Societies are formed under an environment that is ultimately constrained by the availability of natural resources. It is the accessibility of these raw materials that inevitably influence the ability to produce of a country and consequently their level of development. Some nations have found a way around this problem, as the prime minister of the Cape Colony from 1890 to 1896 once said “We must find new lands which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labour that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods in our factories” (Goldsmith, 1997). This could be considered the epitome of imperialist strategies, at the cost of their respective colonies. Similarly, let me define colonialism according to Edward Goldsmith (1997) as the extent to which a colonizing power installs economic, political, and socio-cultural institutions in a colonized territory. However, many countries which have colonial heritage have gone on to become developed countries. In these cases, some authors argue that the density of the indigenous population, their economic models, the strength of liberal elites, and their ruling strategies have been variables that have influenced this outcome. In the scope of this paper, I will discuss the extent to which colonial heritage can be seen as a predictor for development.
Literature by Lange et al. (2006) explains the effect of colonialism in terms of the economic models that the colonizing nations followed. They contrast mercantilist Spain and liberal Britain and their effect on post-colonial development in their colonies. It seems like Spain was focused on pre-colonial wealth, such as fertile soil and mineral-rich land, that had the most potential for resource accumulation (Lange et al., 2006). On the other hand, the British were mostly drawn to regions that had less complex social structures that allowed for the greatest capitalistic accumulation (Lange et al., 2006). Furthermore, it seems that in terms of population size, mercantilist nations were more interested in densely populated regions as it implied an extensive labour pool while liberal nations were interested in scarcely populated areas because the displacement of the indigenous population was seen as too costly (Lange et al., 2006). In another paper by one of the same authors, Mahoney (2003), the influence of liberal elites in the relationship between colonial and postcolonial development is explored. Mahoney remarks that while the ability to keep improving social development depended on the density of the population, the former is also associated with ethnic-stratification systems. It seems that areas with a high indigenous population were more prone to have political elites that deliberately excluded a big portion of society while scarcely populated regions were more likely to have political elites that tried to incorporate all individuals as citizens (Mahoney, 2003). We can further extrapolate from this point and make an educated guess that nations that tended to recognize more citizens, were also more likely to support social programs that facilitated behaviours like entrepreneurship. Lange et al. (2006) were able to explore these relationships by using descriptive statistics that showed that different levels of long-run development were associated with the origin of the colonizers. They defined the level of development according to their HDI scores in 1971 and 2000, as they were periods where data was available from former colonies in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. They further looked at the correlation coefficients between levels of colonialism and HDI. For the Spanish colonies, they found values between the range of -0.59 and -0.48, while for the British colonies they found values between 0.86 and 0.88. It is very interesting to contrast both British and Spanish strategies as although they reversed pre-colonial wealth, they did so in very different ways. Ultimately, nations that had the most wealth before colonialism often became the least developed after their independence (Lange et al., 2006).
Another paper by Njoh (2000) looks at the impact of colonial heritage on development in Sub-Saharan Africa and, more precisely, at the contrast between direct and indirect ruling. After examining 17 English-speaking and 17 French-speaking sub-Saharan African countries they were able to conclude that nations with a history of decentralization, which followed indirect ruling, had better-living conditions than centralized nations. Indirect ruling, as employed by Britain, involves using the pre-existing indigenous power structures as a conduit for the implementation of British colonial policies (Njoh, 2000). On the other hand, direct ruling was primarily used by France and is characterized by being highly centralized where French colonies were governed directly from Paris through the governor (Njoh, 2000). The evidence seems to suggest that decentralization better prepared young nations for self-governance (Njoh, 2000). Ultimately this matches Lange et al. (2006) findings as indirect ruling would be a better match for scarcely populated areas with a liberal economic model, where there is a better environment for the incorporation of the colonizers among the indigenous population which would end up facilitating capital accumulation. However, I am personally hesitant to be quick to say that these nations are ‘better-off’ although they may account for a higher HDI in modernity. This is because it does not accredit the ethnoracial stratification and violence that was often caused by British colonialism, where they had an agenda for indigenous displacement (Mahoney, 2003).
Empirical evidence points out a relationship between development and the colonial heritage of countries. More specifically, the literature shows how the density of the indigenous population, the economic models of the colonizers, the social structures, and ruling strategies can be used as predictors for the level of development of formerly colonized countries. Ultimately, colonies that followed liberal strategies with decentralized power structures, and that focused on capitalistic rather than resource accumulation are more likely to have higher HDI. However, I would not say that countries whose wealth was benefitted from colonization are strictly ‘better off’, as the true beneficiaries would be the original colonizers and not the colonized regions. Especially since the countries that benefited from these strategies tended to radically displace the indigenous population. While this paper mostly focused on colonialism in modern history, between 1500 and late 1800s, it would also be worthwhile to explore relationships between these variables and current imperialistic strategies such as international interventions.
References:
Goldsmith, E. (1997). Development as colonialism. The Ecologist, 27(2), 69-77.
Lange, M., Mahoney, J., & Vom Hau, M. (2006). Colonialism and development: A comparative analysis of Spanish and British colonies. American Journal of Sociology, 111(5), 1412-1462.
Mahoney, J. (2003). Long-run development and the legacy of colonialism in Spanish America. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 50-106.
Njoh, A. J. (2000). The impact of colonial heritage on development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Social Indicators Research, 52(2), 161-178.
emiliovel 