Colonialism, Exploitation and Independence

[danjuno]

Whereas you are trying to blame historic colonialism for problems today that are nothing to do with historic colonialism.

The problems caused by the British didn't magically disappear with them. Something on that scale might takes centuries to be corrected.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Copying from the nobel committees report:

In two seminal papers, Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001, 2002) greatly enhanced the study of the impact of economic institutions on economic prosperity. In particular, they employed a design-based – or quasi-experimental – approach using the experience of European colonialism as a “natural experiment”.

In so doing, Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson empirically traced the importance and persistence of colonial strategies for subsequent economic development. Their research design centered around the hypothesis that the institutions set up or selectively maintained by colonial powers have had persistent effects on political and economic institutions until today. That is, the type of institutions – inclusive or extractive – observed in many low-income countries today can be partly explained by the fact that colonizers, in some places beginning hundreds of years ago, shaped domestic institutions in a way that was beneficial to themselves. Moreover, what was beneficial to the colonizers, in turn, depended on initial conditions in the colonized areas. Importantly, the initial conditions governing the type of institutions were predetermined and provided quasi-experimental variation to study the impact of institutions on economic prosperity, even for countries under the same colonizer.

Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001, 2002) showed that the colonial experience had a major impact on long-run prosperity. Their evidence also suggests that the type of institutions implemented by the colonizers is they key mechanism, although the exact impact of institutional quality on income is difficult to quantify.

Through a series of papers (Acemoglu, 2003, 2006; Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, 2005a; Acemoglu and Robinson, 2000, 2001, 2006b, 2008), the Laureates have helped us understand theoretically why growth-promoting institutions are (or are not) adopted. A key implication of their general model is that inefficient institutions, from a social welfare point of view, are sometimes chosen by political rulers as a way to extract resources from the populace. And once implemented, these inefficient institutions often persist because of an underlying commitment problem. That is, a promise by the “elite” (or an autocrat) to implement a welfare-improving reform of economic institutions is often not credible because the elite have an incentive to ex-post renege on their promise. Similarly, promises by those who argue for institutional reform are also not credible: even if they are willing to compensate the current elite for peacefully agreeing to reform, there are no incentives to compensate the former elite once they have relinquished power. Politically powerful groups may also refrain from institutional change, even if it may be welfare improving, because of concerns about subsequent institutional dynamics, i.e., the risk of losing power.

Two part problem:

• Legacy systems are harmful: part of the reason
• Poor leadership the other part.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The problems caused by the British didn't magically disappear with them.

I rather think that the main problem perceived by the locals was being ruled by foreigners.
And that particular problem magically disappeared when the British left.

Something on that scale might takes centuries to be corrected.

Let us not start by assuming that subsequent change was a correction.
In some instances the change may have made things worse.

Two part problem:

• Legacy systems are harmful: part of the reason

Legacy systems may have been harmful, they may also have been helpful (railways, telegraph system).

• Poor leadership the other part.

Leadership always varies. To my mind it was acceptance by the population
of particularly poor leadership (e.g. Idi Amin) that was the problem.

 

[danjuno]

I rather think that the main problem perceived by the locals was being ruled by foreigners.
And that particular problem magically disappeared when the British left.

That doesn't mean the effects of their presence left with them.

Let us not start by assuming that subsequent change was a correction.
In some instances the change may have made things worse.

That's the problem, colonies are generally organized as appendages of the colonizing country, so the newly independent natives have to figure out how to operate an independent country (going back to the way things were done before the colonists showed up is usually difficult, if not impossible after the major societal changes made). Not something you figure out over night.

Legacy systems may have been harmful, they may also have been helpful (railways, telegraph system).

Basic infrastructure is not of much use if the fundamentals of an economy have been chiefly organized around extracting value for someplace else.

 

[EnglishEdward]

That doesn't mean the effects of their presence left with them.

The primary lasting effects are technological advancement. But they really don't have to use that technology if they don't want to. And if they do, there is little grounds for complaint.

That's the problem, colonies are generally organized as appendages of the colonizing country, so the newly independent natives have to figure out how to operate an independent country (going back to the way things were done before the colonists showed up is usually difficult, if not impossible after the major societal changes made). Not something you figure out over night.

Adapting to change is normal. Do you think that there would have been no change if those places were never colonised by the West?

Basic infrastructure is not of much use if the fundamentals of an economy have been chiefly organized around extracting value for someplace else.

If they used the railways and telegraph after decolonisation, them obviously they were of use.

