Some time ago, Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson argued that areas of the globe where early colonists did not face a high mortality risk – such as North America and Australia - are now much richer countries. Many ex-colonies in Africa and the Caribbean, on the other hand, where colonists did face high mortality rates because of tropical diseases such as malaria, are now poorer.
Why is that? AJR claim that the reason is institutional. In those poor countries, the only institutions that were created in early colonial times were extractive. If only a small elite of colonists could survive the local diseases, colonizing nations had little incentive to create durable and non-extractive institutions or provide public services like health and education to the masses of the local populations. More livable colonies could be occupied en masse by the natives of the colonizing nations. These natives required institutions and had the knowhow to create them. The societies that developed there were therefore better organized and far more equal (if you leave out the indigenous populations who were often exterminated). The early institutional built-up, the argument goes, has survived until today, and it’s commonly accepted that good institutions play a key role in development.
Make of it what you will. Perhaps it obscures more than it reveals. In the wrong hands, this argument can be used to exonerate present-day autocratic rulers. After all, it takes time to build institutions, especially in countries burdened by a long tradition of (the wrong kind of) colonialism. Path dependence can be a lousy excuse.
More posts in this series are here.