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.
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
RSS