Search results

The East India Company can lay claim to being the world’s first company whose operations involved systematic organization of multiple countries. It was a pioneer and innovator: it was one of the first companies to offer limited liability to its shareholders; it laid the foundations of the British empire; it spawned Company Man; it developed its own ‘university’. It was a trader, merchant, mercenary, military force and civil administrator; a pioneer bureaucracy as well as being a lean operation. Using an analytic lens drawn from contemporary discussion on MNCs the article reviews the role of the East India Company over its life and draws parallels with contemporary MNCs.

This paper considers the East India Company’s emergence as a territorial power from the 1760s until the revocation of most of its commercial functions in 1834. While this period has been a key episode for historians of the British Empire and of South Asia, social scientists have struggled with the Company’s ambiguous nature. In this paper, I propose that a profitable way to grasp the Company’s transformation is to consider it as a global strategic action field. This perspective clarifies two key processes in the Company’s transition: the enlargement of its territorial possessions; and the increased exposure of its patrimonial network to intervention from British metropolitan politics. To further suggest the utility of this analytic perspective, I synthesize evidence from various sources, including data concerning the East India Court of Directors and the career histories of Company servants in two of its key administrative regions, Bengal and Madras, during this period of transition.

Our research is about the trade in material goods from Asia to Europe over this period, and its impact on Europe’s consumer and industrial cultures. It entails a comparative study of Europe’s East India Companies and the private trade from Asia over the period. The commodities trade was heavily dependent on private trade. The historiography to date has left a blind spot in this area, concentrating instead on corruption and malfeasance. Taking a global history approach we investigate the trade in specific consumer goods in many qualities and varieties that linked merchant communities and stimulated information flows. We set out how private trade functioned alongside and in connection with the various European East India companies; we investigate how this changed over time, how it drew on the Company infrastructure, and how it took the risks and developed new and niche markets for specific Asian commodities that the Companies could not sustain.

Ever since its introduction into the vernacular of imperial historiography over a half century ago, the concept of “informal empire” has had a profound influence on how historians have understood the size and nature of British expansion in the modern world. While offering a crucial corrective to definitions of empire that had focused exclusively on “formal” colonial holdings, such a division has also obscured other frameworks through which we might understand the contours of imperial power, while also underscoring traditional bifurcations between early modern and modern forms of empire. This paper suggests instead an approach that privileges schema that take into account the different institutional and constitutional forms that shaped imperial expansion, and specifically argues that the corporation was one such form, in competition with others including the monarchical and national state. Looking specifically at the early modern East India Company and its modern legacies, particularly George Goldie’s Royal Niger Company, it also suggests that institutional approaches that de-emphasize distinctions between behavioral categories, such as commerce and politics, allow the possibility of excavating deep ideological connections across the history of empire, from its seventeenth-century origins through the era of decolonization.

The East India Company was a hybrid corporation. This hybridity refers to the merchant-state function of the Company, designed as a joint-stock corporate established to trade and make profit, whilst simultaneously exercising public state governance over India. As the Company strived for profits, this was inherently detrimental to ruling a state of people. Its increasing public role alienated both Indians and the British government as it faced increasing criticism. Eventually British state intervention increased until the Company operated as an agent for British imperialism, and its corporate status continued to decline until the Company was replaced by British rule. Ultimately, the legacy of the East India Company represents the incompatibility of private actors taking on state responsibility.

This paper uses the case of the English East India Company to consider the impact of colonialization on patterns of trade. The East India Company went through a commercial and a colonial period in Asia and therefore provides a rare case in which fixed national effects are held constant while the degree of colonialism varies. We use this variation to consider the impact of colonial institutions on the degree of concentration in overseas trade. We find that the onset of colonialism is linked to increasing inequality in the distribution of traffic across ports. This finding is significant because of the relationship between overseas trade and the potential for long-term economic development: the development trajectories of the individual ports were likely to have been affected by these different rates of trade. Our findings also highlight how the negotiation between political and commercial goals in early modern trade and imperialism produced different macro-structural outcomes for global trade patterns.

This paper focuses on the challenges facing global corporations which operate in a variety of environments with increasing multicultural managements and sophisticated understanding of how information technologies and organizational astuteness promote success. Compares this environment with that of the British East India Company. Suggests that corporations operating in the unpredictable environments at the start of the 21st century, in the absence of predictable government and military assistance, of necessity, will be compelled to rethink their transition strategies. Concludes that corporations will assume greater responsibility for functions – including intelligence acquisition, law enforcement, and military projection – normally provided by traditional nation‐states, following the pattern of the British East India Company.

This article examines the locus of power in the large corporation (The East India Company) over a 125 year period and the career paths of two of its dominant players (Laurence Sulivan and James Mill). Sulivan embodies the character of such modern powerful leaders as Jack Welch and Lee Iacocca. Mill represents the modern power broker associated with the “technostructure”. What gave rise to the technostructure? What were the qualities of Sulivan and Mill which allowed them to dominate the organization? These are two of the questions investigated.