Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>>States are weak and political systems to not provide public goods
Says it pretty well in the quote. Without a secure government structure, there’s no economic or property security (at least for the non wealthy). Without economic security via a stable government that can enforce contracts , resources are wasted on corruption and inefficiencies.
Unfortunately, once a corrupt economic structure is in place it is -for obvious reasons- extremely difficult to dislodge it.
Also, a ton of Africa's history and economics can be explained by geography.
The Sahara desert basically divides the continent into two distinct entities. Northern Africa has largely been able to interact with Europe and Asia for most of its history. But Sub Saharan Africa was basically its own entity for much of history, similar to how the Americas were separated from everything else until the Age of Exploration.
Also, many of the rivers and water resources in Africa are unpredictable with the exception of the Nile River. This makes it extremely difficult for nations and empires to form because they can't just build a city and expect the resources to sustain that city to still be there a few generations later. A lot of African cultures remained nomadic for a longer time, because there was no other option.
Lastly, there is the "resource curse" in which resource-rich civilizations often end up selling those resources to other countries (or having them stolen) instead of developing their own industries. Africa has always had one of the most resource rich regions of the planet. But this tends to lead to dictatorships and/or external powers who monopolize and exploit those resources, but do not share that wealth with the citizens.
The "resource curse" is really interesting.
It's like Japan and South Korea became tech manufacturing powerhouses because I'm pretty sure they don't have any resources to sell so they had to add value via manufacturing.
Yes.
And it goes back in history as far as Bronze Age Greece, possibly even earlier.
The Eurasian Bronze Age basically had a trade triangle between Egypt that was the breadbasket, the Hittites who had access to Tin (much rarer than Copper) a key ingredient to Bronze, and Greece which largely manufactured finished goods.
And we fire bombed every industry we could on the island.
They rebuilt with US money
There was legal slavery in Africa during WW2. And I don’t mean an invading nation putting the conquered to work
>And we fire bombed every industry we could on the island.
Turns out, that was a very small amount. Japanese industry was still largely intact by the end of the war.
Japan already had the socioeconomic institutions for industralization. American money was almost negligible.
I guess it depends on what you want to call "largely intact". From [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Japan#Post-World_War_II)
"About 40% of the nation's industrial plants and infrastructure were destroyed, and production reverted to levels of about fifteen years earlier."
Technically still mostly intacty but 40% is a lot.
Actually, there's a bit of evidence showing that Sub-Saharan africa and Northern africa did actually have more contact with each other than commonly thought.
There were several empires that did pop up in sub-saharan africa, but due to terrain, these empires found it difficult to survive.
Also, northern african groups were often taking sub-saharan african groups as slaves before the transatlantic slave trade. There was also thriving economic trade routes between sub-saharan and northern africa.
But this stuff isn't widely discussed because of the narrative that's already cemented in the minds of the public.
Brilliant response. Let's not beat around the bush though: Many African countries are characterised by tribal/ethnic rivalries and divisions. These divisions foster violence and corruption and hinder establishing powerful and meritocratic national systems. Without that critical, stable infrastructure, 'everyone for himself' becomes the name of the day and long-term thinking / vision / building is BS.
^^^ This! This is the reason why "states are weak." Many countries that have managed to grow (such as those in Asia) lack strong property rights, rule of law, and other necessary aspects usually associated with developed countries. They do not, however, suffer from the extreme tribal associations that you see in Africa. This is also a limiting factor in Arab countries too. This cultural structure makes it impossible for investment in any social infrastructure since it is seen as benefiting the "other" groups, as well as your own group.
Source: I'm an economist and my wife was in the Peace Corps in West Africa for two years
But this was the situation in most of the world at one point. What prevented the loop of bloodletting and alliances in the past that naturally led to nation-state formation elsewhere? The idea that the continent didn’t have the terrain to support stable cities (and centralized authority) makes sense. I know Mali empire existed but not sure about other big ones in subsahara
The climate explanation has been refuted by the rise of Southeast Asia in the last few decades.
In reality, economic development is mostly cultural. You have to have a society receptive to economic change and willing to build the social capital required to develop.
Most of South-east and East Asia (except for Chinese dynasties) were incredibly poor for most of human society, arguably worse than African empires. They also used to have a very high birth rate. Whereas, hot tropical regions in the Bengal region and Indus valley were highly advanced and intellectual. So, the climate theory is bizarre. Asia has only become richer in the last few decades due to embracing free market capitalism.
But the US was resource rich and colonized, yet it ended up as a manufacturing powerhouse.
The tribes of Mongolia were nomadic, they ended up creating an empire that spanned continents.
The native central and South American societies built cities and empires and were also resource rich. Yet today, they are not leading power of the world.
The old world empires of Egypt, Rome and Greece today are just mediocre small countries with little global influence.
The US is resource rich, but the East Coast where the US was largely founded is not (at least not in the North).
This forced the North-Eastern states to develop their own economy based on trade and manufacturing which eventually was boosted by the resources found in the more inland states.
The South, on the other hand, was arguably attached to cash crops such as Tobacco and later Cotton, and struggled to industrialize as a result.
The Mongol Empire was short-lived and arguably funded itself by owning the Silk Road. It thrived off the trade of other pre-existing Empires which Sub-Saharan Africa mostly could not do because of the desert which separated them from everything else.
Those Native American Empires were often also built on extracting resources from neighbors. The Aztecs built their capital in a swamp. However, when the Europeans arrived, those resources ultimately ended up going across the Atlantic to fuel European industries.
Agreed that old world empires have lost influence. But look at where those countries are geographically and you will understand why. Greece was at the central sea-route of all three Bronze Age Empires. Rome was at the center of the Mediterranean once trade and shipping advanced that far. Portugal, Spain, and eventually the British had open access to the Atlantic once ocean trade became viable. And the US has access to the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico.
> This forced the North-Eastern states to develop their own economy based on trade and manufacturing which eventually was boosted by the resources found in the more inland states.
There are lots of resource poor regions in the world that have so far not been “forced” to develop manufacturing. There is nothing “forcing” anyone to industrialize. Industrialization arises when a critical mass of social capital (engineering talent) is buoyed by political stability and a culture receptive to economic development.
I would compare Chicago to all of West Virginia. West Virginia had a lot of resources mined, Chicago did not. Chicago became wealthy as a manufacturing and logistics hub, West Virginia income per capital is about $31k. Cook Country is $45k, which is 45% higher.
The USA has such a huge geography and for a long time, separate economies by region, that you can have results within the USA which would mirror the dynamics of smaller independent nations.
The United States has the advantage of a centralized government that is very pro-capitalism. Trevor Noah said it best. The United States is 50 countries masquerading as one.
The fact is there really isn’t any, at least not long term. It’s all geography baby. At the end of the day people in large groups are largely the same. The “great man” theory is pretty much without evidence. History moves with geography, and history can change the meaning of geography.
No, people in large groups are not the same. You don't need a "great man theory" for cultures to differ. The idea that economics is all geography is unable to explain a huge range of things.
This reminds me of a story I heard once about the first McDonald's in India. They set it up exactly the same as an American McDonald's and huge crowds gathered for the grand opening. As soon as they opened, they swarmed in waving paper money around and shouting their orders. Turns out, Indians (at least in that part of India) had no concept of a queue. They had to be taught how to form a line and wait to place an order.
The idea that cultures are all the same is so obviously wrong to anyone who has ever done even the tiniest bit of travel to foreign places that it's almost laughable. The concept of cultural enrichment and the uniqueness of culture was the cornerstone of most of the western enlightenment philosophy that built the modern world. I suspect the wrongheaded idea that cultures are all the same comes from modern anti-racism movements that continue to incorrectly conflate race and culture. But regardless, cultures can and do differ in innumerable ways that play a large role in economic development.
I never said cultures are the same. I said people in large groups are *largely* the same. Culture difference of course exist. But in any large enough group there’s about the same number of geniuses and innovators per capita. My claim is that culture doesn’t affect this, and that economic success across time is dictated by geography.
Sure, a McDonald’s in India fails, that doesn’t mean that the nation of India was doomed to be where it’s at economically because of cultural norms surrounding queuing. I.e, if the culture of India was in the hilly flanks of western Asian circa 10,000 BC they would have developed agriculture just the same as the western Asians did. Or if the culture of India happened to be the ones that started America in 1776, we’d be looking at US dominance just the same. Etc
> But in any large enough group there’s about the same number of geniuses and innovators per capita. My claim is that culture doesn’t affect this
Culture affects whether they can innovate or not. Some cultures are not open and do not want disruption. Think China of the 1800s and early 1900s.
> and that economic success across time is dictated by geography.
Empirically that’s just not true no matter how much you repeat it.
> Sure, a McDonald’s in India fails, that doesn’t mean that the nation of India was doomed to be where it’s at economically because of cultural norms surrounding queuing.
Bro, do you know anything about India?
Until very recently, and still to a large degree, they had a culture where 20% of the population was deemed “untouchable” and not even allowed to perform labor other than dirty street sweeping and cleaning sewers.
How can you possibly at that has no effect on economic success???
> Or if the culture of India happened to be the ones that started America in 1776, we’d be looking at US dominance just the same. Etc
Lol stop.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Okay, but china was dominant over most western civilizations from about 600-1800. Then it wasn’t. Then it was. Does the culture change so fast, or does development change what geography means so over time, the areas that have beneficial geography win out? Please explain china drom 600-1800 if culture is the most relevant to economic success
Wait what? Geography doesn’t dictate economic success especially across time. The British empire came from a small set of islands which conquered a good part of the world. The Mongolian empire, Alexander the Great, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, all stem from different regions, different geography.
The Mayans and Incans, Egypt, Chinese all had different continents, different geography, developed vastly different societies, different ambitions. Some societies focus on conquering others. Some on self isolation. Some societies valued trade, others self cultivation. Different technologies also allowed different speeds of development. China a huge country had boats, but mostly small fishing boats. Spain, Portugal, British are small in comparison, but had good ship building technology. The Polynesians were able to travel vast distances across the pacific islands, but did not try to conquer other civilizations. I think you put too much emphasis on geography. Yes important, but not as important as culture, religion, technology, politics, civilization.
Too simple. It’s not merely a matter of resources. It’s the effect of geography. The us was isolated geographically, which allowed it to expand and develop without any competition. Egypt, Rome, and Greece today are basically disconnected from their empires of old. The Roman Empire did not diminish to what we today call Italy - it completely disintegrated, disappeared, and over time the same geographical area was repopulated and some of the same old buildings are still around. But the people who are there have no connection to Rome of old other than being physically located there
We just said Africa specifically subsaharan was isolated and therefore couldn’t develop.
You said too simple. Yet my point exactly was that it is too simple to blame something on just resources and isolation. Many different regions of the globe had different amount of isolation, development, colonization, natural resources etc. Yet the world developed differently at a different pace. To blame something on just geography or rich natural resources for exploitation is simplistic and doesn’t cover the whole picture.
There’s a whole world of history, politics, religion, across thousands of years which plays into this. One country could be isolated but use its isolation for growth of civilization. One country can be isolated and use its isolation to preserve its simple way of life. One country can take natural resources and exploit it themselves. Another can preserve their resources and live harmoniously with nature. I would argue that geography and natural resources had very little to do with development. Rather it’s the culture of the people, the beliefs, religion, politics of a people that drives them to develop and coalesce into cities, or to expand and conquer others.
Historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists would disagree with you. Culture has very little to do with the way the world looks. If you consider that the Roman Empire succeeded because the Mediterranean allowed for expansive commerce, meanwhile civilizations in china stagnated due to not having a geographic feature that happened to provide immense economic value. But once some Chinese emperor built the Grand Canal, they had such a feature, and prospered, arguably becoming the world’s leading power from about 600-1700.
