The Acemoglu et al. thesis
Acemoglu et al.(2001) argue that geography determined the nature of colo-
nialism,which in turn had long-lasting effects on institutional development.
According to their thesis,there were two types of colonial state:‘extractive
states’ where the motive was to extract natural resources using cheap forced
184 Patterns and Determinants of Economic Growth
Box 9.1 The complex nature of colonialismNaive discussion tends to divide the contemporary world up into now-developed
countries (assumed to have been the colonizers) and now-developing countries
(assumed to have been the colonized) and to discuss the impact of the former on
the latter. In reality much of today’s developing world conquered large empires;
the Egyptian, Persian, Ottoman, pre-Colombian American and Mughal empires
lasted centuries. One of the greatest colonial expansions was that of the Arab
world into North Africa, Spain and parts of France after the death of Muhammed
in 632 CE. Much historical colonization was conducted among today’s devel-
oped countries. Europe established numerous internal empires such as what is
now France under Charlemagne in the eighth and ninth centuries, under Louis
XIV in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and under Napoleon in the nine-
teenth century. Southern and South-eastern Europe is today relatively wealthy
by world standards but as part of the Arab and Ottoman empires has been a
colony longer than a colonizer.
The nature of colonialism has differed enormously across time and space.
Ten million people are estimated to have been killed as a consequence of
Belgian colonization of the Congo in the nineteenth century, but a study of
heights derived from military recruitment records and other sources suggests
that physical welfare improved during the British colonial period in Kenya and
Ghana (Moradi, 2008). The economic effects have differed greatly. Many schol-
ars accept that British colonial rule led to the deindustrialization of India in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries but many likewise agree that the Japanese
colonial state promoted rapid industrialization in Korea. Lal (2004:33) describes
the varying motivations behind imperialism: ‘revenue maximising objectives of
a predatory state’ (ancient Mesopotamia); ‘the search for glory’ (Alexander the
Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan); ‘expanding the territorial area of empire to
keep nomadic predators at distance’ (Chinese, late Egyptian, Roman); ‘booty
and Christian conversion’ (Spanish and Islamic); and ‘trade and commerce’
(British and Dutch).
It is difficult to argue there was any single motivation behind the expansion
of the British Empire. The extremely decentralized nature of its administration
left policy-making up to the discretion of colonial administrators and soldiers on
the spot: ‘The role of history, of the British Empire, in all this is clear to see.
Accidents and decisions made on a personal, almost whimsical, level have had a
massive impact on international politics. The empire ... [had a] belief in the indi-
vidual action of its servants, with very little supervision and without any real
central philosophy’ (Kwarteng, 2011:140).