Introduction: While many countries of the world have shown impressive growth and development, the economies of most African countries have remained stagnant. The causes for such stagnation are revealed in the colonial history of the continent. African history showed why nations failed in their socio-economic development.
It also described an important legacy that shaped the socio-cultural and political images of various countries. However, it does not provide a “direct guide” for policy intervention. Indeed, history is a tool for identifying the specific elements that led to the current state of affairs in African countries. African policy makers may tackle crucial issues that are shaped by historical legacies. These legacies still affect African societies in various ways. They reveal the effects of “colonialism and colonial institutions” on African capabilities to imitate or innovate or invent.
Studies show that African development has lagged behind other economies in the last sixty years. The growth rate of per-capita income of African economies has been below world average. Economists have tried to identify the causes of the large gap in per-capita income and overall economic development between African economies and other developing regions in the world. These studies dwell on the impact of colonization on the current economic performance of former colonies.
Researchers examined the importance of factor endowments and colonial rule for the subsequent economic development of former colonies. They also studied the legal institutions that were transplanted by the different colonial powers and the long-term consequences these had on investor protection and financial development. Generally speaking, these studies indicated both positive and negative impacts of colonialism on African development.
Some impacts of colonialism: W. Howthorne explains how ethnic fractionalization nurtured by colonial rulers tended to have negative impacts on economic and social development of the continent. Failure in African economic development is also attributed to geographical, climatic and internal institutional characteristics of the continent in general. R.M. Martin linked the low economic growth in Africa to colonial heritage.
The inadequacies of arbitrarily imposed colonial institutions explained a significant proportion of the underdevelopment of sub-Saharan Africa. Also, the extractive industries engendered by colonial heritage accounted for large growth gaps in this region. The former colonies that were governed by “indirect rule” are now politically and economically unstable. They also suffer from absence of the rule of law.
N. Nunn studied the long-run effects of slave trade in Africa. He found that the “larger the number of slaves” taken from a country during the slave trade, the worse was its subsequent economic performance. Colonial authorities had a higher tendency for the establishment of rent-seeking institutions. There was a tendency for creating institutions that ensured property rights. Studies made the distinction between direct and indirect rule. They showed positive relations between “direct rule” and quality of institutions and governance. They found counties where colonial officials collected revenue performed better than those where native land lords did through “indirect rule.”
The legal system that was transplanted in the colonies provided higher protection to investors. However, where legal protection of investors was weak, the capital market was the least developed. The weak legal systems together with various religious and ethnic groups were correlated with worse performance. The legal origin was also correlated with characteristics of the colonial power, such as economic growth, labor market regulation, contract enforcement and comparative advantage. The higher economic attainment at the end of colonization was reflected in higher levels of investment in post-colonial period. In other words, direct rule had registered better economic performance than the indirect one.
These studies emphasize the impact of the “identity of the colonizer” on the long-term development of these colonies. They also show a positive relationship between the early colonial investments in education, health and infrastructure and “the current” levels of economic and social services. They also indicated that the length of colonial rule had a “positive effect” on per capita income of former colonies.
Were the African colonies enabled to innovate and develop technologies that enhanced economic development? To answer this question, one needs to look into the “technological capability” to make effective use of technological knowledge in efforts to assimilate, use, adapt and change existing technologies. According to L. Kim, such capability enables one to create new technologies and to develop new products and processes. This is related to “absorptive capacity,” which has been decomposed into three different aspects: investment, production, and innovation- capabilities. The first ensures the construction of new productive sites, the second allows firms to adapt products to the market demand, and the third ensures creativity and knowledge.
The concept of absorptive capacity, originally developed in the “context of firms,” is now expanded to include technological capabilities at several levels of aggregation. At the “National” level, technological capabilities rely on the capacity to use financial resources efficiently, to develop general and technical skills, to acquire technology from abroad through Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and to encourage Research and Development (R&D) and inventions. Studies referred to “innovation with imitation” and other efforts the contributed to growth and development. This process of catching-up is far from being guaranteed in Africa. It depends on whether or not a country is equipped with the necessary capabilities mentioned earlier.
