Final Report Summary - FIGHT (FIGHT – Fighting Monopolies, Defying Empires 1500-1750: a Comparative Overview of Free Agents and Informal Empires in Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire)
How did ‘free agents’ (entrepreneurs operating outside of the myriad of interests of the centralized, statesponsored mononopolies) in Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire react to the creation of colonial monopolies (royal monopolies and chartered companies) by the central states in the Early Modern period? Through the in-depth analysis of primary sources across eight different countries, in national and private archives, FIGHT has concluded that ‘free agents’ were not, by definition, only involved in illegal activities. They worked for, with and against the institutional framework of empire, including their economic monopolies, to achieve social, economic or political advancement. In this context, and structured in self-organized networks, free agents were able foster cooperation, diffuse social, economic and diplomatic conflicts. In this sense, self-organized networks of free agents became instrumental in the mediation, management and resolution of conflicts. Their actions were as efficient and effective as those of the institutions of empire.
FIGHT has demonstrated that the refusal of monopolies and defiance of empires by agents and networks was the result of a specific entrepreneurial behavior that differed from Early Modern Western European entrepreneurship as it focused on the use of violence as a means to social and economic competitive advantage. The entrepreneurship of empire was thus culturally diverse, organizationally multifaceted and included the interface between free agents/entrepreneurs and the institutionalized monopolies. In that sense, entrepreneurship has become the central concept to understand the cultural diversification within empire building and the ways in which empires profited from this diversity.
Curiously, and perhaps unexpectedly, institutionalized empires took advantage of the entrepreneurial behavior of free agents and their networks to move along, expand and dominate areas that would have been otherwise closed to them. This conquest and expansion of territories and spheres of influence provided networks with enough creative agency to cooperate, oppose and represent the interests of the central states that commanded empires. This is the reason why, empires reacted but only mildly to the intervention of this non-sanctioned networks that often changed overtime from outsiders (or peripheries) of empire into cores (or centers) of colonial build up. In this sense, the encounter and entanglement of free agents, their networks and the state-imposed monopolies and consequent imperial projects, defined new spaces where borders, culture, ethnicity, place of origin and language did not matter. In a way, a true space of global interactions.
FIGHT has demonstrated that the refusal of monopolies and defiance of empires by agents and networks was the result of a specific entrepreneurial behavior that differed from Early Modern Western European entrepreneurship as it focused on the use of violence as a means to social and economic competitive advantage. The entrepreneurship of empire was thus culturally diverse, organizationally multifaceted and included the interface between free agents/entrepreneurs and the institutionalized monopolies. In that sense, entrepreneurship has become the central concept to understand the cultural diversification within empire building and the ways in which empires profited from this diversity.
Curiously, and perhaps unexpectedly, institutionalized empires took advantage of the entrepreneurial behavior of free agents and their networks to move along, expand and dominate areas that would have been otherwise closed to them. This conquest and expansion of territories and spheres of influence provided networks with enough creative agency to cooperate, oppose and represent the interests of the central states that commanded empires. This is the reason why, empires reacted but only mildly to the intervention of this non-sanctioned networks that often changed overtime from outsiders (or peripheries) of empire into cores (or centers) of colonial build up. In this sense, the encounter and entanglement of free agents, their networks and the state-imposed monopolies and consequent imperial projects, defined new spaces where borders, culture, ethnicity, place of origin and language did not matter. In a way, a true space of global interactions.