Did the expansion of Europe create large numbers of unfree labourers in Africa, Asia and the New World or was the use of unfree labour in a colonial setting nothing else but an adaptation to the labour traditions of the non-European world? It is fascinating to see how unique free labour actually was in the early modern world. Historically speaking, free labour was usually the exception and unfree labour the rule, especially when we consider non-European controlled labour systems.

Why are some forms of bound labour more coercive than others? Specifically, why was European indentured servitude in America more coercive than craft apprenticeship or life-cycle servitude-in-husbandry, despite the close similarity and derivative nature of these institutions? Concepts recently advanced in labour economics offer some preliminary answers to these questions. This investigation is exploratory in nature and focuses on three types of voluntary long-term labour contracts. However, the arguments and conclusions presented here may have wider applications and be useful for future research on other forms of bound labour which involve consent and contract.

The migrants who left India to work on colonial sugar plantations in the nineteenth century have been variously categorised as neo-slaves or as voluntary black settlers. This paper assesses some of the recent historical claims and revisionist interpretations of Indian indentured labour and takes up a number of themes based on the Mauritian case to highlight important aspects of this colonial labour diaspora.

On 4 January 1836, less than two and a half years after Parliament abolished slavery in British colonies, John Gladstone, Liverpool merchant and father of William Ewart Gladstone, dictated a letter to his nephew at the Calcutta shipping agency Gillanders, Arbuthnot & Co. Gladstone explained that he had heard that the firm had recently sent ‘a considerable number of a certain class of Bengalees, to be employed as labourers, to the Mauritius’, and that he was interested in exploring the possibility of making similar arrangements for certain colonies in the West Indies, where he himself owned sugar plantations.

In surveying the negative effects of the expansion of Europe it seems difficult to find an area which was worse affected than the Caribbean. The autochthonous population of Amerindians had been decimated on a scale unknown elsewhere. Rather than becoming an attractive refuge for migrant Europeans, the Caribbean became the home of plantation agriculture, which ruthlessly destroyed the existing environment and small scale farming. To top it all, the Caribbean plantations needed a constant influx of labourers. The success of Caribbean exports created a paradox: the region was in constant and increasing need of manpower while at the same time the number European migrants was decreasing rapidly

Even before the abolition of slavery on 1 February 1835, planters on Mauritius had begun to look for free agricultural labourers to work their estates. By the early 1830s, it had become apparent that the local slave population was inadequate to meet the labour needs of the colony's rapidly expanding sugar industry, and the long-term availability of this soon-to-be emancipated work force was also increasingly open to question as the decade progressed. The Act of Abolition promised owners the services of their former slaves, now transformed into ‘apprentices’, as agricultural labourers, but only for a period of six years. Some planters no doubt suspected that the apprenticeship system might come to an end earlier than scheduled, as indeed was to happen in 1839. Others had good reason to suspect that many, if not most, of their apprentices would leave the plantations upon their final emancipation, as indeed they subsequently did. Faced with these realities, Mauritian planters dispatched their agents as far afield as China, Singapore, Ethiopia and Madagascar to search out supplies of inexpensive labour. Their gaze returned continually, however, to the relative close and seemingly inexhaustible manpower of India.

Travel in search of a better future is an essential part of human history. This paper will examine one aspect of this phenomenon, that of migrating labourers, focusing on the migration and mortality of Javanese and Chinese labourers to the East Coast of Sumatra from 1869 to 1930. One of the goals of this investigation will be to better understand the condition in which they lived. The rate of mortality among Javanese and Chinese labourers is still based on appropriations, because previous scholarship focussed primarily on labour conditions on the plantations and not on the real evidence of mortality of the labourers. Perhaps this is because documentation in the early part of the period is incomplete and hard to come by. It is obvious, however, that from the outset of the plantation society, mortality was high. In Koelies, Planters en Koloniale Politiek, Jan Breman estimated that on Sumatra's East Coast one out of three or four coolies died before his contract had ended. However, reports of hospitals in the area are a source for new evidence about the mortality of the labourers in the early years of their recruitment. This paper will present this evidence.

During the past few decades, many scholars have studied the various demographic consequences of European overseas expansion. One focus of attention has been the fatal impact of European expansion on the native populations of the New World. Before contact with Europeans, the native populations of the Americas, Australia, and the Pacific were generally free of infectious diseases, and so lacked immunity to diseases such as smallpox, measles, and influenza, which were introduced by Europeans. A second focus of attention has been the mortality among Europeans when they went overseas and encountered new diseases, such as malaria, yellow fever, and cholera, to which they had no immunity. And a third focus of attention has been the mortality among various African, Asian, and Pacific Islander labourers when they were procured as slaves or indentured servants for work on European plantations in various parts of the world.

Government requires coercion, if only to arrest free riding. Physical coercion alone may not suffice for this purpose, however, and ideological means may be needed as well. This basic principle underlies all government. In market economies the coercive capabilities of government may be expected to be financed out of taxes ultimately levied on factor owners' money incomes, that is, on wages, profits, and rent. On the other hand, in economies where markets have not developed due to high transactions costs individuals' contributions to the provision of public goods will take the form of payments in kind and labour services. In this case, the free rider problem suggests labourers will attempt to shirk; the government, therefore, will have to compel labourers to work and, therefore, will appear to be coercing labour even though it may only be seeking to curtail shirking.