Third World Problems:
A Post-Colonial Legacy?

Edward J. Dodson

[May 1989]

Political economy, an interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of history and current societal problem, has become a method of choice for analysts in the related social science fields. Nowhere is this acre evident than in discussing relationships between the highly developed, industrial-based societies and those we often categorize as members of the third world. Why is it that so many of the third world societies have, for the most part, failed to develop as stable, social-democracies that generate for their citizens a reasonably high standard of well-being? To what extent have the socio-political arrangements established under their colonial experiences influenced the rate and degree of their development? We cannot change these societies from the outside; however, a better understanding of their problem will allow us to engage in productive dialogue within the international arena.

When one compares distribution of well-being (criteria that best reflects quality of life issues) the circumstances in nearly all the former mother countries is far better than in the former colonies by whatever measurements one chooses to make. The question, then, is whether the remnants of colonialism are primarily responsible.

THE VICTORS AND THE VANQUISHED

As is often noted, modern colonialism, which began in earnest during the sixteenth century, is defined primarily in terms of the European nation-state and its use of military force to gain control over distant territories and other societies. One can summarize the political economy categorization of these subordinated groups into one of two types:


1. Nomadic groups whose numbers were relatively small and who survived primarily as hunter-gatherers, who supplemented their subsistence by some trade and crop/animal domestication. Their level of socio-political sophistication might be high (as with the Iroquois in North America and the Zulu of Southern Africa) or almost non-existent (as with the Australian Aborigines).


2. Settled societies characterized by very structured urban socio-political hierarchies. Power (and control over distribution of wealth) us generally shared by the warrior class and those charged with things spiritual. Although often successful in commerce and warfare, these societies had not acquired the technology of firearms manufacture.

The European invaders faced by these target societies were themselves often in direct competition for control over the same trade routes, raw materials and territory; and, the European nation-states made effective use of existing animosities between indigenous groups to further their conquests. A point not missed by today's analysts is that once the number of potential adversaries us reduced, the Europeans had a much easier time subduing the remaining tribal groups. This us certainly the case during the first 150 years of European expansion in the Americas.

Decimation of the indigenous people us also hastened by European introduction of new forms of disease, which reduced their ability to resist encroachments. In the Americas, both the British presence in the north and the Spanish in the south resulted in the rapid destruction of indigenous populations, so much so that after less than a century the need arose for slave labor and the targeting of Africa as the next colonial arena. The French influence was far less disruptive because of their emphasis on acquiring trade monopolies, the absence of sizable finds of gold and other precious metals, and a restrictive emigration policy on the part of the French monarchy.

BRITAIN'S LEGACY OF MIXED BLESSINGS

Where many recent efforts to interpret the political economy effects of colonialism fall short is in not adequately distinguishing the large-scale migration of skilled and propertied individuals from the British Isles (and other European states) to North America, Australia and New Zealand, a migration of talent that set the stage for a very different form of colonial experience than that which occurred under Spain and France, as well as elsewhere under Britain itself. The drain of talent from Britain was so great during the early 18th century that an Act of Parliament was required to stem the flow to North America; and, in the colony of Massachusetts, maximum wage laws were enacted because the demand for skilled labor could not be met. Only much later in North America did the arrival of the propertyless and unskilled generate conditions similar to that in the Old World and its other colonial outposts.

It is important to note that the British subjects in North America considered themselves the equals of subjects living in the mother country. They fused English common law and Parliamentary Acts with the frontier experience of self-reliance to set the stage for later independence. Indigenous socio-political arrangements in most other targeted societies were replaced not by participatory, quasi self-government but by military rule the purpose of which us to institutionalize mercantilism and extract raw materials (including slaves for transport to other colonies). The landed nobility and commercial financiers in Europe (in return for loans to finance the European wars of consolidation) were awarded extraordinary monopoly licenses by their monarchs over trade, as well as virtually unlimited land grants in whatever colonies they discovered. Britain, alone among the major colonial powers, promoted and encouraged migration -- because their primary early objectives were commercial, even if extractive. Mercantilism required a fairly skilled labor force to harvest raw materials for the growing industrial sector at home. Later, speculation and profits associated with land sales became an added important component in the effort to attract new immigrants.

To a far greater extent than Britain or even France, Spanish rulers depended on mineral resource extraction in the southern Americas to buy goods their society was unable to produce. The process of enclosure had been going on in Britain; however, in France and even more so in Spain, those who worked the land were virtual serfs with no rights to property or citizenship. Most of the peasants had been bled dry by heavy taxation, while the nobility and the church were taxed not at all. As a consequence, Spain was almost totally dependent upon imports to feed its population and to finance its government (using its still powerful military to extract tribute in its colonies).