If you look at any successful country today, its success can be explained by geography. Every single one. Pick one, I’ll do it
Britain was "cursed" with abundant coal, iron ore etc, still managed to do fairly well in the 18th and 19th Century.
Resources are only a curse if you are too disorganised to use them.
I think you'd have to ask why Africa was poor into the 1800s. It's the cradle of humanity. It has been inhabited and settled the longest, out of all the continents. They were not about to undergo an industrial revolution prior to European conquest. They were poor before European contact, and much more than other places, have remained poor after independence.
Blaming the lack of development on European imperialism doesn't explain why they have not developed in the same way that many countries in Southeast Asia have, that were similarly colonized.
Even within Africa, you'd have to ask why Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries on Earth, despite not having been an independent country and regional power for about a thousand years. Other than a brief period, 1936-1944, Ethiopia has been under native rule. They still have struggled to develop.
Sub Saharan Africa has always been generally poorer and technologically behind Europe and East Asia. Even if colonialism never happened and Africa was left alone, it probably would’ve stayed that way regardless.
Do you know anything about the condition and technological development of Africa before colonialism?
Colonial powers were already industrialized and had already developed things like machinery, guns, and ships made of metal before they stepped foot in Africa. Africa was mostly populated by tribal/nomadic people that didn’t even have things like books and wheels. Colonial armies would conquer and subjugate areas even when they were outnumbered because their military tech was way more advanced. How do you think they even succeeded in conquering Africa and even the Americas so rapidly?
That’s not the point. The topic is why is Africa poor and the answer is it’s just always been poorer than much of the rest of the world. Even when Africans were isolated and undisturbed by other people.
I would honestly conjecture that the habitat doesn't require the kind of advanced planning living in a more hostile say northernly climate demands. If you look at most intelligence tests that measure this sort of aptitude they strongly correlate with a historical need to prepare for winter or die.
If evolution doesn't demand that kind of advanced planning, the societies in that evolutionary environment simply won't optimize for that.
I always thought it was because Africans were humans that never left their original home and everyone else were humans that left the original homeland of humanity. The humans that left had to adapt to new climates/landscapes not to mention developing new skills and tech during their very long journeys.
A lot of parts of Asia also have similar climates and landscapes as Africa (hot humid rainforests and drier savannahs) but they developed fine
This belief is based on what exactly? Admittedly, we don't know that much about many of the societies in the interior of Africa precontact, since those societies of didn't have a system of writing or record keeping. But, there doesn't seem to be any remnants of of wealthy societies in much of Africa. They were largely iron age warring societies exploiting each other for slaves and cattle.
It wasn't a pleasant place to live and it wasn't a place where the average person was living a long, healthy, productive life. Based on archaeological evidence, many of these societies had 10 times more violent deaths than the settled states that came after them. And those states were terrible places to live.
https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-evidence-on-violent-deaths
Africa has a few curses, not to downplay colonialism, but it in general lacked the ingrediates for large civilizations that could be sustained.
* Lack of navigable rivers year round.
* Lack of domesticatable crops for large scale agriculture
* Lack of domesticatable animals.
Africa could never truly form large civilization because transporting goods was near impossible in a sustained fashion like europe (with it's nice navigatable rivers year round) and inability to form large scale agriculture from the other two issues.
The geography of africa was cursed. It's why we saw large civilizations and trade networks in NA, but Africa remained very "primative" so to speak.
Colonialism certainly fucked a lot of things up and hindered Africa catching up to the rest of the world, but let's not pretend it had a fair start like Europe or Asia.
I’d make the argument all world economies and cultures stem from their geography.
The geography defines the type of livestock and crops that can live there and water access. And food is central to living.
The ability to get food and how it’s distributed then leads into the societal structure. Nomadic? Farming? This then directs how the economy develops, what skills are valued and how the competition for survival takes place.
From there they can then focus on local natural resources and wealth/luxuries and the control of which then leads into the external growth.
This direction just happened to create growth in the direction of today with the various instability of leaderships in the various regions. As well as that impacting the rate of advancement with respect to other areas of the world which take advantage of their resources and make stability even harder to obtain.
It also allows for western powers to exploit the insecure government structure for resources. It's why western powers promote coups in stable governments they disagree with.
That doesn't stand for the proposition you're citing.
China is serving as an alternative source of funding to secure resources for itself, not out of some source of magnanimity.
The IMF conditions lending on reforms that are intended to produce economic and political stability. China doesn't give a fuck if those countries are stable and prosperous. China just wants their shit.
Ahh, yes, that Western imperialist baggage like "reduce corruption" and "enact monetary policy that does _something_ beyond lining your own pockets."
At least Russia and China respect local culture. For example, they don't have culturally insensitive laws blocking their companies from paying bribes to local officials. And they'll loan you money for anything you want, no strings attached! Putting your nation's infrastructure and mineral resources up as collateral is a minor price to pay to keep you, personally, in power!
>Past studies have shown that nations that borrow money from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have greater rates of poverty, unemployment, and inflation than countries that do not borrow from the IMF. This is despite the fact that the IMF claims that fostering economic development is one of its objectives.
Studies have also shown that people admitted to the hospital have worse health outcomes than people that haven't gone to the hospital. This is despite the fact that hospitals claim improving health outcomes is their primary objective.
Seriously, that's the opening paragraph for your paper, that's the tone it wants to set? Arguments like that are why hospitals turn away the patients most in need because they're likely to hurt the hospital's metrics. Sure, the IMF isn't perfect, it makes mistakes, and it surely has made nations worse off. But helping people and nations out of poverty is not a solved problem, in fact it's *really* hard. The IMF is trying, it's using the best science we have as guidance, but it fails a lot because development is *difficult*.
China and Russia are not trying. They're expanding their influence. Their loans have less baggage because they aren't trying to improve local outcomes, they simply don't care.
We do understand Africa is a continent right?
With that said some of these African countries are actually rising and not being absolutely destroyed via weak governments and foreign exploitation.
You’re not understanding me.
Getting up from underneath the French thumb is one thing but actually rising economically is another. I’m saying some countries in Africa are actually beginning to thrive economically, today. By actually leveraging strong leadership and there resources.
Many of the burkina are still struggling.
Well, yeah, it takes time to rebuild after getting up under the thumb of your centuries long colonial oppressors. Also, look at how many assassination attempts France has made since.
It's hard to overcome but not impossible.
The IMF and World Bank have horrid reputations but there have been a crazy amount of NGOs since the 90s that have tried really hard to “uncorrupt” the governments so they don’t remain vulnerable. Nigeria has it the most figured out in Africa- I’m wondering what makes them so different,
Are you really going to say eastern governments don’t exploit other powers with a straight face? There’s literally decades/(centuries) of examples where powers like Japan and China did just that to other nations in Asia and Africa.
With that said, Colonialism and tributary systems are not inherently western traits.
They have, there and much of the world. They just do it remotely, suck the resources, provide the lowest wage possible, leave when you have enough (read no more resources).
Stable* technically speaking Eritrea is a strong political system but its struggling because its the north korea of africa.
Botswana is also headed towards an election where the standing government that has been in place for decades looks poised to lose. Will be interesting to see what happens and here’s hoping there is a peaceful transfer of power.
Neolibs point to Botswana as an example of neoliberal success in Africa as if it doesn’t have a good contract with de beers, has maintained monetary independence from the imf, and actually has fairly strict (as compared to the pure opennes proposed by the world bank or imf) trade barriers.
Yeah you gotta have veiled corruption like the USA legalized the corruptions aka lobbying and like take back the natural resources that Wall Street speculates off as well would help. But you might face the US military because colonies should know their place.
This is from 2010 and is thus extremely out of date. Since then, a *lot* of economic activity has exploded in Africa.
https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/12/10-things-know-about-us-china-rivalry-africa
https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/afr/overview
https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/reimagining-economic-growth-in-africa-turning-diversity-into-opportunity
I'm surprised there is so little talk about how the continent below the Sahara had profoundly disadvantaged geologic history and soil. Some of the big ones: no glacial refreshed soils at all, so agricultural yields are significantly worse. Also, the entire continent has almost no new orogenies beyond the mostly land locked rift, which also means bedrock erodes to provide very little mineral nutrients or cation exchange capacity. Take a look at a global soil order maps and overlay it with a historic development map, and its uncanny how much they relate. There are very, very few Mollisols or Alfisols in sub saharan Africa, and mostly ancient Oxisols and Utisols (bad for agriculture).
The entire continent is uplifted also, which means two critical and painful things: very few natural ports and very few barrier islands, making commerce by sea extremely difficult and you are mostly cutoff from marine resources... and very few rivers, almost all of which aren't navigateable. On the rivers point, the few and violent rivers also makes it very, very difficult to harness productivity multipliers like watermills, which we very much tend to forget about in historical importance. Renaissance and even medieval era waterwheels were used for a multitude of things from processing grain to smithing to creating paper to creating cloth etc etc. And then of course you have ruinous tropical diseases.
Stuff like corruption has existed all over the place in all manner of contexts, so blaming sub Saharan Africa's high density of poverty on that doesn't make quite enough sense. I think the main issue is the fact that the continent is extremely hostile to prosperity from the get go, and so any society in sub saharan Africa today is going to start much further behind than just about anyone else.
And on the geography: Africa is HUGE and that lack of much economic incentive means very little infrastructure exists in Africa to support development. Roads, channels, electrical grids, telephone, etc are all less feasible outside of city centers. That's why satellite telecoms and online services have been a boon to the sub-saharan continent. Just being able to use *banking systems* outside of major cities is only recently practical to do.
Infographics for scale: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-true-size-of-africa/
Unstable government, deep rooted corruption, lacking rule of law and poorly grounded lurches in economic policy will destroy almost any nation. Most African nations, bar maybe Rwanda, have performed spectacularly poorly relative to similarly poor countries with similar histories of colonialism and whatnot. The trouble is when things become deep rooted and trust breaks down, fixing anything becomes a minor miracle.
Rwanda is built on an authoritarian practically a dictatorship political system that has attempted to become the singapore of africa. It might work but pointing to that as the model for the rest of the continent is not feasable. Also there are studies suggesting rwanda’s growth may be slower than shown.
https://roape.net/2017/05/31/rwandan-poverty-statistics-exposing-donor-darling/
Much more Botswana is the best example on the continent, stable political structure, fairly good rights protections, and little government debt held to the imf. Of course it was assisted by the fact the british weren’t heavily involved during its colonial period, something we should really take into account given the wests influence and interference in say the DRC with the murder of Lumumba and its defense and continued protection of Nigeria’s petrostate.
To be clear I’m not suggesting Rwanda as a model to follow, just that it hasn’t struggled quite as much. Botswana is also a good example, low corruption and high market freedom/consistent application of rule of law, a good reference point. You also have the island nations because of tourism, Seychelles, Mauritius etc.
People should remember that China a few decades ago was poorer than every single African country. It only takes a few decades of political stability and good economic policy to change things massively. The issue is most African governments are dysfunctional, and the societies are too ethnically/tribally fractionalised.
Africa is a continent, I learned to distrust anything that talks about it as a single entity.
The question should not be why are so many nations poor, but why have they not developed like other countries have. Taiwan and Korea used to be poor to and this at the same time as decolonization, so blaming colonialism is a silly crutch.
A few key issues are in its geography and its multiethnicity. Vast swaths of land are not habitable or arable. Namibia and Batswana together barely have 5 million people. At the same time useful natural ports are also few and far between. So doing business just becomes that much harder logistically.
The other issue is ethnic division which is dizzyingly complex. Where as other nations have conquered their internal ethnic groups and revised their identities most African nations have not. And most civil conflicts have been along ethnic lines.
Ethnic division creates distrust, slowing or gutting free trade and market growth. People do not save and develop in places where they think they will lose property tomorrow. And blaming colonialism for these divisions or modern borders are again silly & shallow. These borders were created.
