These aren’t exclusive

China in Africa: win-win development, or a new colonialism?

It’s entirely possible for it to be both you know.

After all, British in India was, made India very much richer.

Oh yes, it did. GDP per capita didn’t rise much between Clive and Mountbatten, true, but it rose a bit. The number of per capitas tripled and more. That’s Malthusian growth, to be sure, but it is still economic growth.

5 thoughts on “These aren’t exclusive”

  1. @BIG: UK mainland GDP rose by a factor of 4x.

    (In fact the source for this, the Maddison Project, says that Indian GDP per capita did fall slightly between Clive and Mountbatten, by about -8%, but that must be well within the margin of error of the estimates.)

  2. Cadet, thanks for the number.

    Tim, I actually didn’t want to make a point about colonialism beyond how places fared afterwards and why.

    Believe it or not I was mentally comparing India and Israel, both decolonised by the UK at roughly the same time and both then undergoing decades of leftist mismanagement thereafter. The British impact on India was of course much greater than that on Israel, the duration of colonisation and civility with which the place was decolonised being rather higher.

    The end result is that, for whatever reason, India has only recently started to really profit from the legacy of colonialism. Even worse, there places haven’t really started yet.

    China and Ethiopia aren’t of much relevance to that comparison.

  3. @Tim Worstall

    Did we (Britain) improve life for natives in our African colonies, or did we exploit them and make them poorer as Belgium did?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *