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.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS