vietnam, Iraq, and Iran are examples of this policy being implemented.
The policy was summed up by former Secretary of State William Bryan as having "opened the doors of all the weaker countries to an invasion of American capital and American enterprise." Under informal empire, the U.S. relationship with countries which supplied them raw materials became highly imbalanced, with much of their wealth being repatriated to the U.S. This also disproportionately benefited the (often authoritarian) pro-American rulers of these countries at the expense of local development.
By the end of World War II, US influence over China was greater than any foreign power in the last century, with American personnel appointed in military, economic and political field,s such as the American Chief of Staff of the Chinese military,;American management of the Chinese War Production Board and Board of Transport, SACO trainers of Chiang's secret police,;Patrick Hurley's management of political unification,;and Chiang's American personal advisor. Sir George Sansom, British envoy to the US, reported that many US military officers saw US monopoly on Far Eastern trade as a rightful reward for fighting the Pacific war, a sentiment echoed by US elected officials and industrial leaders. The U.S. chose to switch from formal to informal imperialism after the Second World War not because of lack of desire among Americans for colonialism (there was strong public support for seizing colonies from the vanquished Japan, as well as a continued belief in colonies' incapability to govern themselves) but rather because of a changed international landscape. Since most of the world was already organised into colonies, US policymakers chose to utilisse pre-xisting colonial empire networks instead of establishing new colonies. The US also had to adapt themselves to rising anti-colonial nationalist movements so as to acquire allies against the Soviet Union.
France French interventions in Mexico (1838, 1861) and limited actions elsewhere in Latin America have sometimes been described as forms of "informal empire". However, French involvement in the region was relatively sporadic and far less extensive than that of other European powers, particularly Britain. Intervention was supported primarily by certain segments of local elites who looked to French ideals and power as a means of advancing their own political and social positions. The decolonisation of Africa led to the conversion of many former colonies into client states under a French informal empire known as Françafrique. Chief of Staff for African Affairs Jacques Foccart was the figure instrumental in creating collaborative networks between the French government and the new African elites. The purpose of the network was to aid capital accumulation for France.
Germany In the 19th century, the leadership of the German Empire, which had formed in 1871, sought to acquire a colonial empire, yet observed that in most parts of the world, British commercial influence already existed. While the German Empire did conquer various colonies that became the formal German colonial empire, efforts before 1914 were also made to establish an informal empire based on the British model. German trade and influence in South America was a major factor in this projected informal empire. Informal empire attempts preceded the German Empire, including the Rhenish Missionary Society. During most of the 1800s, Karl von Koseritz was one who advocated for a "Greek colonization" of Germans in Brazil. Ultimately amounting only to German immigration to the Brazilian Empire, it was perceived as a form of colonial space. German firms played a significant role in the industrialization of Argentina, and German banks competed with British ones in South America, while building infrastructure was seen as a way to extend the informal empire. Germany invested in the Anatolian and Baghdad railroads in the Ottoman Empire, which led to tension with Britain and Russia who were in their own Great Game of formal and informal empire in Asia. The Venezuelan crisis of 1902–1903 led by Britain and Germany was another attempt at expanding spheres of influence.
Japan Japanese diplomacy and military intervention in China from 1895 to the outbreak of the Second World War has also been described as an informal empire. Japan was forced into concealing their territorial ambitions under informal terms as they lacked the strength to overcome Western objections to Japanese territorial gains. The Japanese advanced their own special privileges in China through promoting Western interests alongside their own. Japan profited immensely from the informal empire in China and Japan's first multinational manufacturing firms were initiated in China rather than Japan's formal colonies due to China's vast internal market and raw material supply. Chinese popular pressure to drive out Japanese imperial institutions led to the Japanese attempting to switch from informal to formal imperialism to protect their profits, beginning the Second World War in Asia.
Russian Empire The Russian Empire under the Romanovs, in addition to a formal empire that expanded rapidly, also developed an informal empire. Examples included Russian influence in Qajar Iran and leased concessions in China.