Informal empire is an important historiographical and definitional concept for any explanatory framework concerning Empire, and although particularly associated with the BRitish empire, is also be usefully employed in discussion of the nature of apparent aspects of contemporary American imperialism. As such, I feel that it requires an article of its own, and cannot simply be subsumed into the article on the BRitish Empire. I've got the basics going, but much can be said about the many, many scholarly references to informal empire. I would also suggest that the specific regions - at the very least China and South America - get their own sub sections in the article, dealing the the specific nature of informal empire. China in particular provides a useful case study, since other powers held informal sway here, including supposedly non-imperial nations like the United States.--Corinthian (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
"South America, on the other hand, was a willing and prosperous partner in the extension of British commercial ventures, and never witnessed nor required British military power to be employed."
I know for a fact that this affirmation is false, there was an invasion of the River Plate by Britain in 1806, and much later an Anglo-French blockade that also culminated in war. I don't know if anything like that happened in the rest of South America, so I will just remove this sentence. Maybe somebody better informed on the subject can complete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernamafer (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)