The pattern of domination/subordination in the more advanced targeted societies differed in effect if not in intent for what I see as very practical reasons. For one thing, Asia was less accessible and more densely populated than the Americas or Africa. The financial resources required to establish a permanent military presence in India and China were extremely draining (and, a number of historians have demonstrated that empire-building benefited only the few in the mother country while placing tremendous quality of life burdens on the general population). Many European leaders realized it made such more sense to enter alliances with indigenous leaders who -- for a price - were more than willing to sanction a monopoly trade relationship with one group of Europeans and against the others. As industrial capital developed, the partners merely worked together to force a shift in production from foodcrops and other goods for domestic consumption to extraction/export commodities. That arrangement continues today in many so-called Third World nations.

DIFFERENCES IN OST-COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT

Certainly, the nature of the colonial experience and the socio-political arrangements imposed on indigenous people by outside rulers has almost always been devastating. However, where the indigenous society had already become settled and a sophisticated division of labor established, the framework of oppression of the many by the few merely acquired an added dimension. Landlordism of an agrarian type evolved into industrial-landlordism centered in the urban, colonial administrative centers, seaports and other cities that were built. I contend, however, that left to their own accord, these societies would have eventually acquired many of the same oppressive characteristics of European industrial-landlordism; also as in Europe, the Liberal counter-reaction (Fabian socialism, Marxism, or Progressivism) would have arisen over time. Colonialism hastened the process and helped to determine who the post-colonial rulers would be; however, even without direct colonial rule technological changes would have given to indigenous rulers the same power to organize production to their own benefit at the expense of the masses. The framework of monopolistic privilege was already well entrenched.

NORTH AMERICAN INDIVIDUALS

In North America, settlers were lured from Europe by the promise of greater political liberty and by the access to free or very cheap land. Land, then, became the basis for nearly universal property ownership (and the rights of citizenship connected therewith) -- but only for those of European heritage (and, for a long time, of a particular religious affiliation). The same was true of Australia and New Zealand. Virtually everywhere else in the colonial world the military governors oversaw the creation of oligarchical systems that concentrated all political and economic power in the hands of the few, where necessary, they included already existing indigenous hierarchies into the scheme. Too frequently, the departure of the European colonial regime simply meant turning political control back to the indigenous despots who then continued to sanction the monopolistic extraction of resources and exploitation of the many.

U.S. FOREIGN POLICY/CONSERVATIVE AND ELITIST

If those at the bottom had any illusions about receiving assistance from the United States in their struggles against ruling elites, U.S. neo-colonial adventures in Central and South America during the 19th and early 20th centuries left no doubt that our designs were very much in the European tradition. Even Jefferson's own interpretation of free trade supported the use of U.S. military force to secure access to foreign markets.

From the very beginning, U.S. business interests were very successful in directing the use of Federal monies and military force on behalf of narrow self-interest. The emergence of the Soviet Union (and shortly thereafter the Peoples Republic of China) as major military powers whose agenda included a dismantling of Western neocolonialism -- to be replaced, sadly, by equally despotic regimes under Marxist-Leninist-Maoist colonialism -- added to U.S. monopolistic interests the political weapon of knee-jerk anti-communism to an already corrupted foreign policy agenda. By the late 1950s, the Jeffersonian vision of the democratic-republic as agent on behalf of universal property ownership had been replaced by incrementalist Liberalism at home and realpolitik neocolonialism around the globe. This is the legacy of the Truman Doctrine designed by John Foster Dulles and carried into the 1980s by Kissinger and Brzezinski. In this sense, the overwhelming majority of people in all societies have been victimized by a global system of socio-political arrangements created to sanction and protect privilege and power for the few.

THE DEBT OWED

More than anything else, what those of us in the first world who are reasonably well off owe the disfranchised and impoverished of the Third World is our constant support of their efforts to secure just socio-political arrangements. We must apply constant pressure on our own governments to make human rights (the first of which is our birthright of equal access to use of the earth) a primary issue in foreign policy relations; the monopolists will fight this effort as they have done for hundreds of years and are doing today. The difficulty is that far too few of us in the First World understand why our own societies are not able to peacefully provide for all what philosopher Mortimer Adler calls the basic goods necessary for a truly human existence -- enough food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care and security in one's person and possessions. Until we are able to solve our own problem and provide leadership by example, the most we can do for people in the Third World is offer assistance that directly affects the daily lives of individuals, which in many cases requires circumventing corrupt State bureaucracies because of their propensity to siphon off so such of whatever financial and material resources are directed to Third World societies.

Working with the various transnational groups, such as Amnesty International or Greenpeace, has become an effective strategy for positive change in the global arena. At home, we must objectively examine our socio-political arrangements, identify privilege and clamor for its elimination -- so that government becomes the protector of equality of opportunity principles.