Occupation Regimes Alike and Unlike: British,Dutch and French Patterns of Inter-Organizational Control of Foreign Territories

Abstract

Occupation, in the sense of foreign domination brought about or sustained by force, is nearly always characterized by the use (or threat) of negative sanctions, by some form of authority, and by the application of positive sanctions. Furthermore, loyal elites (auxiliaries legitimized from above) and native elites (legitimized from below) generally play a crucial role in the control of the subjugated populace. Intercultural variations in occupation regimes are illustrated by the historical example of Dutch, British and French patterns of control in the Spanish Netherlands in the early 18th century. Whereas the Dutch and the English preferred indirect rule via native elites, the French tended to favour direct rule by assimilated loyal elites. However, the French and the Dutch practised, albeit in varying ways, ‘close supervision’, while the British displayed a fairly relaxed ‘laissez-faire’ pattern of control. Similar differences were discerned in studies of the colonial administration practices of Britain, France and The Netherlands in Africa and Asia, while Hofstede’s findings concerning the dimensions of culture suggest that the variations in question reflect home-grown styles of organizing. The results can be interpreted with the aid of rational choice theory in the manner of Coleman, Stinchcombe’s theory about the historical insignia of organizational designs and a touch of Weberian thought.