If you get involved in online debates about economic history, it is not long before someone tells you that the West is rich because it stole the resources of the regions it colonized. This stolen-wealth theory is cited as the reason that Britain and France are rich today, while Ethiopia and Burundi are poor. It also is sometimes used to argue that international capitalism is inherently unjust and that wealth must be radically redistributed between nations as compensation.
The problem is, the stolen-wealth theory is wrong.
Oh, it is absolutely true that colonial powers stole natural resources from the lands they conquered. No one disputes that. At the time, this definitely made the colonized regions a lot poorer. The UK, for example, caused repeated famines in India by raising taxes on farmers and by encouraging the cultivation of cash crops instead of subsistence crops. That is a pretty stark example of destructive resource extraction.
It is also probably true that this stolen wealth helped much of the West get rich. Of course, Western nations did not simply consume the resources they plundered — the international economy is not just a lump of wealth that gets divvied up, but rather relies on the productive efforts of individuals, companies and governments. Britain, for example, was able to industrialize not by consuming spices confiscated from India, but because its citizens invented power looms and steam engines and other technologies and because its people worked very hard at factories and plants that used those technologies.
However, steam engines and power looms and other industrial machinery required raw materials like coal and rubber as inputs. When those materials became less expensive, it became cheaper to substitute machines for human labor. That means that some of the resources stolen from colonies probably did give Britain and France part of the boost they needed to jump-start the industrialization that eventually made them wealthy.
So if the West did steal resources from colonized nations, and if this theft did help them get rich, why do I say that the stolen-wealth theory is wrong? I say that because the theory does not explain the international distribution of income today. It is no longer a significant reason why rich nations are rich and poor nations are poor.
The easiest way to see this is to observe all the rich nations that never had the chance to plunder colonies. Germany, Italy, Sweden, Denmark and Japan had colonial empires for only the very briefest of moments and their greatest eras of development came before and after those colonial episodes. Switzerland, Finland and Austria never had colonies. In addition, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong were themselves colonies of other powers. Yet today they are very rich. They did it not by theft, but by working hard, being creative and having good institutions.
Meanwhile, poor nations have long since taken control of their natural resources. State-controlled oil companies in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran and Russia own far more of the world’s oil than do giant Western corporations like Exxon or BP. African nations control their own mines and Latin American nations their own crop land. The era of resource theft by rich nations is over and done.
Yet still, somehow, these nations are not very rich. Only a small handful of tiny nations whose economies are based on natural resources — Brunei, Kuwait and Qatar among others — are actually rich. Most are poor, despite controlling all of their own wealth. This sad fact is known as the resource curse.
So it is unlikely that resource-rich nations would have become industrialized, but for the depredations of colonialism. It seems quite possible that colonial nations such as the UK and France would have gotten rich without their resource plunder, as did Taiwan, Germany, South Korea and Switzerland.
Does that mean colonialism was a benign institution? Definitely not. At a bare minimum, the tens of millions killed by colonial conquests and famines leave an indelible stain on the West, and while colonialism had benefits in some places, in many others it left a nasty legacy that is felt to this day. Many economic studies show that regions where colonizers focused on extracting resources were later cursed with pernicious political institutions. Those regions, even today, exhibit poor economic performance.
So colonizing nations did steal resources and it did hurt colonies by doing it, but the real tragedy is how unnecessary that all was. Britain and France would have gotten rich without plundering Africa, India and Southeast Asia. All of that violence and conquest was probably for nothing.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.