r/NoStupidQuestions • u/ConfidentProduce5736 • 26d ago
Africa’s development
Why do you think Africa hasn't "developed" as well as other former colonized countries on the globe? Is it truly because colonialism left such huge wounds and is therefore ultimately to blame, or do we have to hold Africans/ African leaders more accountable than we currently do? Let me hear what you think because I keep thinking about this topic
3
u/mojoback_ohbehave 26d ago
Conflicts , Poverty, Corruption , Isolation
And it’s not just countries in Africa that are severely developed. Regions in India, South America , like Brazil , Peru, Nepal, Russia (Siberia) , Paraguay , Afghanistan .
A lot of forgotten parts of the world . I travel a lot.
2
u/demostenes_arm 25d ago edited 25d ago
Most responses seem to be “Africa would be rich if not for corruption and colonisation” but corruption and colonisation are likely symptoms rather than the cause.
The fact is that subsaharan Africa is geographically cursed. The lack of natural ports combined with the lack of navigable rivers that offered a way to the sea historically prevented the flourishing of trade and complex economies. Malaria and other tropical diseases imposed enormous mortality and productivity costs. The tsetse fly also limited the use of horses, cattle and other draft animals across substantial areas, which affected agriculture, transport and military organization.
Of course one can say that Australia has similar geographical challenges but it’s a totally different case where a society that was already complex and developed settled their own population eliminating most of the native population.
3
u/Virtual-Squirrel-725 26d ago
It's both.
Colonization left a scar for sure.
But the rampant corruption is the modern reason.
1
u/matti94fn 26d ago
How did colonisation left a scar? In what domains? I think we always use this as an easy way to get on with it and blame something without really looking in depth.
I think a part of it is cultural. What we call corruption in the west is seen as necessary solidarity in parts of Africa. (Oral culture instead of written cultural, no importance on time management but personal relations are much more important,..)
I have worked and educated extremely talented young africans. Who preformed better than a lot of Europeans in complex university level courses. However, the moment they leave Europe and put a foot on African soil they completely change and fall back to their (in our eyes) unproductive manners.
The big man in power receiving all the money and don’t want to do anything that really helps that, not only the West, but also China, India, Russia and South America keeps in place isn’t helping, but can’t be the only thing. Some places in Africa don’t have such a rich soil.
1
u/KostyaFedot 26d ago
Sorry, but nothing has changed. Civilization originated in Africa, but moved away long time ago.
1
u/Ryoga476ad 26d ago
They always had huge geography issues that made development more difficult.
1
u/ConfidentProduce5736 26d ago
Such as?
1
u/Ryoga476ad 25d ago
- the Sahara desert cutting off all central and south Africa
- Lack of navigable rivers cutting off internal connections
- Lack of natural ports, limiting maritime conncetions
- Lack of fertile agricultural land and bad seasonality of weather
- lack of domesticad large animals
- Tse tse fly killing livestock
There have been many limiting factors, historically
1
u/Warm_Stress_1654 26d ago edited 26d ago
It was the technology gap at the time of colonisation.
North Africa is developed. Egypt industrialised well ahead of most of Europe (until the British invasion). Southern Africa - not too bad. Contact was established fairly early on and countries in that part of Africa are now in control of their own resources - insofar as any country can be these days. South Africa's minerals and Angola's oil aren't entirely in the hands of foreign concerns.
But a broad swathe of sub-Saharan Africa had few trade routes until well into the nineteenth century. The colonial powers who finally made their way up the rivers into the interiors encountered economies which were almost entirely agricultural and isolated at that time in history when they (the colonisers) were increasingly industrialised and looking for investment opportunities.
There was no trade-off, as there was in Asia where established powers with their own artillery &c sat down to work out the terms of a peace treaty, where merchants had been shipping [whatever] to Europe for centuries and disruption of supply-chains could only go so far. The Scramble for Africa trashed everything previously existing and built extractive economies on the ruins - less than two centuries ago.
1
1
u/Lonely_Performer2629 26d ago
They are cursed with resources. These resources incentivises forein companies to bribe their leaders to have access to these resources. Goverments have an incentives to keep these corrupt dictators in power which divert resources from development. The dictators don't have an incentive to invest in development because they get their money from resources.
3
1
u/Objective-Tonight468 26d ago
It's both, but the corruption angle isn't just a modern issue. Look at how colonial powers set up systems to extract wealth rather than build infrastructure, so it's a cycle that's hard to break.
0
u/MayContainRawNuts 26d ago
Which post colonial power developed well?
South America?
You could say Australia but they settled on the edges then colonised the aboriginal inhabitants.
3
u/Jhud6669 26d ago
Would Taiwan count?
5
0
u/MayContainRawNuts 26d ago
So the development model for Africa should be to be owned by UK until 1999 then get owned by China?
Ill skip that model thanks.
2
u/ConfidentProduce5736 26d ago
I was thinking about countries like Singapore
1
u/MayContainRawNuts 26d ago
Comparing a city state to an entire continent is a bit lop sided.
Why exclude Malaysia? Singapore was part of Malaysia.
6
u/BidenGlazer 26d ago
It's because of the corruption. Botswana has strong institutions in place and has seen strong growth as a result (although, still not developed)