Whether underdevelopment is a consequence of colonial legacy - Essay Example

?Discuss whether underdevelopment is a consequence of colonial legacy. In your answer you may focus on up to three countries of your choice. Introduction Since the so-called age of discovery when European ships sailed round the coast of Africa and through Asia to the Americas, colonialism was the engine of rapid industrialisation in the West. Many centuries of domination and exploitation followed, until the end of the nineteenth century when the former colonies started to gain their independence, partly through revolt and resistance, and partly because the European powers were exhausted and both militarily and economically, and severely weakened after two World Wars. Superior technologies had enabled the colonial powers to seize control and many of the social processes of the western colonial powers were implanted into the colonies via missionary schools, army barracks, hospitals and local government structures which reported back to the colonial metropolis. It has been pointed out that in the later colonial phase, these colonial territories, despite efforts to make them into effective satellite states with government from a distance, suffered three main disadvantages: the administration had divided loyalties between the metropolis and the colony, it was alien and could not understand the needs of the colonised people, and because of its alien nature it lacked legitimacy and the ability fully to engage the local people in concerted and planned efforts (Fieldhouse,1999, p. 90). The governments of colonies tended to be conservative, and lacked the will to make progress. This affected both the higher echelons which had ties to the colonist country, and the subordinated local people. It is this enforced stagnation and apathy that is perhaps one of the most potent elements of the colonial legacy, and it provoked reactions ranging from violent struggle to exploitative imitation in middle years of the twentieth century as newly independent states set about connecting with their pre-colonial past and building a new post-colonial future. This paper examines the link between under-development and colonialism, looking at two countries in particular: Mauritania, which is a former French colony located in North West Africa, and India which is a former British colony located in Asia, and at some overarching effects which apply to both examples. Definitions of Underdevelopment Before turning to the examination of the two sample countries, it is important to be clear what is meant by the terms “development” and “underdevelopment”. For most people these words are related to economic and political factors like wealth, and a stable, well-governed society but some analysts, such as Sen (1994) include intangible qualities such as freedom of choice and the fostering of all kinds of human capabilities through education, travel and the flourishing of local and international cultures. A good definition of development is that it “seeks to enable people to lead full, productive, satisfying and worthwhile lives by raising their incomes and improving other components of their standard of living such as life expectancy, health, literacy, control over their own destiny, personal libertay and freedom , and as essential steps for fulfilling human rights” (Arimah, 2004, p. 400). The term underdevelopment, in the light of these wider definition, therefore means much more than widespread poverty and economic weakness, and embraces also social and cultural deficits which impact negatively on the quality of life of the population. Mauritania Fifteen of the 20 poorest countries in the world are on the African continent, (Arimah, 2004) and since this is also the continent which has most thoroughly suffered the ravages of colonial exploitation, there is a deep suspicion that the underdevelopment that we see today and the past colonial history may be causally connected. There is some debate in the literature about whether the so-called “scramble for Africa” was motivated by strategic/military considerations, or by economic conditions. Bertochi and Canova (2001, p. 1871) favour the former theory, arguing that the attraction of most African territories for European power was due more to interstate rivalry in Europe than to any real economic value from the colonies. Mauritania is an interesting case because it received its name and national status for the first time in the mid twentieth century when France and Spain negotiated their exit from North Africa. The territory is mostly desert, and the inhabitants a mixture of nomadic tribes of Moorish origin, and others of central African descent. Population density is extremely low, and some of it continues to be nomadic, following tribal rather than national structures and systems. Slavery has left its mark in the form of a deeply entrenched caste system which relegates former slaves to the lowest position in society. On the East side of the country, the borders are geometrically drawn straight lines across the desert, a European construct which takes little notice of the traditional relationships between tribes (Anderson, 1996, p. 80) or the potential for communication links across difficult terrain. The political system that was inherited from France consisted of a presidential democracy with French-style departements and a centralist approach to policy making. From the very beginning, however, there was evidence of factional instability and a failure to bridge the differences between the different ethnic groups in Mauritania. The alien veneer of democracy failed almost immediately. One military coup after another have followed, with the result that the modern Mauritanian government has little claim to legitimacy and is regarded by its neighbours as backwards and security risk, since the country harbours terrorism and crime, and allows territorial disputes