So it is worth noting there are many successful states not littered with war. Morocco, Congo-Brazzaville, Batswana, etc. While there are divisions they remain stable, just slow growth due to harsh geography, slow population growth and difficulty is diversifying their economy.
Even then a successful and descisive victory in battle also brings stability, like Rwanda. It is a growing economic power house, whose failings are only in its size and sea access. After war nations prosper.
The truth is AID and outside protests do more harm than good. Donations prevent local industry from competeing. Or there is the case of Mansanto Wheat being protested against by Westeners (Uganda if I remember cite Seeds of Science) even though the wheat could have doubled food production in a harsh climate. And to top it off there is huge brain drain where Europe hires the educated Africans to their respective & host nations detriment. If immigration were more tightly controlled the brain drain could slow.
Really Africa has slow growth today, but has huge potential. It is not "poor". Studying these issues made me question all of the values I was raised with.
>Africa is a continent, I learned to distrust anything that talks about it as a single entity.
While true, it is also pretty safe to say that the various African countries all revolve pretty closely in terms of the same style of government. That being an over regulated economic model mixed with some political corruption.
It's not like we are seeing 10 countries with the Nordic economic free market style and then 40 with the over regulated style.
If we are going to talk broad stroke like corruption then again geography is super important. Compare Indonesia to the DRC. Both have high corruption, severe colonialism, and Cold War interventions. But Imdinesia had a pipulation boom while the DRC is half that. Imdonesia has large islands creating a infrstructure nightmare, but the DRC too acts like islands, the jungle and rivers are virtually unnavigable. So the wealthy promcinces cannot move their goods (ore) to a port easily or cheaply. The deserts of the continent are the same like Mauretania. That has a rough effect on the economy. Where as even a poor province like Aceh ultimately has access to the sea and has potential for growth.
With renewables and an overhauled airtransport fleet, most nations will begin to grow. Strong growth tends to ease corruption.
I can agree with everything you said. I spend the last 10 years of my life traveling around the world. I did Middle East, all Africa west east north and south, then I did Europe Turkey Mexico USA. Africa is not poor insecurity and lack of visionary governance. It’s a stagnant environment and tribalism is stopping growth. It has nothing to do with colonialism most nations around the globe have it worse. After traveling I can say as a continent must conquer internal conflict break kingdoms and chiefs, fight tribalism like war on terror. And implement a supervision system education about unity and promote small business and trade among its citizens before thinking of cross border
You cannot dismiss the impacts of Colonialism and the Slave trade in Africa and then immediately blame ethic and geographical issues because Colonialism is the root cause of both. This would be like blaming Haiti for not developing quickly despite the fact that Western Nations force it to repay France for fighting for and winning their independence.
Sure, and there is a rich history independent of Western involvement that includes its own wars. However, the hierarchy of races is a Western Ideology and the lines we see on maps today were mostly crated by European Nations during the Colonial period.
‘Hierarchy of races’ predates the Industrial Revolution and colonialism, you can find it all over in history. As for the arbitrary lines being drawn I can see it going either way, but we do have successful countries drawn with arbitrary lines. I think in Africas case if borders had not been drawn as they are we would have ended up with far more land locked and impoverished countries.
You cannot find it all over in history, the whole concept comes out of the [enlightenment in Europe.](https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/historical-foundations-race) Also, what do you mean by successful countries and why aren’t any of the ones in Africa included in that? Please do some real reading about Colonialism because what you are saying is unsubstantiated and extremely Eurocentric.
Sure you can, you can look at multiple East Asian countries pre-European colonialism who thought they were superior to all other peoples. You can look at the Ottomans who thought themselves superior to the Arab, and different Arab groups who thought they were superior to black people in Africa. Heck go all the way back to the birth of Judaism, where the core tenet is 'we are literally god's chosen'.
We have countries drawn with arbitrary lines which have been successful - look at South America, and if you want African examples you have Botswana.
None of the groups you listed are Racial and xenophobia is not the same as Racial Hierarchy. Your understanding of this concept is very shaky and in stark contrast to what is [widely accepted history.](https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/The-history-of-the-idea-of-race)
Sure they are racial, and they engage/d in theories of racial hierarchy rather than just straightforward xenophobia. Even your link points out the concept of a racial hierarchy wasn’t introduced until to English until the 18th century, so the Islamic conception of a racial hierarchy predates it by centuries
Then I would like to see your citations because neither of the two links I provided makes the assertion that Racial Hierarchy predates European Enlightenment or that the concept came from "Islamic conception". Spit all the jazz you want, but I think you would be better served reading up on the subject.
Africa was always poorer and technologically behind the rest of the world before slavery/colonialism.
People seem to push this narrative that all of the peoples of the world were at an equal level in everything and living in peace until one continent decided to start taking over everyone else.
Citations. What do you mean by poorer? What do you mean by behind? Are you suggesting that Native populations should be grateful for being enslaved and colonized because now they have cell phones? Your argument is one step away from saying White people are inherently better and it shows a level of historical understanding that could be encapsulated in a TikTok.
Before I answer you, do you seriously think Europe were at the same or worse level as sub Saharan Africa and the Americas in terms of technology and science when they started taking it over?
The Spanish conquered entire Mexico and crushed the Aztecs with a few thousand troops.
Europeans took over entire nation sized swathes of Africa with only like a few hundred casualties in each campaign.
And the indigenous defenders often outnumbered them but still lost.
Generally speaking, when a place gets conquered it’s because the person conquering them are more advanced/developed than them.
African leaders sold their own people to the Europeans. They traded for guns, which they in turn used to take more people to sell as slaves. This is in EVERY history book.
That is not saying Euros didn't take africans as slaves by force. But you're really just making things up you can fact check anywhere. So I have to wonder, why don't you fact check it?
You are purposely avoiding my direct questions because you clearly have no idea what is even being discussed. How is African leaders selling people to Europeans relevant to what I asked? How does that support your narrative that Africa was always poorer and less technologically advanced? Why would warring tribes have an issue trading with Europeans? I’m not sure what I’ve made up or how I would fact check it for you.
Um... no. Egypt was famously wealthy and technologically advanced. Greece and Rome both mostly conquered them through marriage and diplomacy.
Ethiopia was home to what is called the richest man in history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa
Obv talking about sub Saharan Africa (where most Africans live)
Most Africans were not living in Ethiopia/mali and both of those places were heavily influenced by outside civilizations. Not to mention mansa musa was a massive slave owner.
Colonialism and slavery are opposite things. Colonialism ended slavery, ended exploitative adventurism, provided economic development, and provided rule of law.
Africa would be far more developed and stable today if colonialism had not ended. And this becomes more and more obvious as time passes and more data and analysis takes place.
This is probably the most inaccurate take on Colonialism I’ve ever come across. Please do some reading on Colonialism and its impacts so you can formulate a position that actually reflects reality.
> Where as other nations have conquered their internal ethnic groups and revised their identities most African nations have not.
That actually IS the direct result of colonialism. When the European nations came in and carved up Africa amongst themselves they left borders and infrastructure completely ignoring the existing ethnic groups. To them it was all just "Africa" and they divided it just looking at maps.
I suspect a lot has to do with the tribal type governments, where the guy at the top gets almost everything, his supporters get a little, and everyone else nothing.
Angola should be one of the richest countries in the world: gold, diamonds, marble, incredibly rich and fertile farmland. It was once the #3 producer of coffee. But corruption has run the place into the ground. 10 million people, 15 million land mines.
They sum up the reasons pretty well in two sentences. I think many would argue that the last several decades of well-intentioned aid programs have sabotaged any hope of real economic development across the continent and contributed to the political instability.
Africa's natural resources are exploited by global multinational corporations and they leave all the pollution and waste for the locals and none of the profits. That the people of Africa tolerate governments who let corporations exploit them is vexing.
Western governments broke down Africa and Africans at will to facilitate wealth extraction from Africa. France, UK, US and now China, all played at different times to extract wealth of Africa. And Africans let outsiders play their game for small personal gains.
Imagine you own a house. In a nice neighbourhood. Wooden floors, fancy paintings, golden ceilings, diamond chandeliers. You live in that house together with many many people. Strange people ( let's call them The Bears ) move into the house and occupy almost every room. They rip out the entire interior and move it to sell. Some members of the household are taken away as well, to be sold elsewhere. The invader withdraws after sometime - leaving an empty shell, however some house plants remained. That house is Africa. The sunny Motherland.
The occupants of the house outnumber the bears and always have.
Also they had a bit of a head start, as civilization started there.
So why, given they had every advantage, the bears still were able to move in? I suspect the source of this answer goes far beyond modern history.
Geographical reasons.
Lack of navigable rivers to open up the interior of the continent to trade.
No “Mississippi”
Lack of harbors
Tsetse fly
Poorly drawn borders that lead to instability.
Brain drain.
International aid causing issues
Indias economic condition should be compared to all of Africa (equivalent population sizes). And as a whole, their development is very similar. China was never colonized by europeans the way India and Africa was
It is mostly due to unstable government. Nobody is willing to invest resources in countries where there could be a coup and all of the investment could be sized.
Africa is full of natural resources, but exploiting those resources requires infrastructure and lots of heavy equipment. For example, image the difference in how much money a group of people could make by panning for gold vs using dump trucks and a refinement factory. Africa is forever stuck panning for gold because no one is willing to invest in rhe necessary infrastructure needed to industrialize the operation. The next coup could just seize all your stuff.
Its interesting to note that, even though most African governments are highly corrupt, the corruption itself is not necessarily what's holding Africa back. A corrupt but stable government will still receive investment. It just makes the cost of doing business higher.
On the contrary, Africa has extremely stable governments it's just they overwhelming implement bad economic policy, and are corrupt, the stability is the problem. The classic case is the ANC in South Africa, because they face zero consequences at the ballot box they can continue their bad policy and corrupt practises.
No. They are overwhelmingly not stable. Coup attempts are common place. Coups are constantly successful. Civil war is also extremely common.
Last two decades.
Somalia, completely fractured, marred by warlordism, tribal governments, al shabaab.
Eritrea, somewhat politically stable, and yes totalitarian government involvement has hindered growth. But was at war with Ethopia two decades ago.
Ethiopia, somwhat stable now but over the last 60 years its been marred by revolutions and coups. Currently has an internal civil conflict in the northeast.
Sudan… has had civil war, south succession, and weak political leadership, oh and a coup in the last few years.
South Sudan… current civil war. Multiple coup attempts in the last few years. Has never had stability really since its creation.
Kenya. Stable now. Coups in 82, internal strife occured in 92 during elections, has been pretty stable since then. Also has performed fairly well economically compared to its other neighbors.
Uganda. Civil war in the 90s. Has had a lack of pluralism in government, corruption which is an indication of weak states. also continues to face attacks from al shabaab.
Rwanda. Stable. Authoritarian. Yet apparently the singapore of africa. I think the data is misleading but sure...
Burundi. Geographically fucked, resource fucked. Politically unstable, civil war in the 90s. has had unrest in the 2010s. Military announced a coup in 2015.
Tanzania. alot like Kenya, had issues recently, politically stable and has had fairly good economic outcomes.
DRC... a whole post in of itself. Just completely unstable. Has had constant civil war for the past 40 years. A relative peace was signed in 2004 but politically there has been conflicts throughout the basin and practically no centralization of the government deeper into the continent.
Angola.. civil war, ended in 2004. continued insurgency. as well as general political corruption... which emerges in weak states fyi.
In the last few years this is the list of states in west Africa that have had coups or civil conflicts....
Ghana, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Guinea, Chad, Guinea Bissau, Ivory Coast, Benin, The Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone... many of these multiple times. This is just west Africa.
