For decades, a familiar narrative has dominated discussions on global inequality: the nations that once ruled and extracted from others now sit atop the economic hierarchy, while their former colonies remain trapped in cycles of underdevelopment. The case of Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia is often presented as one of historical injustice, where prosperity was stolen, and systemic barriers were put in place to ensure perpetual disadvantage.
This perspective, while not without merit, is incomplete. It overlooks an uncomfortable but critical reality: many of these nations, despite their vast resources and opportunities, have played an active role in undermining their own progress. The stark contrast between former colonies like the United States, Canada, Australia, and Singapore—now global powerhouses—and nations such as Nigeria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Haiti—still battling economic instability and governance failures—demands a deeper examination. The difference, in large part, lies in choices: governance, leadership, and the ability to adapt to a changing world.
The Limits of the Externalist Narrative
Some of the most widely referenced scholars on underdevelopment, such as Walter Rodney (How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 1972), have framed the issue almost entirely around external exploitation. Rodney’s central argument was that European powers designed African economies for extraction, leaving behind structures incapable of fostering self-sustaining growth. This school of thought, closely aligned with Dependency Theory (popularized by thinkers like André Gunder Frank and Samir Amin), argues that the global economic system remains rigged, keeping former colonies in a state of perpetual dependency.
Kwame Nkrumah’s Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism (1965) took this further, asserting that even after gaining independence, African nations remained at the mercy of Western financial systems, multinational corporations, and trade policies designed to benefit the industrialized world.
There is undeniable truth in these analyses. Colonial rulers did not lay the groundwork for industrialization in Africa or Latin America as they did in their own countries. Trade agreements often favored the colonial masters, and after independence, many former colonies struggled to break free from these economic chains.
But this explanation, compelling as it may be, is not the full story. It does not account for why some former colonies, facing similar historical disruptions, have prospered while others have stagnated. It does not sufficiently address the role of internal decisions—leadership failures, corruption, weak institutions, and poor strategic planning—that have done as much, if not more, to hold these nations back.
The Self-Inflicted Barriers to Development
1. Leadership: The Promise and the Betrayal:
Colonialism left behind broken institutions, but what happened next? In many cases, the newly independent nations inherited systems that required bold reform and vision. Instead, many fell into cycles of autocracy, corruption, and self-serving leadership.
Take Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo). Rather than dismantling the exploitative structures of colonial rule, he reinforced them—this time for personal gain. Billions of dollars meant for national development disappeared into private accounts, while infrastructure crumbled and poverty deepened. Nigeria, another nation blessed with abundant oil wealth, followed a similar trajectory, cycling through military regimes and kleptocratic leadership that prioritized elite enrichment over national progress.
Contrast this with Singapore, another former British colony. At independence in 1965, Singapore had no natural resources, deep ethnic divisions, and no real economic base. But Lee Kuan Yew and his government chose a different path. They built institutions that emphasized meritocracy, transparency, and economic innovation. Within decades, Singapore transformed into a global financial hub.
The lesson? Leadership matters. A nation’s trajectory is not solely determined by its colonial past but by the decisions made afterward.
2. The Resource Curse: When Wealth Becomes a Burden
Rodney and other dependency theorists emphasized how colonialism structured African economies for raw material extraction. What they did not fully explore was how post-independence governments continued this dependency through mismanagement and short-termism.
Consider Venezuela, a country with the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Instead of using its wealth to build a diversified economy, Venezuela became overly dependent on oil, neglecting industrialization, education, and sustainable policies. Under leaders like Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, nationalized industries became bloated and inefficient, foreign investors were driven away, and economic collapse followed.
Contrast this with Norway, another oil-rich nation. Instead of falling into the resource curse, Norway established a sovereign wealth fund, ensuring that oil revenues were managed for long-term national benefit. The difference? Governance, strategic foresight, and the discipline to plan for the future rather than indulge in political expediency.
3. Ethnic Politics and Institutional Fragility
Colonial rulers exploited ethnic divisions, but post-independence leaders often deepened these divides rather than healing them. Many African and Latin American nations suffer from political systems where ethnic or tribal identity determines access to power and resources, leading to cycles of tension, conflict, and instability.
Kenya’s elections, for example, frequently turn into ethnic battlegrounds, where alliances are not built around policies but tribal loyalty. Nigeria, still struggling with the scars of the Biafran Civil War (1967–1970), continues to wrestle with regional and ethnic distrust.
Indonesia, by contrast, also inherited colonial-era ethnic tensions. But instead of allowing them to define its national trajectory, the government took deliberate steps to promote unity, strengthen institutions, and focus on economic growth. Today, Indonesia is a rising economic power.
4. The Knowledge Gap: When Education is Neglected
Rodney argued that colonialism stifled education in Africa, leaving behind weak institutions of learning. While this is true, what is often missing from the discourse is how many post-independence governments failed to make education a national priority.
South Korea and Ghana had similar GDP levels in the 1960s. Yet today, South Korea is a technological and industrial powerhouse, while Ghana still struggles with economic volatility. The difference? South Korea invested aggressively in education and innovation, ensuring that its workforce was prepared for the demands of a modern economy.
Many African and Latin American nations, on the other hand, have neglected higher education, research, and STEM development, continuing the cycle of economic dependence.
Beyond Blame: The Path Forward
It would be intellectually dishonest to deny the lasting damage of colonialism. But it is equally dishonest to ignore the role that internal governance failures, economic mismanagement, and strategic complacency have played in keeping nations stagnant. The stark reality is that while history shapes a nation’s starting point, its future is determined by the choices it makes.
The difference between prosperity and stagnation lies not in colonial histories but in governance, institutional resilience, and the ability to adapt. The success of countries like Singapore, South Korea, and Indonesia—former colonies that overcame adversity—demonstrates that development is possible when nations take ownership of their destinies.
A New Intellectual Discourse
It is time to move beyond the simplistic victim-versus-oppressor narrative. Instead of solely condemning historical injustices, scholars, policymakers, and thought leaders must focus on solutions. What institutions need to be built? What policies will foster innovation and self-sufficiency? How can nations escape cycles of political instability and economic mismanagement?
Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia do not lack resources or potential. What they lack is the collective commitment to transform systems, demand accountability, and invest in long-term national development. The future of these nations will not be determined by the ghosts of colonialism but by the courage to embrace responsibility and act decisively.