between tribes to escalate into border skirmishes with other nations. (Fakir and Boucek, 2010). Economically, Mauritania sits at the bottom of international tables on standards of living and almost every other measure of development. The percentage of government expenditure that comes from foreign aid is estimated as 87% which places the country on a par with war torn Rwanda (Brautigam and Knack, 2004, p. 258). This means that the former dependency that Mauritania suffered in colonial times persists into the present under the guise of development aid. All of the negative effects of colonial domination remain, with the added burden of an imposed nation state structure which sits very uncomfortably with the local people. This is a clear case where underdevelopment relates directly back to the interference of colonial powers in local balances of power. Given the stalemate that was built into the starting conditions of Mauritania, it is hard to see how any other consequence but instability and underdevelopment could follow. It is a failed state, and because it lacks any major resources or strategic value, it is likely to remain so indefinitely. India The situation in India is very different from that of the pseudo-state of Mauritania. India is a vast and highly populated country with considerable natural resources and several well developed cultures. It has great geographical and ethnic diversity and has enjoyed many different government types over several millennia. Its colonisation by Britain was an interlude in a much longer and very illustrious history. Due to its immense size, the colonial experience in India was also very diverse, ranging from direct rule by incoming British personnel, to a devolved system with local indigenous leadership, and hybrid systems merging the two. It is difficult therefore to speak of a coherent effect of colonialism. One study concludes that Indian states which were left more or less to rule themselves, and states which were directly ruled by the British fared better economically than those which local landlords collected taxes and handed them over to the British (Nunn, 2008, p. 10). In effect this means that the local infrastructure that was in place at the end of the colonial era differed across the country, with some parts enjoying more legitimacy and long term success than others. In India there was considerable infrastructure investment in the form of railways and other transportation links, along with a heavy focus on production for export. This left a mixed legacy from which India has been able to draw some benefit in modern times. Industrialisation was resisted by Indian thinkers, most notably in the form of non-violent protest advocated by Gandhi at the start of the twentieth century. Technology, and the building of factories with Western machines, was seen as a colonialist evil, which corrupted Indian cultures and morals, and robbed the poor of their livelihood (Ghandhi, 1908, p. 63). The imposition of capitalist ideologies undoubtedly harmed India’s development because it diverted attention from the job of feeding and educating the vast population, to the job of resisting colonial domination. Once independence was gained, however, India was able to resume responsibility for its own destiny. Recent figures show a rising share of the world’s GDP in the last fifty years, from 3.3% in 1980 to about 6.4% in 2006, while over the same period, for comparison, the US share declined from 21.3% to about 19.8% (Armijo, 2007, p.13). Progress is slow, and there are still major issues relating to poverty and the debilitating effects of the ancient caste system which condemns whole sections of society to poverty and exclusion but this is a vibrant country with high legitimacy and functioning government systems. One of the less positive, and lasting effects of colonialism in India is that relations with neighbouring countries are tainted because of the history of partition by the British, and subsequent struggles on the part of regional groups to form their own identity. There is also a tendency to turn away from Western powers when looking for strategic alliances on security issues. India’s strategic partnerships with Russian states for example, is partly in reaction to neighbouring Pakistan’s hitherto strong alliances with the West, and this polarises old local disputes into tensions on a potentially global scale (Sieff, 2009, p. 183). Former colonies in Asia are not left to work out their own security status, but find themselves facing interference from all sides, and forced to choose between competing superpowers in order to gain some protection against uprisings and tensions which rumble on long after the era of independence which defined the starting point of the modern era. The role of colonialism in underdevelopment. The two explorations of Mauritania and India above have highlighted some of the direct consequences of colonialism which have undoubtedly affected the ability of newly independent countries to rise to the challenge of operating independent structures which assure prosperity and stability in which human development can be pursued in positive ways. Further indirect influences may be seen in the decision of many former colonies to withdraw from free market trading economies in the 1960s, as a reaction to the negative experiences of this system under colonialism, and to pursue state-led development instead. (Sachs and Warner, 1997, pp. 22-24) This was common in Africa and is one reason why underdevelopment on that continent persists to this day. Mauritania demonstrates two of the worst lingering legacies of the colonial era in that it has externally imposed, and therefore continuously contested borders, and a near absolute lack of infrastructure to support its divided ethnic population. Decades of external aid have failed to address the fundamental problem of a state that has very little coherence