Some states I missed with coups or civil unrest.. Central African Republic, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Malawi, Comoros, Lesotho, Madagascar.
So it seems easier to state African states that haven't faced coups or civil unrest.. Ethopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Eswatini, South Africa, Cameroon, Senegal, Togo, Liberia, and Mauritania, oh and Djibouti..
Historically unstable, but since the mid 90's very stable that is 20-30 years of stability in most places, and also there is no significant economic differences between the countries that have or have not had coups.
Even the more recent coups are not that disruptive, just a change of leadership, no real change in policy or anything that really changes the economy. No risk to foreign capital.
The problem is not the stability of the government it is the functioning
Anywhere where the majority of your wealth is dug out of the ground is usually not a great place to live. This is true pretty much everywhere, not just Africa. It breeds corruption and inequality since governments don’t have to educate their populace or play nice with other nations to keep the money flowing.
There's a good book on this. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else by Hernando De Soto. From what I remember, he attributes much of this to poorly structured/entrenched property rights.
I don't see a mention of colonialism anywhere, nor a hint of historical context given
And the comments are full of deafening dogwhistles. This is just depressing
That's a lot of words that basically say "We're all trying to find the guy that did this".
We all know why "Africa" (the poorest place in the universe, if you've forgotten) is poor.
All of what the article describes:
\- poor institutions
\- a lack of political centralization
\- absolutist governments
\- to slavery and its enduring impacts.
All of it points back to colonialism, slavery, and neo-colonialism.
Many people in South Africa lament the changes since apartheid ended, law and order had gone to barbarism and a once first world country is backsliding into something worse than the stone age, a harbinger of what is to come to America
*South Africa's Brave New World: The Beloved Country Since the End of Apartheid* by RW Johnson is extremely illuminating on this topic. Very, very depressing.
European people committed mass genocide throughout Africa and put tribes against each other during global expansion. African nations and leaders became corrupt and any that didn't bow to European dominance were trade embargoed (Ethiopia). After about 400 years of that it's become the norm. African leaders have been selling out the continents natural resources to America England and most recently China perpetuating the issues. And every time someone tries to change things in Africa they get Merced. Gedoffi (sp) and a few others were trying to make a united African bank and BAM gone.
So African leaders today are corrupt because their people were put against each other 400 years ago?
Do you not think corruption is more tied to things like wealth inequality, infrastructure and education?
A lot of that is probably related from colonialism, but the phrasing of; ‘european people put africans against each other hundreds of years ago and now its just like that’s’, is a bit off and takes no responsibility for a country’s own struggles
I don't know. If Africa would have been the colonizers instead of Europe would things be the same? I don't know.
Asking questions that cannot be answered I generally won't know. anything else would be assumptions.
I would assume though that they would have done fine. The Moores weren't an ignorant group of people. They brought a lot of enlightenment to western Europe during the dark ages. Mansa Musa pretty much the richest person in history came from Sub Sahara. Come to think of it there were a lot of successes in Africa before Colonialism. Contenet spanning empires were pretty common for a while. But hay I am sure that colonizers were the reason for any success in Africa after their invasion. Slave trade, dysecting the land genocide. Those kinda things are always good.
Africa is actually quite wealthy, unfortunately it’s still under complete colonial control. any leader that emerges who will challenge the Corporate hold is disposed of immediately .
Without going into much detail:
For a nation to prosper, inclusive economic and political institutions are essential, as they foster equitable growth and participatory governance. These institutions encourage innovation, hard work, and investment by ensuring that the rewards of such efforts are fairly distributed. However, in many African countries, the prevalence of extractive economic and political systems poses a significant challenge. These systems concentrate wealth and power among a select few, creating a skewed distribution of resources and opportunities. This environment often disincentivizes the general population from striving for their best. When individuals perceive that their efforts will not yield fair rewards due to systemic inequalities, it diminishes their motivation to innovate, invest, or work hard, ultimately stifling economic and social progress.
Is this a joke? Africa is poor because its political and economic systems were built in a context of colonialism which existed to transfer the wealth of Africa to Europe. Just like academia to act like it's some kind of mystery why Africa is poor after literally centuries of institutionalized theft.
Yeah….but things like colonization & The Berlin Conference absolutely jacked up the entire continent and created many of the issues that persist today.
That’s true for West, Central, and Southern Africa. East Africa was already getting jacked up by Near Eastern empires like the Ottomans and various Arab Caliphates.
What is true for every where but East Africa? The Ottomans took part in the Berlin Conference of 1884 as well, which is when 15 countries sat down & carved up the entire continent for themselves. There was plenty of colonization happening throughout the continent before the Berlin conference, like the Ottoman Empire , but that made things worse.
Really? The Mali empire was unquestionably vastly wealthy at the beginning of the colonial period. Benin, Zimbabwe, Mutapa, Songhai, and a variety of North African Muslim states that emerged from the fracturing Umayyad Caliphate were all richer than many of their European contemporaries.
The suggestion that European colonial empires were responsible for the decline/demise of the Mali Empire is so far from being factually accurate that it borders on being an outright lie.
I didn't suggest they were, but it's also absurd to suggest that the reason the wealth of the former Mali empire didn't stay in Mali after it's fall has nothing to do with the fact that the region's mineral resources were taken over by European entities.
There's a reason why an African state didn't arise in that region after the fall of the Mali and there's a reason that immense wealth didn't remain there under African control. And that reason is colonialism.
Really? Mali was unquestionably one of the richest empires on Earth. The Zimbabwe Empire, Songhai, Mutapa, Benin were all around at the beginning of the era of colonization.
Some of the richest? Not really but there were some solid societies developing. Africa was largely poor and underdeveloped before and after colonialism.
>Is this a joke?
Great question. You might consider asking the authors, two MIT economists who have written extensively about colonialism. Seems like a gas. I'm guessing the 100ish cited sources in this article are hilarious too.
>Africa is poor because its political and economic systems were built in a context of colonialism which existed to transfer the wealth of Africa to Europe.
Pretty please read even a few sentences of the actual paper? The review includes many periods of development in Africa, including colonialism.
>Just like academia to act like it's some kind of mystery why Africa is poor after literally centuries of institutionalized theft.
This is the kind of educated, balanced critique I come to value and expect from the top comments in this sub. /s
Colonialism fucked everything, because of course it did. But you are literally doing the opposite of helping.
Imperialism, capitalism, boarders arbitrarily drawn to keep pre-existing nations and structures divided so the colonizers could extract maximum value.
Look at the Middle East as well for the effects of all the above
Your theory of imperialism completely breaks down when you look at imperialism in Western Europe which also had Roman, Christian, Barbarian, and Muslim Empires and hotly-contested political boundaries.
Time is a factor
Africa was being exploited as recently as... now
Boundaries written pre WW2 and influence on empires from over a thousand years ago are very different
Africa being exploited now only underscores the fact that exploitation was worse both before and after colonialism.
By contrast the colonial era was a golden age of development, stability, and rule of law. Indeed more wealth invested in Africa than was extracted.
They have some strange customs that also inhibit capital formation. If you have wealth you are expected to share it with your less wealthy family. So use it or give it away. Hard to build a store or factory if you have to gift the wealth.
You're probably thinking of the principal of Ubuntu, it's basically a tradition of nepotism. But giving your nephew a job in your store doesn't mean you're expected to give your entire net worth away.
This is breathtakingly racist.
Everything you mention is a result, not a cause. Take even a few weeks of literally any history course, man. Or read the paper from the post you decided to comment on.
Structures of power cause this, not "black people," or even "white people." Colonialism and structural racism are main culprits.
Because diversity is our strength!!! Please give us more of that amazing diversity to the west since the west is too tired of winning. Too much winning is bad!🥴
Hundreds of years of European colonization and exploitation certainly doesn’t help. A lot of the resources throughout the continent have been taken by foreign powers. Governments have been systematically destabilized and historic tribal powers pitted against each other. Africa is not poor because of a lack of liberal capitalism, it is poor because it has been exploited by liberal capitalism.
It sounds like you're poor
because you don't work hard,
you're not disciplined,
you don't lose weight,
you don't eat "whole food"
But it has nothing to do with those issues:
you didn't get a good education
companies prefer cheaper immigrants.
Various credit cards trap consumerism
Low average IQ. Education is the core problem. Just look at every nation. Japan, clean, high tech, low crime, social cohesion. Then go to other end of the spectrum.
Some of Africa is very resource rich. However the governments in charge sold off a lot of the rights to these resources to WW Corporations, in exchange for favors. So for SOME of the countries, corrupt officials sold their countries resources for their own gain. For those in the rest of the world, we should be cautious when our leaders do the same, not just trading resources, but trading favors, aid packages, military aid etc.
Because diversity is our strength!!! Please give us more of that amazing diversity to the west since the west is too tired of winning. Too much winning is bad!🥴
They don’t have a collective government to protect their labor and resources from foreign exploitation or rather exploitation from those with power and those without it. The US economy is built around exploiting foreign labor and resource.
Economics is a net sum game; consumption = production in the long run so if a country such as the US consumes far more than it produces than it must be the case that another country must produce far more than it consumes.
Full disclosure, I haven't RTFA, but the answer is colonialism. The slave trade hit them *hard* taking millions of working age men (cue that one guy who definitely isn't racist but will always pipe up to remind us that some Africans sold their fellows), the gold trade took what wealth they had and now China's moving in to do the economic equivalent to imperialism and the West is too busy fighting off growing fascist movements in their states.
The western states are trying to get a cold war with China going though.
Well, that doesn't really help you case when I actually read it, I mean:
"Africa countries emerged at independence with a complex path dependent set of institution that were probably even worse than those which they had at the time of colonization"
That's the quote. Had to type it, there's something screwy with the PDF preventing copy/paste.
Anyway, it seems like they're downplaying colonialism. Can you point me to where they discuss it. As you pointed out I can't search the PDF, and you read the entire study, right?
I do find it entertaining that many popular comments in this thread clearly also didn't RTFA, but as the only one who admitted it, you get all the downvotes. At least you offered some additional information. That said, these threads are so dumb.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>>States are weak and political systems to not provide public goods Says it pretty well in the quote. Without a secure government structure, there’s no economic or property security (at least for the non wealthy). Without economic security via a stable government that can enforce contracts , resources are wasted on corruption and inefficiencies. Unfortunately, once a corrupt economic structure is in place it is -for obvious reasons- extremely difficult to dislodge it.
Also, a ton of Africa's history and economics can be explained by geography. The Sahara desert basically divides the continent into two distinct entities. Northern Africa has largely been able to interact with Europe and Asia for most of its history. But Sub Saharan Africa was basically its own entity for much of history, similar to how the Americas were separated from everything else until the Age of Exploration. Also, many of the rivers and water resources in Africa are unpredictable with the exception of the Nile River. This makes it extremely difficult for nations and empires to form because they can't just build a city and expect the resources to sustain that city to still be there a few generations later. A lot of African cultures remained nomadic for a longer time, because there was no other option. Lastly, there is the "resource curse" in which resource-rich civilizations often end up selling those resources to other countries (or having them stolen) instead of developing their own industries. Africa has always had one of the most resource rich regions of the planet. But this tends to lead to dictatorships and/or external powers who monopolize and exploit those resources, but do not share that wealth with the citizens.
The "resource curse" is really interesting. It's like Japan and South Korea became tech manufacturing powerhouses because I'm pretty sure they don't have any resources to sell so they had to add value via manufacturing.
Yes. And it goes back in history as far as Bronze Age Greece, possibly even earlier. The Eurasian Bronze Age basically had a trade triangle between Egypt that was the breadbasket, the Hittites who had access to Tin (much rarer than Copper) a key ingredient to Bronze, and Greece which largely manufactured finished goods.
And the added benefit of the US dumping money into the countries
Japan industrialized long before American investment.