 

[danjuno]

The primary lasting effects are technological advancement.

Pretty sure having generations of wealth that might otherwise have gone to the local populace being exported en mass and social upheaval are major effects that continue to linger.

Adapting to change is normal.

Again this is not something that goes away after a few years, this is something that will take generations.

Do you think that there would have been no change if those places were never colonised by the West?

You contradict yourself. If the natives would've managed on their own anyway, then clearly the first part of your post is incorrect.

If they used the railways and telegraph after decolonisation, them obviously they were of use.

I said they were not of much use. Simply having infrastructure in place is not going to change the fact that the economy is not set up to function independently.

 

[EnglishEdward]

What wealth are you talking about? Wealth measured in land remained. Wealth measured in cattle recreated itself as cattle died and were born. Wealth in the form of oil reserves etc was not wealth at all to those who didn't have the technology to use it. Static symbols of wealth in the form of gold and jewels was sequestered by the rulers not for the local populace. Those countries have had generations to change since independence. Subsistence farming and fishing, which was the main activity in non industrialised areas, by its very own nature functions independently. If you want to discuss the impact of western colonisation on other peoples, then open a thread about it. This has little to do with the UK as it is today.

 

[Senethro]

What wealth are you talking about? Wealth measured in land remained. Wealth measured in cattle recreated itself as cattle died and were born. Wealth in the form of oil reserves etc was not wealth at all to those who didn't have the technology to use it. Static symbols of wealth in the form of gold and jewels was sequestered by the rulers not for the local populace. Those countries have had generations to change since independence. Subsistence farming and fishing, which was the main activity in non industrialised areas, by its very own nature functions independently. If you want to discuss the impact of western colonisation on other peoples, then open a thread about it. This has little to do with the UK as it is today.

I think theft with violence/coercion by an external actor as being a potentially excusable act is a very dangerous precedent to set, especially on the basis of "they weren't using the asset/resource sufficiently anyway".

 

[soundjata]

Two part problem:

• Legacy systems are harmful: part of the reason
• Poor leadership the other part.

This does look like a sensible dichotomy but is it really?
Isn't "leadership" already a component of "the system"?

Most (political or economical) systems I can see are shaped like a pyramid standing on its base ; with one (only one) human at the apex, supposably embodying the rules and institutions within that system. He is the guarantor and everyone else depends on his decisions.
It is just an impossible responsibility. (Barack Obama explained that better that I can)

At the core of every institutionalized hierarchy glows a very simple (and toxic!) premise: Power and Authority are natural and necessary for the common good.
I think you know this is a lie.

Public institutions, states for example (from Madagascar to the United Kingdom), are unnecessarily harmful to the masses because they rely on "a leader" among other peripherical phenomena.

So you see? It is just a one part problem after all

 

[Birdjaguar]

This does look like a sensible dichotomy but is it really?
Isn't "leadership" already a component of "the system"?

Most (political or economical) systems I can see are shaped like a pyramid standing on its base ; with one (only one) human at the apex, supposably embodying the rules and institutions within that system. He is the guarantor and everyone else depends on his decisions.
It is just an impossible responsibility. (Barack Obama explained that better that I can)

At the core of every institutionalized hierarchy glows a very simple (and toxic!) premise: Power and Authority are natural and necessary for the common good.
I think you know this is a lie.

Public institutions, states for example (from Madagascar to the United Kingdom), are unnecessarily harmful to the masses because they rely on "a leader" among other peripherical phenomena.

So you see? It is just a one part problem after all

Leaders changed as nations transitioned from colony to independent; they inherited a social structure particular to their situation. At every transition (leader to leader) there was/is an opportunity to implement changes to the underlying social structure. The easiest path is usually to adopt what exists and adapt it to the new leader's liking. Fundamental changes are much more difficult. How long did it take Rhodesia to change its ways? South Africa? We do know that long standing institutional social structures can be changed, even quickly if enough force is applied. That is the work of charismatic and powerful leadership. It takes vision in addition to just desire for power.

The decolonization of Asia and Africa in the middle of the 20th C was part of significant other changes happening at the same time. Many f the new leaders had to contend with multiple important choices and the widening of foreign influences. In some ways it was a new version of the 19th C rush to colonize, just a rush to capture the new nations as allies or puppets.

Question: Were the Indian people more exploited under the British (1857–1947) or the Moguls (1526–1858)? In one case the riches accumulated in Britain (or to British citizens) in the other it was among the already rich. Was either one of those situations more despotic than the other?