Low growth traps: Poor countries with relatively low “social capability” are “trapped” within limits. With limited technological capabilities as well as narrow social, institutional and political factors, it is hard to economically operate in poor countries. The low level of political transformation has affected former colonies and this differed from country to country.
Colonialism often correlates with overall violence. Resistance to this violence was expressed in terms of rejecting colonial rule, domination and exploitation. Violence against resistance movements was designed by colonialists to preserve domination. This was severely objected by traditional local elites.
The second type of resistance was against instruments of colonial domination such as taxation, expropriation and recruitment of labor. These forms of resistance were mainly carried out by peasants and workers. The third type of resistance took place during de-colonization, led by young educated elites. Some of these resistance movements were either violent or moderate depending on the type of colonial policies. These policies intentionally created and reinforced occupational specializations in the army, police, and administration along with ethno-linguistic and/or religious lines.
Studies refer to the “inadequate care” in the transfer of colonial administration to post-colonial institutions. Gradualism in the transfer of administration at the time of decolonization was an obstacle to faster development.
Economic and social transformation: The overall impact of colonialism on the economic transformation of African countries was analyzed in terms of investment situations. Investment had taken place in different economic sectors of the colonial countries. There was investment in railways, roads, tramways and telecommunications. Investment was also incurred in gas, electric and water works. The economic transformation also included the sectors of agriculture and mining.
The social transformation in the colonies includes the immigration of people from the colonizing countries. This relates to colonially induced labor immigration from other colonies or areas. Another social factor includes missionary activities. The colonial impact was also related to border creation. These borders were artificially created, incubating conflicts among neighboring African countries at the time of de-colonization. It was only through the wise decision of the OAU that border conflicts had been resolved upon independence of African countries.
Colonial institutions had negative effects on the economic development of the de-colonized countries. Effectiveness of African governments in political, economic and social sectors had been influenced by inherited colonial institutions. These institutions provided legal provisions, for example, for licensing and work permits for investors and workers from abroad. This tradition was continued after independence.
Conclusion: The influence of colonial powers in the African continent was both useful and devastating. Colonial legacies lasted through the ages, influencing social and cultural elements such as languages, habits and interactions. The former colonies now use languages of their colonial rulers as official means of international communication. The former colonial powers also influenced the economic and political systems in the de-colonized countries. In short, colonial transformation has affected the post-colonial institutional setup and the level of implementation capabilities.
There was strong relationship between the level of institutions and the absorptive capacity of de-colonized countries. This was expressed in terms of education, innovation and technological levels in these countries. Despite inherited institutional factors, the “continuing relationships” between the former colonial powers and the de-colonized countries has strong impact on their current level of economic development. It is not deniable that negative relationships have also disrupted the institutional setup in these countries.
After the euphoria of independence, Africans have lately realized that they need “African solutions” for their problems. This is true if only the problems are indigenous, created only by Africans themselves. But, imported problems come with their peculiar intricacies, requiring congruent responses. The question is whether these problems are
created by outsiders, insiders or both. The first step in solving these problems is to correctly identify their causes. This prevents us from designing the wrong solutions to the problems. In other words, we should take responsibility for solving our own problems. You have to search for the right causes to solve your problems as they sprout. One of these causes could be foreign, native, or both in its nature. Are native leaders the causes of their own problems? Or are they trapped in neocolonial intrigues for exploiting African resources?
“Silencing the Guns” is the right strategy to solving social crises, including war, skirmishes, and infighting between ethnic groups, tribes, clans and neighbors. But, “Silencing the Guns” does not necessarily lead to peace. Peace is not the “absence of war.” People are not at peace if they are hungry, sick, homeless, unemployed, deprived and dependent.
Added to these pernicious elements are the harmful effects that are gradual and subtle in their nature. These result in severe and damaging lack of basic material and cultural benefits to the people of Africa. Above all, they are denied of their civic rights to satisfy their basic needs in the land of plenty. Colonialism is replaced with neo-colonialism, in which foreign powers use economic instruments, including native leaders and partners, for subjugating African countries and for exploiting their rich natural resources.
The Ethiopian Herald Sunday Edition 8 March 2020
BY GETACHEW MINAS