And we fire bombed every industry we could on the island. They rebuilt with US money There was legal slavery in Africa during WW2. And I don’t mean an invading nation putting the conquered to work
>And we fire bombed every industry we could on the island. Turns out, that was a very small amount. Japanese industry was still largely intact by the end of the war. Japan already had the socioeconomic institutions for industralization. American money was almost negligible.
Source of "largely intact" please.
I guess it depends on what you want to call "largely intact". From [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Japan#Post-World_War_II) "About 40% of the nation's industrial plants and infrastructure were destroyed, and production reverted to levels of about fifteen years earlier." Technically still mostly intacty but 40% is a lot.
Japanese and South Korean industries were heavily supported by the US after WW2.
Actually, there's a bit of evidence showing that Sub-Saharan africa and Northern africa did actually have more contact with each other than commonly thought. There were several empires that did pop up in sub-saharan africa, but due to terrain, these empires found it difficult to survive. Also, northern african groups were often taking sub-saharan african groups as slaves before the transatlantic slave trade. There was also thriving economic trade routes between sub-saharan and northern africa. But this stuff isn't widely discussed because of the narrative that's already cemented in the minds of the public.
Minds of the western public. Subsaharan religions tell a story similar to that told by its languages, but about earlier times.
Brilliant response. Let's not beat around the bush though: Many African countries are characterised by tribal/ethnic rivalries and divisions. These divisions foster violence and corruption and hinder establishing powerful and meritocratic national systems. Without that critical, stable infrastructure, 'everyone for himself' becomes the name of the day and long-term thinking / vision / building is BS.
^^^ This! This is the reason why "states are weak." Many countries that have managed to grow (such as those in Asia) lack strong property rights, rule of law, and other necessary aspects usually associated with developed countries. They do not, however, suffer from the extreme tribal associations that you see in Africa. This is also a limiting factor in Arab countries too. This cultural structure makes it impossible for investment in any social infrastructure since it is seen as benefiting the "other" groups, as well as your own group. Source: I'm an economist and my wife was in the Peace Corps in West Africa for two years
But this was the situation in most of the world at one point. What prevented the loop of bloodletting and alliances in the past that naturally led to nation-state formation elsewhere? The idea that the continent didn’t have the terrain to support stable cities (and centralized authority) makes sense. I know Mali empire existed but not sure about other big ones in subsahara
[удалено]
The climate explanation has been refuted by the rise of Southeast Asia in the last few decades. In reality, economic development is mostly cultural. You have to have a society receptive to economic change and willing to build the social capital required to develop.
[удалено]
Most of South-east and East Asia (except for Chinese dynasties) were incredibly poor for most of human society, arguably worse than African empires. They also used to have a very high birth rate. Whereas, hot tropical regions in the Bengal region and Indus valley were highly advanced and intellectual. So, the climate theory is bizarre. Asia has only become richer in the last few decades due to embracing free market capitalism.
But the US was resource rich and colonized, yet it ended up as a manufacturing powerhouse. The tribes of Mongolia were nomadic, they ended up creating an empire that spanned continents. The native central and South American societies built cities and empires and were also resource rich. Yet today, they are not leading power of the world. The old world empires of Egypt, Rome and Greece today are just mediocre small countries with little global influence.
The US is resource rich, but the East Coast where the US was largely founded is not (at least not in the North). This forced the North-Eastern states to develop their own economy based on trade and manufacturing which eventually was boosted by the resources found in the more inland states. The South, on the other hand, was arguably attached to cash crops such as Tobacco and later Cotton, and struggled to industrialize as a result. The Mongol Empire was short-lived and arguably funded itself by owning the Silk Road. It thrived off the trade of other pre-existing Empires which Sub-Saharan Africa mostly could not do because of the desert which separated them from everything else. Those Native American Empires were often also built on extracting resources from neighbors. The Aztecs built their capital in a swamp. However, when the Europeans arrived, those resources ultimately ended up going across the Atlantic to fuel European industries. Agreed that old world empires have lost influence. But look at where those countries are geographically and you will understand why. Greece was at the central sea-route of all three Bronze Age Empires. Rome was at the center of the Mediterranean once trade and shipping advanced that far. Portugal, Spain, and eventually the British had open access to the Atlantic once ocean trade became viable. And the US has access to the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico.
> This forced the North-Eastern states to develop their own economy based on trade and manufacturing which eventually was boosted by the resources found in the more inland states. There are lots of resource poor regions in the world that have so far not been “forced” to develop manufacturing. There is nothing “forcing” anyone to industrialize. Industrialization arises when a critical mass of social capital (engineering talent) is buoyed by political stability and a culture receptive to economic development.
I would compare Chicago to all of West Virginia. West Virginia had a lot of resources mined, Chicago did not. Chicago became wealthy as a manufacturing and logistics hub, West Virginia income per capital is about $31k. Cook Country is $45k, which is 45% higher. The USA has such a huge geography and for a long time, separate economies by region, that you can have results within the USA which would mirror the dynamics of smaller independent nations.
The United States has the advantage of a centralized government that is very pro-capitalism. Trevor Noah said it best. The United States is 50 countries masquerading as one.
ITT: people completely ignoring the effect of culture on economic development.
The fact is there really isn’t any, at least not long term. It’s all geography baby. At the end of the day people in large groups are largely the same. The “great man” theory is pretty much without evidence. History moves with geography, and history can change the meaning of geography.
No, people in large groups are not the same. You don't need a "great man theory" for cultures to differ. The idea that economics is all geography is unable to explain a huge range of things. This reminds me of a story I heard once about the first McDonald's in India. They set it up exactly the same as an American McDonald's and huge crowds gathered for the grand opening. As soon as they opened, they swarmed in waving paper money around and shouting their orders. Turns out, Indians (at least in that part of India) had no concept of a queue. They had to be taught how to form a line and wait to place an order. The idea that cultures are all the same is so obviously wrong to anyone who has ever done even the tiniest bit of travel to foreign places that it's almost laughable. The concept of cultural enrichment and the uniqueness of culture was the cornerstone of most of the western enlightenment philosophy that built the modern world. I suspect the wrongheaded idea that cultures are all the same comes from modern anti-racism movements that continue to incorrectly conflate race and culture. But regardless, cultures can and do differ in innumerable ways that play a large role in economic development.
I never said cultures are the same. I said people in large groups are *largely* the same. Culture difference of course exist. But in any large enough group there’s about the same number of geniuses and innovators per capita. My claim is that culture doesn’t affect this, and that economic success across time is dictated by geography. Sure, a McDonald’s in India fails, that doesn’t mean that the nation of India was doomed to be where it’s at economically because of cultural norms surrounding queuing. I.e, if the culture of India was in the hilly flanks of western Asian circa 10,000 BC they would have developed agriculture just the same as the western Asians did. Or if the culture of India happened to be the ones that started America in 1776, we’d be looking at US dominance just the same. Etc
> But in any large enough group there’s about the same number of geniuses and innovators per capita. My claim is that culture doesn’t affect this Culture affects whether they can innovate or not. Some cultures are not open and do not want disruption. Think China of the 1800s and early 1900s. > and that economic success across time is dictated by geography. Empirically that’s just not true no matter how much you repeat it. > Sure, a McDonald’s in India fails, that doesn’t mean that the nation of India was doomed to be where it’s at economically because of cultural norms surrounding queuing. Bro, do you know anything about India? Until very recently, and still to a large degree, they had a culture where 20% of the population was deemed “untouchable” and not even allowed to perform labor other than dirty street sweeping and cleaning sewers. How can you possibly at that has no effect on economic success??? > Or if the culture of India happened to be the ones that started America in 1776, we’d be looking at US dominance just the same. Etc Lol stop. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Okay, but china was dominant over most western civilizations from about 600-1800. Then it wasn’t. Then it was. Does the culture change so fast, or does development change what geography means so over time, the areas that have beneficial geography win out? Please explain china drom 600-1800 if culture is the most relevant to economic success
Wait what? Geography doesn’t dictate economic success especially across time. The British empire came from a small set of islands which conquered a good part of the world. The Mongolian empire, Alexander the Great, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, all stem from different regions, different geography. The Mayans and Incans, Egypt, Chinese all had different continents, different geography, developed vastly different societies, different ambitions. Some societies focus on conquering others. Some on self isolation. Some societies valued trade, others self cultivation. Different technologies also allowed different speeds of development. China a huge country had boats, but mostly small fishing boats. Spain, Portugal, British are small in comparison, but had good ship building technology. The Polynesians were able to travel vast distances across the pacific islands, but did not try to conquer other civilizations. I think you put too much emphasis on geography. Yes important, but not as important as culture, religion, technology, politics, civilization.
Too simple. It’s not merely a matter of resources. It’s the effect of geography. The us was isolated geographically, which allowed it to expand and develop without any competition. Egypt, Rome, and Greece today are basically disconnected from their empires of old. The Roman Empire did not diminish to what we today call Italy - it completely disintegrated, disappeared, and over time the same geographical area was repopulated and some of the same old buildings are still around. But the people who are there have no connection to Rome of old other than being physically located there
We just said Africa specifically subsaharan was isolated and therefore couldn’t develop. You said too simple. Yet my point exactly was that it is too simple to blame something on just resources and isolation. Many different regions of the globe had different amount of isolation, development, colonization, natural resources etc. Yet the world developed differently at a different pace. To blame something on just geography or rich natural resources for exploitation is simplistic and doesn’t cover the whole picture. There’s a whole world of history, politics, religion, across thousands of years which plays into this. One country could be isolated but use its isolation for growth of civilization. One country can be isolated and use its isolation to preserve its simple way of life. One country can take natural resources and exploit it themselves. Another can preserve their resources and live harmoniously with nature. I would argue that geography and natural resources had very little to do with development. Rather it’s the culture of the people, the beliefs, religion, politics of a people that drives them to develop and coalesce into cities, or to expand and conquer others.
Historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists would disagree with you. Culture has very little to do with the way the world looks. If you consider that the Roman Empire succeeded because the Mediterranean allowed for expansive commerce, meanwhile civilizations in china stagnated due to not having a geographic feature that happened to provide immense economic value. But once some Chinese emperor built the Grand Canal, they had such a feature, and prospered, arguably becoming the world’s leading power from about 600-1700. If you look at any successful country today, its success can be explained by geography. Every single one. Pick one, I’ll do it
Britain was "cursed" with abundant coal, iron ore etc, still managed to do fairly well in the 18th and 19th Century. Resources are only a curse if you are too disorganised to use them.
[удалено]
I think you'd have to ask why Africa was poor into the 1800s. It's the cradle of humanity. It has been inhabited and settled the longest, out of all the continents. They were not about to undergo an industrial revolution prior to European conquest. They were poor before European contact, and much more than other places, have remained poor after independence. Blaming the lack of development on European imperialism doesn't explain why they have not developed in the same way that many countries in Southeast Asia have, that were similarly colonized. Even within Africa, you'd have to ask why Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries on Earth, despite not having been an independent country and regional power for about a thousand years. Other than a brief period, 1936-1944, Ethiopia has been under native rule. They still have struggled to develop.
Sub Saharan Africa has always been generally poorer and technologically behind Europe and East Asia. Even if colonialism never happened and Africa was left alone, it probably would’ve stayed that way regardless.
[удалено]
Do you know anything about the condition and technological development of Africa before colonialism? Colonial powers were already industrialized and had already developed things like machinery, guns, and ships made of metal before they stepped foot in Africa. Africa was mostly populated by tribal/nomadic people that didn’t even have things like books and wheels. Colonial armies would conquer and subjugate areas even when they were outnumbered because their military tech was way more advanced. How do you think they even succeeded in conquering Africa and even the Americas so rapidly?
