2 ms·
The VOC were indeed powerful, but the British East India Company was another level entirely. And the reasons why are quite interesting. Here's Niall Ferguson's
by kodz4 8y ago
The VOC were indeed powerful, but the British East India Company was another level entirely.
And the reasons why are quite interesting. Here's Niall Ferguson's explanation -
Formally, the directors of the East India Company (EIC) in London controlled a substantial part of the trade between India and western Europe.
In reality, as the records of over 4,500 voyages by Company traders show, ship’s captains often made illicit side trips, buying and selling on their own account. By the late eighteenth century the number of ports in the resulting trade network was more than a hundred, ranging from open emporia such as Madras to regulated markets such as Canton (Guangzhou). In effect, private trading provided the weak links that knitted together otherwise disconnected regional clusters. This network had a life of its own that the Company’s directors in London simply did not control. Indeed, that was one of the keys to the success of the EIC: it was more a network than a hierarchy. Significantly, its Dutch rival banned private trade by its employees. This may explain why it ended up being superseded.
- tradesincrease 8y agoThis is not Ferguson's research. He reports on this research in his book -- though the citation is not very prominent. It is from a book by Erikson, Between Monopoly and Free Trade, and an article by Erikson and Bearman, Malfeasance and the Foundation of Global Trade