internally, nor as a potential partner for its neighbours. In short, it is a failed colonial experiment and destined to be independent in name only, and riven by internal strife and abject poverty. In many ways it represents a worst case scenario of the path out of colonialism. India has better infrastructure and more legitimacy, along with an outward looking economy that builds on international trade links. These factors are helpful in tackling underdevelopment. Some features of the indigenous cultures, on the other hand, including the Hindu caste system, work against these trends. It can be concluded, therefore, that colonialism has had some negative effects on India, but that other factors may be equally, or even more important. There are some observers who see in modern international phenomena the lingering influence of colonialist ideas which affects all former colonies, regardless of their individual experience of particular colonial powers. Easterly points out for example that the concept of “Development” when applied to mainly southern hemisphere countries can imply a path that necessarily follows the leadership of the “Developed” countries, which of course are the former colonial powers. Often this occurs with disastrous consequences, as outmoded economic or socio-political models are foisted upon third world countries through supra and international bodies like the United Nations, the World Bank and the IMF: “So, one of the best economic ideas of our time, the genius of free markets, was presented in one of the worst possible ways, with unelected outsiders imposing rigid doctrines on the xenophobic unwilling” (Easterly, 2007, p. 1). Parallels drawn between the emergence of today’s superpower, the United States, with today’s developing country are very telling: the development of this huge nation occurred without the huge bureaucratic and ideological burden of modern globalisation: “George Washington did not have to deal with aid partners, getting structurally adjusted by them, or preparing poverty-reduction strategies for them” (Easterly, 2007, p. 3). The ability of the former colonial powers in Western Europe, along with America, to set the rules for a capitalist trading environment for the world creates an in-built advantage for mature economies, and an insurmountable hurdle for those who do not have high tech and advanced industries. Global oversight bodies were set up to regulate areas like Africa, which are rich in raw materials but not much else, without the involvement of African leaders, and this has compounded the initial imbalance (Woods, 2001, p. 84). In the light of these particular examples, and more general factors including the current domination of the West in global capitalism, it can therefore be concluded that the legacy of colonialism is multifaceted and complex. It has certainly interrupted state development and robbed some territories of legitimacy, creating illogical nation state entities such as Mauritania which now face an insurmountable set of challenges. In other states such as India the effect has been equally traumatic in the colonial period, but perhaps less damaging in the longer term. References Anderson, M. 1996. Frontiers: territory and state formation in the modern world. Cambridge: Polity Press. Arimah, B.C. 2004. Poverty Reduction and Human Development in Africa. Journal of Human Development 5 (3), pp. 399-415. Armijo, L.E. 2007. The BRICS Countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) as an analytical category: mirage or insight? Asian Perspective 31(4), 7-42. Bertocchi, G. and Canova, B. 2002. Did colonization matter for growth? An empirical exploration into the historical causes of Africa’s underdevelopment. European Economic Review 46, pp. 1851-1871. Bratton, M. and van de Walle, N. 1997. Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brautigam, D. and Knack, S. 2004. Foreign Aid, Institutions, and Governance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Economic Development and Cultural Change 52 (2), pp. 255-285. Easterly, W. 2007. The Ideology of Development, Foreign Policy. Fakir, I. and Boucek, C. 2010. Mauritania: 2009, Year in Review. Available at: http://www.iemed.org/anuari/2010/aarticles/Fakir_Boucek_Mauritania_en.pdf Fieldhouse, D.K. 1999. The West and the Third World: trade, colonialism, dependence and development. Oxford: Blackwell. Gandhi, Mohandas K. Hind Swaraj Or Indian Home Rule. Yann Forget and the Navajivan Trust, 2003. [first published in 1908] Available online at: http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/hindswaraj.pdf Klare, M. 2002. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. New York: Henry Holt and Co. Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in 36 Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press. Linz, J.J. and Stepan, A. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University. Mamdani, M. 1996. Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mauritania 2011. African Economic Outlook. Available at: http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/countries/north-africa/mauritania/ Nunn, N. 2009. The Importance of History for Economic Development. Annual Review of Economics 1 (1), pp. 65-92. Sachs, J.D. and Warner, A.M. 1997. Sources of Slow Growth in African Economies. Journal of African Economies 6 (3), pp. 335-376. Available online (pp. 1-54) at: http://www.cid.harvard.edu/ciddata/warner_files/afrgrow.pdf Sen, A. 1994. Development as capability expansion. In K. Griffin and J. Knight, (Eds.) Human Development and the International Development Strategy for the 1990s. London: Macmillan. Sieff, M. (2009) Shifting Superpowers: The New and Emerging Relationship between the United States, China and India. Washington D.C.: Cato Institute. Woods, N. 2001. Making the IMF and the World Bank More Accountable. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 77 (1), 83-100. Read More