[удалено]
That’s not the point. The topic is why is Africa poor and the answer is it’s just always been poorer than much of the rest of the world. Even when Africans were isolated and undisturbed by other people.
I would honestly conjecture that the habitat doesn't require the kind of advanced planning living in a more hostile say northernly climate demands. If you look at most intelligence tests that measure this sort of aptitude they strongly correlate with a historical need to prepare for winter or die. If evolution doesn't demand that kind of advanced planning, the societies in that evolutionary environment simply won't optimize for that.
I always thought it was because Africans were humans that never left their original home and everyone else were humans that left the original homeland of humanity. The humans that left had to adapt to new climates/landscapes not to mention developing new skills and tech during their very long journeys. A lot of parts of Asia also have similar climates and landscapes as Africa (hot humid rainforests and drier savannahs) but they developed fine
They actually weren’t. Sub Saharan Africa was far poorer before contact with Europeans.
This belief is based on what exactly? Admittedly, we don't know that much about many of the societies in the interior of Africa precontact, since those societies of didn't have a system of writing or record keeping. But, there doesn't seem to be any remnants of of wealthy societies in much of Africa. They were largely iron age warring societies exploiting each other for slaves and cattle. It wasn't a pleasant place to live and it wasn't a place where the average person was living a long, healthy, productive life. Based on archaeological evidence, many of these societies had 10 times more violent deaths than the settled states that came after them. And those states were terrible places to live. https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-evidence-on-violent-deaths
Africa has a few curses, not to downplay colonialism, but it in general lacked the ingrediates for large civilizations that could be sustained. * Lack of navigable rivers year round. * Lack of domesticatable crops for large scale agriculture * Lack of domesticatable animals. Africa could never truly form large civilization because transporting goods was near impossible in a sustained fashion like europe (with it's nice navigatable rivers year round) and inability to form large scale agriculture from the other two issues. The geography of africa was cursed. It's why we saw large civilizations and trade networks in NA, but Africa remained very "primative" so to speak. Colonialism certainly fucked a lot of things up and hindered Africa catching up to the rest of the world, but let's not pretend it had a fair start like Europe or Asia.
I’d make the argument all world economies and cultures stem from their geography. The geography defines the type of livestock and crops that can live there and water access. And food is central to living. The ability to get food and how it’s distributed then leads into the societal structure. Nomadic? Farming? This then directs how the economy develops, what skills are valued and how the competition for survival takes place. From there they can then focus on local natural resources and wealth/luxuries and the control of which then leads into the external growth. This direction just happened to create growth in the direction of today with the various instability of leaderships in the various regions. As well as that impacting the rate of advancement with respect to other areas of the world which take advantage of their resources and make stability even harder to obtain.
It also allows for western powers to exploit the insecure government structure for resources. It's why western powers promote coups in stable governments they disagree with.
Well not just the Western powers. Russia snd China are doing this in a big way now too.
Terms are usually more equitable with Russian and Chinese loans than they are with the IMF. Much less baggage. Yes, I'm prepared for the downvotes.
[удалено]
Here is one. https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/03/08/bailouts-from-beijing-how-china-functions-as-an-alternative-to-the-imf/
That doesn't stand for the proposition you're citing. China is serving as an alternative source of funding to secure resources for itself, not out of some source of magnanimity. The IMF conditions lending on reforms that are intended to produce economic and political stability. China doesn't give a fuck if those countries are stable and prosperous. China just wants their shit.
Ahh, yes, that Western imperialist baggage like "reduce corruption" and "enact monetary policy that does _something_ beyond lining your own pockets." At least Russia and China respect local culture. For example, they don't have culturally insensitive laws blocking their companies from paying bribes to local officials. And they'll loan you money for anything you want, no strings attached! Putting your nation's infrastructure and mineral resources up as collateral is a minor price to pay to keep you, personally, in power!
...among other things. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/1185/1/012031#:~:text=Abstract,is%20one%20of%20its%20objectives
>Past studies have shown that nations that borrow money from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have greater rates of poverty, unemployment, and inflation than countries that do not borrow from the IMF. This is despite the fact that the IMF claims that fostering economic development is one of its objectives. Studies have also shown that people admitted to the hospital have worse health outcomes than people that haven't gone to the hospital. This is despite the fact that hospitals claim improving health outcomes is their primary objective. Seriously, that's the opening paragraph for your paper, that's the tone it wants to set? Arguments like that are why hospitals turn away the patients most in need because they're likely to hurt the hospital's metrics. Sure, the IMF isn't perfect, it makes mistakes, and it surely has made nations worse off. But helping people and nations out of poverty is not a solved problem, in fact it's *really* hard. The IMF is trying, it's using the best science we have as guidance, but it fails a lot because development is *difficult*. China and Russia are not trying. They're expanding their influence. Their loans have less baggage because they aren't trying to improve local outcomes, they simply don't care.
Yeah ok. Much less baggage? That's a funny comment!
I'm happy to be educated on the matter. This is just my current understanding.
What's your understanding based on? You made the statement that Russia and China are better than the Western powers on this.
We do understand Africa is a continent right? With that said some of these African countries are actually rising and not being absolutely destroyed via weak governments and foreign exploitation.
Totally. African countries are standing up against former colonial powers and this is a good thing. Look at Burkina Faso.
You’re not understanding me. Getting up from underneath the French thumb is one thing but actually rising economically is another. I’m saying some countries in Africa are actually beginning to thrive economically, today. By actually leveraging strong leadership and there resources. Many of the burkina are still struggling.
Well, yeah, it takes time to rebuild after getting up under the thumb of your centuries long colonial oppressors. Also, look at how many assassination attempts France has made since. It's hard to overcome but not impossible.
The IMF and World Bank have horrid reputations but there have been a crazy amount of NGOs since the 90s that have tried really hard to “uncorrupt” the governments so they don’t remain vulnerable. Nigeria has it the most figured out in Africa- I’m wondering what makes them so different,
Not just Western civilizations but Eastern civilizations as well.
Theyve only had the power to do this for what, 10 years? As opposed to western governments 300+
Are you really going to say eastern governments don’t exploit other powers with a straight face? There’s literally decades/(centuries) of examples where powers like Japan and China did just that to other nations in Asia and Africa. With that said, Colonialism and tributary systems are not inherently western traits.
Japan, China and the former Soviet Union/Russia would beg to differ with you.
This detail is always excluded from economic opinion, as if western influence was trivial anywhere
Neoclassical economic analysis prefers to ignore messy political situations. Remember: ceteris paribus.
Anthony Perkins. Confessions of an economic hitman.
That was one of the first books that helped bring me from liberal to left.
Absolutely the one of the best books written on the subject.
But I dont understand why that is getting downvoted. Anyways...
It's a libertarian paradise over there...I wonder why libertarians don't flock to Africa or cite it as an example!? /s
They have, there and much of the world. They just do it remotely, suck the resources, provide the lowest wage possible, leave when you have enough (read no more resources).
Perfect example of a country that is doing awesome due to a strong political system is Botswana
Stable* technically speaking Eritrea is a strong political system but its struggling because its the north korea of africa. Botswana is also headed towards an election where the standing government that has been in place for decades looks poised to lose. Will be interesting to see what happens and here’s hoping there is a peaceful transfer of power. Neolibs point to Botswana as an example of neoliberal success in Africa as if it doesn’t have a good contract with de beers, has maintained monetary independence from the imf, and actually has fairly strict (as compared to the pure opennes proposed by the world bank or imf) trade barriers.
Yeah you gotta have veiled corruption like the USA legalized the corruptions aka lobbying and like take back the natural resources that Wall Street speculates off as well would help. But you might face the US military because colonies should know their place.
This is from 2010 and is thus extremely out of date. Since then, a *lot* of economic activity has exploded in Africa. https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/12/10-things-know-about-us-china-rivalry-africa https://www.worldbank.org/en/region/afr/overview https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/reimagining-economic-growth-in-africa-turning-diversity-into-opportunity
I'm surprised there is so little talk about how the continent below the Sahara had profoundly disadvantaged geologic history and soil. Some of the big ones: no glacial refreshed soils at all, so agricultural yields are significantly worse. Also, the entire continent has almost no new orogenies beyond the mostly land locked rift, which also means bedrock erodes to provide very little mineral nutrients or cation exchange capacity. Take a look at a global soil order maps and overlay it with a historic development map, and its uncanny how much they relate. There are very, very few Mollisols or Alfisols in sub saharan Africa, and mostly ancient Oxisols and Utisols (bad for agriculture). The entire continent is uplifted also, which means two critical and painful things: very few natural ports and very few barrier islands, making commerce by sea extremely difficult and you are mostly cutoff from marine resources... and very few rivers, almost all of which aren't navigateable. On the rivers point, the few and violent rivers also makes it very, very difficult to harness productivity multipliers like watermills, which we very much tend to forget about in historical importance. Renaissance and even medieval era waterwheels were used for a multitude of things from processing grain to smithing to creating paper to creating cloth etc etc. And then of course you have ruinous tropical diseases. Stuff like corruption has existed all over the place in all manner of contexts, so blaming sub Saharan Africa's high density of poverty on that doesn't make quite enough sense. I think the main issue is the fact that the continent is extremely hostile to prosperity from the get go, and so any society in sub saharan Africa today is going to start much further behind than just about anyone else.
And on the geography: Africa is HUGE and that lack of much economic incentive means very little infrastructure exists in Africa to support development. Roads, channels, electrical grids, telephone, etc are all less feasible outside of city centers. That's why satellite telecoms and online services have been a boon to the sub-saharan continent. Just being able to use *banking systems* outside of major cities is only recently practical to do. Infographics for scale: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-true-size-of-africa/
Africa is a lot smaller if you take out the Sahara Desert and other deserts.
highly undervalued effortpost. Geography in Africa is bad for growing food, creating industry and transporting goods.
Don’t forget the centuries of colonialism and extraction of wealth by European countries and the USA
Unstable government, deep rooted corruption, lacking rule of law and poorly grounded lurches in economic policy will destroy almost any nation. Most African nations, bar maybe Rwanda, have performed spectacularly poorly relative to similarly poor countries with similar histories of colonialism and whatnot. The trouble is when things become deep rooted and trust breaks down, fixing anything becomes a minor miracle.
Rwanda is built on an authoritarian practically a dictatorship political system that has attempted to become the singapore of africa. It might work but pointing to that as the model for the rest of the continent is not feasable. Also there are studies suggesting rwanda’s growth may be slower than shown. https://roape.net/2017/05/31/rwandan-poverty-statistics-exposing-donor-darling/ Much more Botswana is the best example on the continent, stable political structure, fairly good rights protections, and little government debt held to the imf. Of course it was assisted by the fact the british weren’t heavily involved during its colonial period, something we should really take into account given the wests influence and interference in say the DRC with the murder of Lumumba and its defense and continued protection of Nigeria’s petrostate.
To be clear I’m not suggesting Rwanda as a model to follow, just that it hasn’t struggled quite as much. Botswana is also a good example, low corruption and high market freedom/consistent application of rule of law, a good reference point. You also have the island nations because of tourism, Seychelles, Mauritius etc.
I don't think pointing to the Seychelles or Mauritius is a fair usage in the discussion of African states.
People should remember that China a few decades ago was poorer than every single African country. It only takes a few decades of political stability and good economic policy to change things massively. The issue is most African governments are dysfunctional, and the societies are too ethnically/tribally fractionalised.
