Why did some developing countries benefit from European colonialism while others didn't?

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Rocko20

Looking at modern day Singapore and Hong Kong, it's easy to trace it all back to its roots as a European colony. However when we look at other countries, especially in Africa, it's clear that colonialism was very detrimental unlike in several East Asian countries.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Are some countries and cultures just naturally adaptable and flexible when introduced to European ideals compared to others?

Londinium and other parts of England benefited to some extent from Roman Occupaton when they themselves were colonies of Rome.

The Romans built roads, help restore order, built a sewage and water system and were well ahead of their time in many fields. As the old Monty Python sketch goes 'What Did the Romans ever do for us....".

The British Isles were subject to numerous invasion well before we ever built an Empire.

Invasions of the British Isles - Wikipedia

As for the British Empire it may have been more beneficial to those couyntries who had commodities to sell, as it was started by Chartered Companies based on trade, and through trade railways, ports and other infrastrcture were created, whilst exports made the local rulers and people far wealthier. India and the export of tea and the spice trade bewing a case in point.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by John-UK

Botswana is 70% desert with a 2 million population, with 3% white. Texas is 2/3 of its area. Mining, cattle and tourism are the prime industries. The country is highly stable with Africa's oldest democracy, dating back to independence in 1966. By African standards the country is wealthy. Why? Those in power had the intelligence to keep what they already had and worked when the country was named Bechuanaland as a part of the British Empire. They knew they did not have the skills to run government departments. They kept the British running the place after independence. The Crown Agency recruits people from the UK to run the civil service roles with the local politicians at the top of the country.

It works.

I think you'll find most (if not all) of the those whose (at least partial) ancestry is from the former "fatherland" still running the societies in many countries, even those that are considered failed states & basket cases.

So perhaps it does not always works.

[John-UK]

Originally Posted by kovert

I think you'll find most (if not all) of the those whose (at least partial) ancestry is from the former "fatherland" still running the societies in many countries, even those that are considered failed states & basket cases.

I am not aware of any.

[marino760]

I encountered a woman from Ethiopia at my place of work. We started talking and it came up that I'm of Italian decent and that she was born and raised in Ethiopia. Much to my surprise, she was grateful Italy invaded Ethiopia. Her reason being is that Italians built roads and infrastructure in Ethiopia and brought Ethiopia into the 20th century though limited as it was, not to mention the good food, LOL.

[PossiblyIndecisive]

It depended on the nature of the colony. Was it a poorly developed area with large natural resources? In which case plunder was more appealing, this was the case across most of Africa. If it was somewhere without huge resources, but in a good location which made it an attractive trading post, then the best way to go was to develop the area, as was the case with Hong Kong.

Sparsely populated places such as Canada and Australia couldn't be exploited fully without manpower and basic infrastructure in place, since there wasn't much of that available they were colonised. New societies were essentially constructed from scratch.