Periodization is tricky--heavily political, heavily regionalized. The Spanish Empire might have a few things to say about Hobswam's identification of an "age of empires" that didn't involve its height, for example, and countries that continued to suffer until the imperial yoke after 1914 would have their own set of concerns. Nevertheless, it's at least an attempt to break the typical patterns of regional--usually Western--exclusivity, even if it is still determined by Western activities.

For example, the most bullseye for the period you mention is the Progressive Era in the U.S., which is defined pretty much exactly as the era you named (although some measures have it bleeding into the Roaring Twenties/Jazz Age). In this framing, it's characterized as a response to the changes wrought by industrialization, including urbanization and conditions in cities; immigration to U.S. cities (Midwestern settlers, not so much a concern); children and women in the workforce and in public; and entrenched, corrupt city political structures.

In England, which likes to periodize monarchically, this time frame is split by Queen Victoria's death in 1901. Nevertheless, it's not infrequent to see discussions of "Victorian" England stop their discussion sometime in the 1880s or go to the 1910s, or to see takes on the Edwardian era cheat backwards and start in the last years of Victoria's reign. Less political than the U.S. framing, key markers here are socio-economic (the rise of "middle class" values and the working class consciousness/consciousness of the working class), literary (birth of sci-fi, yo!), scientific, and international geopolitical (that looming German invasion).

I've heard the 1890's called the mauve decade.