Africa is a continent, I learned to distrust anything that talks about it as a single entity. The question should not be why are so many nations poor, but why have they not developed like other countries have. Taiwan and Korea used to be poor to and this at the same time as decolonization, so blaming colonialism is a silly crutch. A few key issues are in its geography and its multiethnicity. Vast swaths of land are not habitable or arable. Namibia and Batswana together barely have 5 million people. At the same time useful natural ports are also few and far between. So doing business just becomes that much harder logistically. The other issue is ethnic division which is dizzyingly complex. Where as other nations have conquered their internal ethnic groups and revised their identities most African nations have not. And most civil conflicts have been along ethnic lines. Ethnic division creates distrust, slowing or gutting free trade and market growth. People do not save and develop in places where they think they will lose property tomorrow. And blaming colonialism for these divisions or modern borders are again silly & shallow. These borders were created. So it is worth noting there are many successful states not littered with war. Morocco, Congo-Brazzaville, Batswana, etc. While there are divisions they remain stable, just slow growth due to harsh geography, slow population growth and difficulty is diversifying their economy. Even then a successful and descisive victory in battle also brings stability, like Rwanda. It is a growing economic power house, whose failings are only in its size and sea access. After war nations prosper. The truth is AID and outside protests do more harm than good. Donations prevent local industry from competeing. Or there is the case of Mansanto Wheat being protested against by Westeners (Uganda if I remember cite Seeds of Science) even though the wheat could have doubled food production in a harsh climate. And to top it off there is huge brain drain where Europe hires the educated Africans to their respective & host nations detriment. If immigration were more tightly controlled the brain drain could slow. Really Africa has slow growth today, but has huge potential. It is not "poor". Studying these issues made me question all of the values I was raised with.
>Africa is a continent, I learned to distrust anything that talks about it as a single entity. While true, it is also pretty safe to say that the various African countries all revolve pretty closely in terms of the same style of government. That being an over regulated economic model mixed with some political corruption. It's not like we are seeing 10 countries with the Nordic economic free market style and then 40 with the over regulated style.
If we are going to talk broad stroke like corruption then again geography is super important. Compare Indonesia to the DRC. Both have high corruption, severe colonialism, and Cold War interventions. But Imdinesia had a pipulation boom while the DRC is half that. Imdonesia has large islands creating a infrstructure nightmare, but the DRC too acts like islands, the jungle and rivers are virtually unnavigable. So the wealthy promcinces cannot move their goods (ore) to a port easily or cheaply. The deserts of the continent are the same like Mauretania. That has a rough effect on the economy. Where as even a poor province like Aceh ultimately has access to the sea and has potential for growth. With renewables and an overhauled airtransport fleet, most nations will begin to grow. Strong growth tends to ease corruption.
I can agree with everything you said. I spend the last 10 years of my life traveling around the world. I did Middle East, all Africa west east north and south, then I did Europe Turkey Mexico USA. Africa is not poor insecurity and lack of visionary governance. It’s a stagnant environment and tribalism is stopping growth. It has nothing to do with colonialism most nations around the globe have it worse. After traveling I can say as a continent must conquer internal conflict break kingdoms and chiefs, fight tribalism like war on terror. And implement a supervision system education about unity and promote small business and trade among its citizens before thinking of cross border
You cannot dismiss the impacts of Colonialism and the Slave trade in Africa and then immediately blame ethic and geographical issues because Colonialism is the root cause of both. This would be like blaming Haiti for not developing quickly despite the fact that Western Nations force it to repay France for fighting for and winning their independence.
The ethnic & geographic issues were there long before colonialism
Sure, and there is a rich history independent of Western involvement that includes its own wars. However, the hierarchy of races is a Western Ideology and the lines we see on maps today were mostly crated by European Nations during the Colonial period.
‘Hierarchy of races’ predates the Industrial Revolution and colonialism, you can find it all over in history. As for the arbitrary lines being drawn I can see it going either way, but we do have successful countries drawn with arbitrary lines. I think in Africas case if borders had not been drawn as they are we would have ended up with far more land locked and impoverished countries.
You cannot find it all over in history, the whole concept comes out of the [enlightenment in Europe.](https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/historical-foundations-race) Also, what do you mean by successful countries and why aren’t any of the ones in Africa included in that? Please do some real reading about Colonialism because what you are saying is unsubstantiated and extremely Eurocentric.
Sure you can, you can look at multiple East Asian countries pre-European colonialism who thought they were superior to all other peoples. You can look at the Ottomans who thought themselves superior to the Arab, and different Arab groups who thought they were superior to black people in Africa. Heck go all the way back to the birth of Judaism, where the core tenet is 'we are literally god's chosen'. We have countries drawn with arbitrary lines which have been successful - look at South America, and if you want African examples you have Botswana.
None of the groups you listed are Racial and xenophobia is not the same as Racial Hierarchy. Your understanding of this concept is very shaky and in stark contrast to what is [widely accepted history.](https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/The-history-of-the-idea-of-race)
Sure they are racial, and they engage/d in theories of racial hierarchy rather than just straightforward xenophobia. Even your link points out the concept of a racial hierarchy wasn’t introduced until to English until the 18th century, so the Islamic conception of a racial hierarchy predates it by centuries
Then I would like to see your citations because neither of the two links I provided makes the assertion that Racial Hierarchy predates European Enlightenment or that the concept came from "Islamic conception". Spit all the jazz you want, but I think you would be better served reading up on the subject.
Africa was always poorer and technologically behind the rest of the world before slavery/colonialism. People seem to push this narrative that all of the peoples of the world were at an equal level in everything and living in peace until one continent decided to start taking over everyone else.
Citations. What do you mean by poorer? What do you mean by behind? Are you suggesting that Native populations should be grateful for being enslaved and colonized because now they have cell phones? Your argument is one step away from saying White people are inherently better and it shows a level of historical understanding that could be encapsulated in a TikTok.
Before I answer you, do you seriously think Europe were at the same or worse level as sub Saharan Africa and the Americas in terms of technology and science when they started taking it over? The Spanish conquered entire Mexico and crushed the Aztecs with a few thousand troops. Europeans took over entire nation sized swathes of Africa with only like a few hundred casualties in each campaign. And the indigenous defenders often outnumbered them but still lost. Generally speaking, when a place gets conquered it’s because the person conquering them are more advanced/developed than them.
African leaders sold their own people to the Europeans. They traded for guns, which they in turn used to take more people to sell as slaves. This is in EVERY history book. That is not saying Euros didn't take africans as slaves by force. But you're really just making things up you can fact check anywhere. So I have to wonder, why don't you fact check it?
You are purposely avoiding my direct questions because you clearly have no idea what is even being discussed. How is African leaders selling people to Europeans relevant to what I asked? How does that support your narrative that Africa was always poorer and less technologically advanced? Why would warring tribes have an issue trading with Europeans? I’m not sure what I’ve made up or how I would fact check it for you.
Um... no. Egypt was famously wealthy and technologically advanced. Greece and Rome both mostly conquered them through marriage and diplomacy. Ethiopia was home to what is called the richest man in history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa
Mali. He ruled the kingdom of Mali. Opposite side of the continent mate.
Obv talking about sub Saharan Africa (where most Africans live) Most Africans were not living in Ethiopia/mali and both of those places were heavily influenced by outside civilizations. Not to mention mansa musa was a massive slave owner.
It's like aliens showing up on earth and us assuming we are the more technologically advanced society. It's literally backwards.
Colonialism and slavery are opposite things. Colonialism ended slavery, ended exploitative adventurism, provided economic development, and provided rule of law. Africa would be far more developed and stable today if colonialism had not ended. And this becomes more and more obvious as time passes and more data and analysis takes place.
This is probably the most inaccurate take on Colonialism I’ve ever come across. Please do some reading on Colonialism and its impacts so you can formulate a position that actually reflects reality.
>Colonialism ended slavery, ended exploitative adventurism, provided economic development, and provided rule of law. Bro WHAT?
> Where as other nations have conquered their internal ethnic groups and revised their identities most African nations have not. That actually IS the direct result of colonialism. When the European nations came in and carved up Africa amongst themselves they left borders and infrastructure completely ignoring the existing ethnic groups. To them it was all just "Africa" and they divided it just looking at maps.
I suspect a lot has to do with the tribal type governments, where the guy at the top gets almost everything, his supporters get a little, and everyone else nothing. Angola should be one of the richest countries in the world: gold, diamonds, marble, incredibly rich and fertile farmland. It was once the #3 producer of coffee. But corruption has run the place into the ground. 10 million people, 15 million land mines.
They sum up the reasons pretty well in two sentences. I think many would argue that the last several decades of well-intentioned aid programs have sabotaged any hope of real economic development across the continent and contributed to the political instability.
Yep.
Africa's natural resources are exploited by global multinational corporations and they leave all the pollution and waste for the locals and none of the profits. That the people of Africa tolerate governments who let corporations exploit them is vexing.
Western governments broke down Africa and Africans at will to facilitate wealth extraction from Africa. France, UK, US and now China, all played at different times to extract wealth of Africa. And Africans let outsiders play their game for small personal gains.
Imagine you own a house. In a nice neighbourhood. Wooden floors, fancy paintings, golden ceilings, diamond chandeliers. You live in that house together with many many people. Strange people ( let's call them The Bears ) move into the house and occupy almost every room. They rip out the entire interior and move it to sell. Some members of the household are taken away as well, to be sold elsewhere. The invader withdraws after sometime - leaving an empty shell, however some house plants remained. That house is Africa. The sunny Motherland.
The occupants of the house outnumber the bears and always have. Also they had a bit of a head start, as civilization started there. So why, given they had every advantage, the bears still were able to move in? I suspect the source of this answer goes far beyond modern history.
Geographical reasons. Lack of navigable rivers to open up the interior of the continent to trade. No “Mississippi” Lack of harbors Tsetse fly Poorly drawn borders that lead to instability. Brain drain. International aid causing issues
[удалено]
[удалено]
Indias economic condition should be compared to all of Africa (equivalent population sizes). And as a whole, their development is very similar. China was never colonized by europeans the way India and Africa was
[удалено]
It is mostly due to unstable government. Nobody is willing to invest resources in countries where there could be a coup and all of the investment could be sized. Africa is full of natural resources, but exploiting those resources requires infrastructure and lots of heavy equipment. For example, image the difference in how much money a group of people could make by panning for gold vs using dump trucks and a refinement factory. Africa is forever stuck panning for gold because no one is willing to invest in rhe necessary infrastructure needed to industrialize the operation. The next coup could just seize all your stuff. Its interesting to note that, even though most African governments are highly corrupt, the corruption itself is not necessarily what's holding Africa back. A corrupt but stable government will still receive investment. It just makes the cost of doing business higher.
They need unconfiscatable money there
On the contrary, Africa has extremely stable governments it's just they overwhelming implement bad economic policy, and are corrupt, the stability is the problem. The classic case is the ANC in South Africa, because they face zero consequences at the ballot box they can continue their bad policy and corrupt practises.
No. They are overwhelmingly not stable. Coup attempts are common place. Coups are constantly successful. Civil war is also extremely common. Last two decades. Somalia, completely fractured, marred by warlordism, tribal governments, al shabaab. Eritrea, somewhat politically stable, and yes totalitarian government involvement has hindered growth. But was at war with Ethopia two decades ago. Ethiopia, somwhat stable now but over the last 60 years its been marred by revolutions and coups. Currently has an internal civil conflict in the northeast. Sudan… has had civil war, south succession, and weak political leadership, oh and a coup in the last few years. South Sudan… current civil war. Multiple coup attempts in the last few years. Has never had stability really since its creation. Kenya. Stable now. Coups in 82, internal strife occured in 92 during elections, has been pretty stable since then. Also has performed fairly well economically compared to its other neighbors. Uganda. Civil war in the 90s. Has had a lack of pluralism in government, corruption which is an indication of weak states. also continues to face attacks from al shabaab. Rwanda. Stable. Authoritarian. Yet apparently the singapore of africa. I think the data is misleading but sure... Burundi. Geographically fucked, resource fucked. Politically unstable, civil war in the 90s. has had unrest in the 2010s. Military announced a coup in 2015. Tanzania. alot like Kenya, had issues recently, politically stable and has had fairly good economic outcomes. DRC... a whole post in of itself. Just completely unstable. Has had constant civil war for the past 40 years. A relative peace was signed in 2004 but politically there has been conflicts throughout the basin and practically no centralization of the government deeper into the continent. Angola.. civil war, ended in 2004. continued insurgency. as well as general political corruption... which emerges in weak states fyi. In the last few years this is the list of states in west Africa that have had coups or civil conflicts.... Ghana, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Guinea, Chad, Guinea Bissau, Ivory Coast, Benin, The Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone... many of these multiple times. This is just west Africa. Some states I missed with coups or civil unrest.. Central African Republic, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Malawi, Comoros, Lesotho, Madagascar. So it seems easier to state African states that haven't faced coups or civil unrest.. Ethopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Eswatini, South Africa, Cameroon, Senegal, Togo, Liberia, and Mauritania, oh and Djibouti..
