Study this question carefully. How far was economic rivalry responsible for European imperial expansion in Africa during the late nineteenth century? Explai...

This question asks how far economic rivalry was responsible for European imperial expansion in Africa during the late nineteenth century. You must evaluate economic motives against other factors such as national prestige, strategic interests, and ideology.

Evidence that economic rivalry was a major factor:

• European powers competed for access to Africa's raw materials, including rubber, ivory, palm oil, gold, and diamonds. King Leopold II of Belgium exploited the Congo from the 1880s primarily for its rubber and mineral resources, with brutal consequences for the local population.
• The discovery of diamonds at Kimberley in 1867 and gold on the Witwatersrand in 1886 drove British expansion in southern Africa. Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company pursued territorial expansion specifically to secure mineral wealth and trading routes.
• European industries sought new markets for manufactured goods. The Long Depression of the 1870s and increased industrial competition between Britain, France, and Germany motivated the search for overseas markets to absorb surplus production.
• Trading companies, such as the Royal Niger Company and the Imperial British East Africa Company, played a direct role in establishing territorial claims that governments later formalised.

Evidence that other factors were also important:

• National prestige: Possessing colonies was regarded as a mark of great power status. France sought to rebuild its international standing after defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 by expanding its empire. Germany under Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm II pursued colonies partly to demonstrate German world-power status. Italy's attempts to conquer Ethiopia (1896) and Libya (1911) were driven by prestige.
• Strategic interests: Britain's control of Egypt from 1882 and the Suez Canal was motivated by the need to protect the sea route to India. The Cape Colony was valued for its strategic position on the route to Asia.
• The Berlin Conference (1884-1885): The conference established rules for claiming African territory, creating a competitive diplomatic framework that accelerated the Scramble for Africa regardless of economic calculations.
• Missionary and humanitarian motives: Missionary activity and the campaign against the slave trade provided moral justification for colonisation, even if these motives were often secondary to economic or strategic interests.
• Technological superiority: The Maxim gun, quinine (for malaria prevention), and steamships made conquest feasible and sometimes tempted European states into expansion simply because it was achievable.

Reaching a judgement: Economic rivalry was a significant driver of imperial expansion, particularly in resource-rich regions. However, in many cases colonies proved economically unprofitable, suggesting that prestige, strategic considerations, and inter-power competition were equally or more important. The strongest answer would argue that economic motives, national prestige, and strategic interests were intertwined and that no single factor can fully explain the Scramble for Africa.

Mark scheme guidance:

• Level 5 (33-40): Balanced analysis evaluating economic motives against other factors, with specific examples from different regions, reaching a sustained judgement.
• Level 4 (25-32): Good evidence on both sides but the judgement may lack nuance or the coverage of alternative factors may be thinner.
• Level 3 (17-24): Some explanation with evidence, but may be one-sided or lack sufficient range of examples.
• Level 2 (9-16): Descriptive account of imperial expansion with limited evaluation of motives.
• Level 1 (1-8): General statements about colonialism with little specific evidence.

Exam tip: When discussing causes of imperialism, use specific regional examples (e.g. southern Africa for economic motives, Egypt for strategic motives, France in West Africa for prestige). Specific examples are more convincing than general claims about 'Europeans wanting resources.'