The claim that colonial empires had a lasting impeding influence on the nations that they historically dominated and from which they extracted resources is among the most significant aspects of the postcolonial view. Their power was disruptive to cultures and economies and aimed to take away the wealth of the colonies. As such, the idea is at least partially valid, with the now-independent nations lacking the resources they require to achieve economic development and livelihood improvement. However, former colonies display a vastly different degree of performance, with wealthy nations such as Singapore contrasting poor African countries such as Zimbabwe. The author of this essay believes that the cause of the difference is in these states’ usage of the institutions left behind by the colonizers. As such, they will attempt to identify three colonial institutions and explain how they may have contributed to current prosperity.
Colonial empires were not generally interested in actively developing their colonies any more than necessary, as the investment would not necessarily bring them any direct benefits. However, as O’Neil explains, they introduced the concept of a cash-based market and increased the movement of goods to and from the colonies, though there was no free trade (p. 317). These systems were essential in the efficient extraction of resources from the provinces, but they harmed the nations in the long term. In particular, as O’Neil states, “rather than finished goods, local economies were rebuilt around primary products” to suit the needs of the empire’s center, importing critical goods rather than producing them. As such, the influence of the colonial system on the economies of the nations had significant negative aspects that impeded them after they obtained independence.
However, the economic institutions that were introduced by colonial empires also helped align former colonies with the rest of the world post-independence and increased their amounts of trade. Hassan and Abdul Nasir describe the degradation of paddy-growing and fishing in Peninsular Malaysia under British rule, but they also highlight its transition into a center of trade that has made it wealthy today (p. 13). The nation took advantage of the economic routes that were established during its time as a colony and started amassing wealth from it. One may argue that former colonies that struggle to grow have failed to capitalize on the resources that made them attractive to colonists. Many of these sources of wealth, such as tea or coffee, are renewable and still desirable. As such, they can provide a stable source of revenue while the nation diversifies its production and attains prosperity.
Private property is another colonial institution that may have helped nations develop and improve their performance. Thirlwall and Pacheco-López claim that it has enabled some colonial countries to industrialize in the 19th century, which accelerated their development and contributed to their present-day state (p. 250). Private property contributes to the development of enterprise and, consequently, a free market, which spurs innovation. As a result, the productivity and infrastructure of nations where the concept was implemented early may be higher than in those where it emerged later on. In this context, it should be noted that, per Thirlwall and Pacheco-López, colonial empires did not introduce the institution in all of their domains, notably omitting most of Africa (p. 249). This distinction may explain part of the difficulties that these nations face compared to other former colonies.
The final type of institution that will be discussed in this paper is a political one, namely the introduction of ones that imitated European governance at the time. According to Thirlwall and Pacheco-López, the primary effect of the system introduced in many colonies was the prevention of anyone amassing excessive power (p. 249). As a result, their political systems could develop freely and flexibly after they obtained independence, enabling them to suit the needs of the environment. It should be noted that not all political and social ramifications of colonization were positive, and O’Neil suggests that it may have fostered gender inequality in regions where it was not prevalent (p. 316). However, the institution enabled nations to achieve greater equality on the whole and choose the course of their country after colonization instead of having it dictated by a small group of elites.
Colonial empires did not colonize nations with the intent of improving their functioning or helping them amass wealth. However, they created institutions, mostly for their convenience, that have benefited residents of these countries after they attained independence. These systems were not implemented everywhere, and not all former colonies may have taken full advantage of those they had. As a result, a wide disparity of outcomes exists between different examples. It indicates that colonization was not an entirely negative phenomenon and is associated with some benefits as well as problems. Countries that adapted to their new environment with the help of leftover colonial institutions prospered, and those that failed to do so struggled to grow economically. As such, while the postcolonial narrative is somewhat valid in terms of the damage done to colonies during the extraction of wealth, its view of the effects of colonization may be overly negative.
References
- Hassan, A. S., and M. H. Abdul Nasir. “Colonial City Planning in Penang with a Special Reference to the Government Buildings.” Heritage Architecture Studies, edited by V. Echarri and C. A. Brebbia, WIT Press, 2018, pp. 11-22.
- O’Neil, Patrick H. Essentials of Comparative Politics. 6th ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.
- Thirlwall, A.P., and Penélope Pacheco-López. Economics of Development: Theory and Evidence. Macmillan Education, 2017.