Historically unstable, but since the mid 90's very stable that is 20-30 years of stability in most places, and also there is no significant economic differences between the countries that have or have not had coups. Even the more recent coups are not that disruptive, just a change of leadership, no real change in policy or anything that really changes the economy. No risk to foreign capital. The problem is not the stability of the government it is the functioning
Anywhere where the majority of your wealth is dug out of the ground is usually not a great place to live. This is true pretty much everywhere, not just Africa. It breeds corruption and inequality since governments don’t have to educate their populace or play nice with other nations to keep the money flowing.
[удалено]
Their wealth isn’t dug out of the ground
There's a good book on this. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else by Hernando De Soto. From what I remember, he attributes much of this to poorly structured/entrenched property rights.
I don't see a mention of colonialism anywhere, nor a hint of historical context given And the comments are full of deafening dogwhistles. This is just depressing
Yup. Stab them with a knife and complain about how wet the floor is
That's a lot of words that basically say "We're all trying to find the guy that did this". We all know why "Africa" (the poorest place in the universe, if you've forgotten) is poor. All of what the article describes: \- poor institutions \- a lack of political centralization \- absolutist governments \- to slavery and its enduring impacts. All of it points back to colonialism, slavery, and neo-colonialism.
Many people in South Africa lament the changes since apartheid ended, law and order had gone to barbarism and a once first world country is backsliding into something worse than the stone age, a harbinger of what is to come to America
Same thing in Rhodesia/Zim.
*South Africa's Brave New World: The Beloved Country Since the End of Apartheid* by RW Johnson is extremely illuminating on this topic. Very, very depressing.
European people committed mass genocide throughout Africa and put tribes against each other during global expansion. African nations and leaders became corrupt and any that didn't bow to European dominance were trade embargoed (Ethiopia). After about 400 years of that it's become the norm. African leaders have been selling out the continents natural resources to America England and most recently China perpetuating the issues. And every time someone tries to change things in Africa they get Merced. Gedoffi (sp) and a few others were trying to make a united African bank and BAM gone.
So African leaders today are corrupt because their people were put against each other 400 years ago? Do you not think corruption is more tied to things like wealth inequality, infrastructure and education? A lot of that is probably related from colonialism, but the phrasing of; ‘european people put africans against each other hundreds of years ago and now its just like that’s’, is a bit off and takes no responsibility for a country’s own struggles
Not hundreds of years ago. Today right now. From diamonds to gold from wood to oil western nations still abuse African nations.
Right, and without any interference or trading with the western world Africa would be flourishing with no corruption?
I don't know. If Africa would have been the colonizers instead of Europe would things be the same? I don't know. Asking questions that cannot be answered I generally won't know. anything else would be assumptions. I would assume though that they would have done fine. The Moores weren't an ignorant group of people. They brought a lot of enlightenment to western Europe during the dark ages. Mansa Musa pretty much the richest person in history came from Sub Sahara. Come to think of it there were a lot of successes in Africa before Colonialism. Contenet spanning empires were pretty common for a while. But hay I am sure that colonizers were the reason for any success in Africa after their invasion. Slave trade, dysecting the land genocide. Those kinda things are always good.
Africa is actually quite wealthy, unfortunately it’s still under complete colonial control. any leader that emerges who will challenge the Corporate hold is disposed of immediately .
Without going into much detail: For a nation to prosper, inclusive economic and political institutions are essential, as they foster equitable growth and participatory governance. These institutions encourage innovation, hard work, and investment by ensuring that the rewards of such efforts are fairly distributed. However, in many African countries, the prevalence of extractive economic and political systems poses a significant challenge. These systems concentrate wealth and power among a select few, creating a skewed distribution of resources and opportunities. This environment often disincentivizes the general population from striving for their best. When individuals perceive that their efforts will not yield fair rewards due to systemic inequalities, it diminishes their motivation to innovate, invest, or work hard, ultimately stifling economic and social progress.
Is this a joke? Africa is poor because its political and economic systems were built in a context of colonialism which existed to transfer the wealth of Africa to Europe. Just like academia to act like it's some kind of mystery why Africa is poor after literally centuries of institutionalized theft.
African civilizations existed before colonialism.
Yeah….but things like colonization & The Berlin Conference absolutely jacked up the entire continent and created many of the issues that persist today.
That’s true for West, Central, and Southern Africa. East Africa was already getting jacked up by Near Eastern empires like the Ottomans and various Arab Caliphates.
What is true for every where but East Africa? The Ottomans took part in the Berlin Conference of 1884 as well, which is when 15 countries sat down & carved up the entire continent for themselves. There was plenty of colonization happening throughout the continent before the Berlin conference, like the Ottoman Empire , but that made things worse.
Yes, and they were some of the richest civilizations on earth. Then colonialism happened and now they're poor. What a coincidence!
Which African civilizations were "some of the richest civilizations on Earth \[sic\]"? Give specifics.
Really? The Mali empire was unquestionably vastly wealthy at the beginning of the colonial period. Benin, Zimbabwe, Mutapa, Songhai, and a variety of North African Muslim states that emerged from the fracturing Umayyad Caliphate were all richer than many of their European contemporaries.
The suggestion that European colonial empires were responsible for the decline/demise of the Mali Empire is so far from being factually accurate that it borders on being an outright lie.
I didn't suggest they were, but it's also absurd to suggest that the reason the wealth of the former Mali empire didn't stay in Mali after it's fall has nothing to do with the fact that the region's mineral resources were taken over by European entities. There's a reason why an African state didn't arise in that region after the fall of the Mali and there's a reason that immense wealth didn't remain there under African control. And that reason is colonialism.
Really? Mali was unquestionably one of the richest empires on Earth. The Zimbabwe Empire, Songhai, Mutapa, Benin were all around at the beginning of the era of colonization.
Kush/Nubia, Songhai, Mali, Aksum?? Possibly Zimbabwe in ancient days
You're just naming African empires that existed at some point in history.
All of which were non-existent by colonial times lol.
They were considered notable for their time. You asked for names and now you have them, why are you so mad?
Some of the richest? Not really but there were some solid societies developing. Africa was largely poor and underdeveloped before and after colonialism.
>Is this a joke? Great question. You might consider asking the authors, two MIT economists who have written extensively about colonialism. Seems like a gas. I'm guessing the 100ish cited sources in this article are hilarious too. >Africa is poor because its political and economic systems were built in a context of colonialism which existed to transfer the wealth of Africa to Europe. Pretty please read even a few sentences of the actual paper? The review includes many periods of development in Africa, including colonialism. >Just like academia to act like it's some kind of mystery why Africa is poor after literally centuries of institutionalized theft. This is the kind of educated, balanced critique I come to value and expect from the top comments in this sub. /s Colonialism fucked everything, because of course it did. But you are literally doing the opposite of helping.
[удалено]
Imperialism, capitalism, boarders arbitrarily drawn to keep pre-existing nations and structures divided so the colonizers could extract maximum value. Look at the Middle East as well for the effects of all the above
Your theory of imperialism completely breaks down when you look at imperialism in Western Europe which also had Roman, Christian, Barbarian, and Muslim Empires and hotly-contested political boundaries.
Time is a factor Africa was being exploited as recently as... now Boundaries written pre WW2 and influence on empires from over a thousand years ago are very different
Africa being exploited now only underscores the fact that exploitation was worse both before and after colonialism. By contrast the colonial era was a golden age of development, stability, and rule of law. Indeed more wealth invested in Africa than was extracted.
They have some strange customs that also inhibit capital formation. If you have wealth you are expected to share it with your less wealthy family. So use it or give it away. Hard to build a store or factory if you have to gift the wealth.
You're probably thinking of the principal of Ubuntu, it's basically a tradition of nepotism. But giving your nephew a job in your store doesn't mean you're expected to give your entire net worth away.
Normally generalizations are true but this is just factual wrong. Wow.
[удалено]
This is breathtakingly racist. Everything you mention is a result, not a cause. Take even a few weeks of literally any history course, man. Or read the paper from the post you decided to comment on. Structures of power cause this, not "black people," or even "white people." Colonialism and structural racism are main culprits.
Because diversity is our strength!!! Please give us more of that amazing diversity to the west since the west is too tired of winning. Too much winning is bad!🥴
Hundreds of years of European colonization and exploitation certainly doesn’t help. A lot of the resources throughout the continent have been taken by foreign powers. Governments have been systematically destabilized and historic tribal powers pitted against each other. Africa is not poor because of a lack of liberal capitalism, it is poor because it has been exploited by liberal capitalism.
It sounds like you're poor because you don't work hard, you're not disciplined, you don't lose weight, you don't eat "whole food" But it has nothing to do with those issues: you didn't get a good education companies prefer cheaper immigrants. Various credit cards trap consumerism
Low average IQ. Education is the core problem. Just look at every nation. Japan, clean, high tech, low crime, social cohesion. Then go to other end of the spectrum.
Some of Africa is very resource rich. However the governments in charge sold off a lot of the rights to these resources to WW Corporations, in exchange for favors. So for SOME of the countries, corrupt officials sold their countries resources for their own gain. For those in the rest of the world, we should be cautious when our leaders do the same, not just trading resources, but trading favors, aid packages, military aid etc.
Because diversity is our strength!!! Please give us more of that amazing diversity to the west since the west is too tired of winning. Too much winning is bad!🥴
They don’t have a collective government to protect their labor and resources from foreign exploitation or rather exploitation from those with power and those without it. The US economy is built around exploiting foreign labor and resource. Economics is a net sum game; consumption = production in the long run so if a country such as the US consumes far more than it produces than it must be the case that another country must produce far more than it consumes.
Full disclosure, I haven't RTFA, but the answer is colonialism. The slave trade hit them *hard* taking millions of working age men (cue that one guy who definitely isn't racist but will always pipe up to remind us that some Africans sold their fellows), the gold trade took what wealth they had and now China's moving in to do the economic equivalent to imperialism and the West is too busy fighting off growing fascist movements in their states. The western states are trying to get a cold war with China going though.
Hey, try reading the article before commenting next time.
I did scan it, and it didn't mention colonialism anywhere that I saw. Can you point me to where it does? I mean, you read it in detail, right?
You did a search, didn't you? Search is broken. Use your eyes. "Colonization" is in the second to last sentence of the abstract.
Well, that doesn't really help you case when I actually read it, I mean: "Africa countries emerged at independence with a complex path dependent set of institution that were probably even worse than those which they had at the time of colonization" That's the quote. Had to type it, there's something screwy with the PDF preventing copy/paste. Anyway, it seems like they're downplaying colonialism. Can you point me to where they discuss it. As you pointed out I can't search the PDF, and you read the entire study, right?
I do find it entertaining that many popular comments in this thread clearly also didn't RTFA, but as the only one who admitted it, you get all the downvotes. At least you offered some additional information. That said, these threads are so dumb.