which might have been individually rational, from a military or even economic
viewpoint, but which produced a collectively suboptimal outcome. From a historical
point of view however one can ask: is this a realistic counterfactual, in a world without a
collective security regime? Findlay and O'Rourke (2007, p.229) argue that for the
individual European state, pondering what such a unilateral conversion to peaceful free
trade might bring, "in the absence of... a clearly defined hegemonic power, military
defeat and exclusion from foreign markets” seems a plausible answer.
Other less economic explanations for empire have also been proposed. For
example, in response to the question as to why, once the technological constraints that
impeded long-distance oceanic voyages had been removed, only some European
countries established colonies overseas, Elliott (1990) proposed an explanation based on
previous histories of expansion. Iberian plunder, settlement, and colonisation in the
Americas, in this view, represented a follow-up to the reconquest ("reconquista") of
territories previously under Muslim control, while England's overseas expansion in the
17th century followed the conquest of Ireland in the previous century. Why did other
countries in Europe eventually join them? Here Elliott points to competition between
European nation-states, which triggered an emulation process leading to the seizure and
occupation of New World lands. In this scenario, the fact that all of Europe ultimately
became involved in overseas expansion was at least in part unintended.
Another view points to the interconnections between empire and nation-state
building, with countries in Europe struggling not to be left behind. This interpretation
regards as economistic and anachronistic the view that states and merchants needed
reserved markets and supply sources in an uncertain world, and regards colonies not as an
investment, but rather as costs paid for non-economic ends (Engerman 1998). The costs
of empire are undeniable, since colonies needed to be acquired, settled, and defended.
Wars, losses of life and ships represented -- from a purely economic perspective -- a
diversion of resources from alternative uses. War costs had to be financed through taxes,
inflation or public debt. Besides, the colonial system involved navigation laws that
imposed an implicit tax on consumers, as they usually had to pay a price above that of the
most efficient producer.
15