Read the following passage and answer the following five questions: 

The drive to acquire political control of tropical regions was almost universal among major European nations in the nineteenth century. Where did the empires sprang from - a greed for territory, a lust for power, accidental circumstances, or an economic motive?

J.A. Hobson suggested that empires rose to protect European investments abroad at a time when the need to export capital was acute because of falling rates of return on capital at home. Competition for colonies, Hobson believed, was behind the conflicts that dragged these powers into waging war against each other.

The imperialists believed that they were protecting home investment when expanding territories remains weak. The more common motives cited were markets for goods and opening for emigration, not export of capital. Investments were seen as a means rather than the end. Different strands emphasised by industrial bourgeoisie or bankers and financiers. But the common point was that the profit seeking led the capitalists to expand political control.

J. Gallagher and R. Robinson proposed that in the mid-nineteenth century, Britain had already established an 'informal empire' secured by commercial, cultural and diplomatic links. The informal empire could take care of the economic interests well enough. The change from informal to formal empire was driven not by economic motives but by global and local political rivalries.

Large economic gains were made by owning colonies that would strengthen the role of a profit motive and in turn capitalist interest behind imperialism.