The Positive Legacy of Empire

Activists claim that colonialism was an unmitigated disaster. Yet decades after independence, ex-colonies are still benefiting from the legacy of colonial rule.

Written by Lipton Matthews.

Bruce Gilley ignited a storm of criticism in 2017 when he published an article advocating the recolonization of formerly colonised countries. Gilley had the temerity to suggest that Western colonialism produced broadly favourable outcomes in ex-colonies – to the anger and chagrin of his colleagues. Critics were so inflamed by Gilley’s thesis that few pondered the merits of his arguments. Predictably, they resurrected tales of colonial plunder and brutality. Yet anecdotes cannot discredit Gilley’s claims about the legacy of colonialism. After all, every society has witnessed plunder and brutality.

While activists insist that colonialism was an unmitigated disaster, there is a wide discrepancy between what they’d have us believe and what the academic evidence shows. Careful studies documenting the beneficial effects of colonialism have been overshadowed because they dispute the narrative of Western iniquity. Since articles in the popular media tend to be very one-sided, it is worth unpacking the studies that offer an impartial account of colonialism.

But before proceeding, it should be noted that colonialism is by no means peculiar to the West. Much has been written on the Benin Empire, for example, and on Japanese colonialism. Many critics of Western colonialism evidently lack a frame of reference. They cannot plausibly argue that European empires were uniquely brutal when they are never contrasted with those that existed in other parts of the world or before Europeans arrived.

The colonial legacies of non-Western countries are either swept under the rug or lauded as positive. Meanwhile, activists relentlessly criticise Western colonialism for political purposes. The heavily skewed debate on colonialism means that the average person knows that India was a colony of Britain, but not that Vietnam was once under China’s rule, or that Russia and Denmark subjugated white populations in Europe. The truth is that rather than padlocking development, Western colonialism actively promoted reform and social progress.

Let’s look at the evidence. A major study showed that countries with stronger pre-colonial states are less democratic today because they resisted colonialism, which curtailed European influence. By slowing the diffusion of liberal political ideas, these states fostered an autocratic culture that bred contempt for dissent and competition. Had European powers supplanted traditional institution, the relevant countries would likely be more democratic today. People in pre-colonial Africa and Asia sought power and status; indigenous political systems were not designed to elevate all groups.

Europeans were cognizant of reality on the ground, and they adjusted their mode of governance accordingly. Indirect rule lowered transaction costs for European powers by staving off resistance. And in fact, colonialism would have failed without the aid of local elites, who collaborated with colonial officials. Unfortunately, this hindered development in the long-term by preventing the transplantation of European institutions.

After gaining independence from Britain, Bornu in northeastern Nigeria lacked a modern civil service – which it might have had if more British bureaucrats had been there to assist in nation-building. Without adequate training, bureaucrats could not perform their duties effectively, and reflecting the legacy of the Bornu Empire, the civil service functioned as a tribal body that promoted individuals based on sentiment. By contrast, countries where European bureaucrats were instrumental to policy formation have more efficient government departments with greater independence for civil servants. These countries also rank higher on international measures of good governance.

Human capital is crucial for development. Hence countries struggle to develop when the necessary skills are not available. Unlike Bornu, where inefficient pre-colonial institutions remained extant, Botswana scaled European expertise to build a competitive society. Bureaucrat Amishadai Adu suggests that colonial institutions confer advantages when locals are properly trained:

These complex structures were usually imposed by the colonial administration to ensure effective action without the responsible participation by the indigenous people …Where, however, there had been time to train and give experience to Africans before the expatriates left, the structures inherited have been real assets.

These findings refute the claim that colonialism degraded political institutions. And the canard that it somehow entrenched poverty is inconsistent with data showing that regions with European property rights and legal institutions have better economic outcomes than similar regions without such institutions. A recent study replicated this finding in Namibia: areas that were under direct colonial rule had greater commercialization of agriculture; those governed by tenure systems, where elites authorise the allocation of land, were less prosperous. And this was true even after controlling for competing explanations, such as disparities in human capital, public infrastructure and market access.

Likewise, research has overturned the argument that colonialism impeded human capital formation. Missionaries were adjuncts of the colonial system and many established schools that catered to the preferences of locals, which enhanced development of human capital. For example, scholars have found that British missionaries accelerated the acquisition of numerical skills in Africa. Interestingly, the British appear to have been more successful in this regard than other European powers. British mission societies were highly productive, dramatically expanding education in colonies under British rule. As a result, the British established more schools, with higher enrolment numbers.

Critics will be shocked to discover that countries with a longer duration of colonial rule exhibit superior economic performance than those with a shorter duration. A possible explanation for this finding is that colonial rule expedited the transformation of traditional institutions by making them compatible with the exigences of modern economies. Decades after independence, ex-colonies have continued to benefit from colonial investments in both infrastructure and human capital.

Although China was not formally colonized by the West, missionaries – serving as agents of modernization – disseminated Western science, technology and healthcare to even remote parts of the country. Schools and hospitals sponsored by missionaries benefited millions of citizens and helped to boost economic growth by cultivating a better educated and healthier population. Regarding infrastructure, China reaped the fruits of customs stations managed by Westerners in the early twentieth century. The foreign-operated Chinese Maritime Customs Agency supervised native customs stations that complied with its procedural and transparency guidelines. As a result, areas with historical exposure to the authority of the CMC record less corruption and more favourable economic outcomes.

Another dubious claim contrary to the economic literature is that colonialism ravaged India. In fact, research finds that colonial states in India outperform the princely states on most socio-economic metrics. British institutions facilitated the development of human capital and promoted general gains in welfare – effects still linger post-independence. Also significant is that investments in railroads increased the incomes of agricultural workers, making it possible for such people to educate their children. British railroads are therefore partly responsible for male literacy in India.

The spectacular failures of post-colonial states expose the pitfalls of early independence. Some countries were granted independence before they were ready for self-government and the world watched their implosion. Rather than continuing to lament that they were colonized, it would make more sense to outsource their governance to competent states – at least temporarily.

It is likely that Haiti would be in a more advantageous position today if the revolution had floundered. That event, which saw the deaths of several hundred thousand people, is often portrayed as a great achievement. Yet Haiti was destined to collapse because a divided country lacking in human capital and facing diplomatic isolation simply could not flourish. Celebrating the Haitian Revolution may have a therapeutic effect but the reality is that Haiti is a failed state where a gangster called ‘Barbecue’ now claims to be leading a second "revolution”. Decolonization is often a joke that writes itself. But the people of Haiti aren’t laughing.

Lipton Matthews is a research professional and YouTuber. His work has been featured by the Mises Institute, The Epoch Times, Chronicles, Intellectual Takeout, American Thinker and other publications. His email address is: lo_matthews@yahoo.com

---

Support Aporia with a monthly subscription and follow us on Twitter.