Since de-colonization, Africa has gone from a roughly late-19th century Euro-American equivalency to, except in specific areas, roughly mid-19th century equivalent. If you think aid does not actively harm development, what is your explanation?
So, first of all, I don’t know enough about the topic to know whether the claim that you’re making is correct. I would appreciate a reference supporting your claim.
A natural explanation for the alleged phenomenon that you allude is that colonization introduced foreign elements to Africa which worked okay in juxtaposition with the colonial occupation but which caused serious problems once the colonial powers pulled out on account of these foreign elements meshing poorly with the native cultures.
It isn’t so much a claim as my opinion based on general reading rather than a specific reference. There are actually many potential differences and problems about development in African nations, I was pointing out that anyone making the claim that aid has any beneficial effect has to explain the apparent retrogression. For a good introduction to the problems of development, William Easterly’s books, The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics and The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good, are a good and fairly readable start.
You could also make the claim that colonization was in reality a massive aid campaign to the colonized lands, and that the problem has been caused by the effective reduction in aid since de-colonization. There have been several good studies that, contra the general belief, colonies were a net drain on the colonizers, and the colonized peoples gained more economic value than was extracted. The primary beneficiaries being a few large special interests.
So, first of all, I don’t know enough about the topic to know whether the claim that you’re making is correct. I would appreciate a reference supporting your claim.
A natural explanation for the alleged phenomenon that you allude is that colonization introduced foreign elements to Africa which worked okay in juxtaposition with the colonial occupation but which caused serious problems once the colonial powers pulled out on account of these foreign elements meshing poorly with the native cultures.
It isn’t so much a claim as my opinion based on general reading rather than a specific reference. There are actually many potential differences and problems about development in African nations, I was pointing out that anyone making the claim that aid has any beneficial effect has to explain the apparent retrogression. For a good introduction to the problems of development, William Easterly’s books, The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics and The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good, are a good and fairly readable start.
You could also make the claim that colonization was in reality a massive aid campaign to the colonized lands, and that the problem has been caused by the effective reduction in aid since de-colonization. There have been several good studies that, contra the general belief, colonies were a net drain on the colonizers, and the colonized peoples gained more economic value than was extracted. The primary beneficiaries being a few large special interests.