 

[EnglishEdward]

I have come to the conclusion that the leader is primarily the person with the most ability to screw things up.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have come to the conclusion that the leader is primarily the person with the most ability to screw things up.

Authoritarian regime yes.

Democratic regime they only have as much authority as their colleagues allow. They are the public "face".

Nothing significant usually happens when the leader gets rolled. They're just looking for a new face to shovel the same crap.

Even if the bew leader genuinely want to change things theyre constrained by public opinion and the rest of the party and their perception of public opinion.

 

[soundjata]

Leaders changed as nations transitioned from colony to independent; they inherited a social structure particular to their situation. At every transition (leader to leader) there was/is an opportunity to implement changes to the underlying social structure. The easiest path is usually to adopt what exists and adapt it to the new leader's liking. Fundamental changes are much more difficult. How long did it take Rhodesia to change its ways? South Africa? We do know that long standing institutional social structures can be changed, even quickly if enough force is applied. That is the work of charismatic and powerful leadership. It takes vision in addition to just desire for power.

The decolonization of Asia and Africa in the middle of the 20th C was part of significant other changes happening at the same time. Many f the new leaders had to contend with multiple important choices and the widening of foreign influences. In some ways it was a new version of the 19th C rush to colonize, just a rush to capture the new nations as allies or puppets.

Question: Were the Indian people more exploited under the British (1857–1947) or the Moguls (1526–1858)? In one case the riches accumulated in Britain (or to British citizens) in the other it was among the already rich. Was either one of those situations more despotic than the other?

My bolding

Sorry but I don't buy your theory that institutional change is the work of charismatic leaders.

For cooking dishes efficiently in your home kitchen there's been 1000 inventions in the last century but to govern the masses... Messiahs are all we got?
Seriously?


Edit: Regarding the situation in India... I think it does not matter who the colonial power is... When you are an untouchable... Because then your are condemned to a life of misery. Hierarchy = pain

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Yes the british may have caused countless deaths, decades of misery that persist to this day, incited and directly led genocides and created international feuds in their former colonies that could easily lead to nuclear war but they also created railways so it's impossible to call them bad, according to eddy here

 

[Cloud_Strife]

What wealth are you talking about? Wealth measured in land remained. Wealth measured in cattle recreated itself as cattle died and were born. Wealth in the form of oil reserves etc was not wealth at all to those who didn't have the technology to use it. Static symbols of wealth in the form of gold and jewels was sequestered by the rulers not for the local populace. Those countries have had generations to change since independence. Subsistence farming and fishing, which was the main activity in non industrialised areas, by its very own nature functions independently. If you want to discuss the impact of western colonisation on other peoples, then open a thread about it. This has little to do with the UK as it is today.

"Colonialization has little to do with the uk as it is today"

Does the commonwealth not exist? Have there not been waves of immigration from colonized areas that have subsequently made britain what it is today?

I can literally walk down streets in my nearest city and see monuments and area's named after and dedicated to colonizers, stop being so dishonest, you can barely go a mile in some places without seeing the literal history of colonization in from of you.

You're desperate to sequester the topic because it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes the british may have caused countless deaths, decades of misery that persist to this day, incited and directly led genocides and created international feuds in their former colonies that could easily lead to nuclear war but they also created railways so it's impossible to call them bad, according to eddy here

Its more like real life isnt so clear cut.

 

[danjuno]

Its more like real life isnt so clear cut.

Cloud isn't the one denying the complex effects past events have on today.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Discussing posters is not the thread topic

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Split from UK thread.

 

[Ajidica]

Yes the british may have caused countless deaths, decades of misery that persist to this day, incited and directly led genocides and created international feuds in their former colonies that could easily lead to nuclear war but they also created railways so it's impossible to call them bad, according to eddy here

At what point do people "in their former colonies" become responsible for the problems?
Turning to my favorite area of modern politics, the Great Lakes Region of Africa, at what point does, say, Paul Kagame and the RPF become responsible for the ongoing atrocities in the Kivus? Belgium certainly didn't make Kagame order the murder of Seth Sendashonga or order the kidnapping of Paul Rusesabagina.
Keeping the focus on Rwanda, Belgium certainly practiced divide and rule by creating Hutu and Tutsi*, but in 1994 the 'Hutu Power' clique and akazu of Agathe Habyarimana chose to intentionally plot the murder and extermination of an entire ethnic group to keep their position of power (and murder your political opponents because they dared to challenge your grip on power).

*Yes I know it was more complex than that.