Slate's Bizbox
the dismal science: The search for better economic policy.

Master of the IslandWhich country is the best colonizer?

By Joel Waldfogel
Posted Thursday, Oct. 19, 2006, at 3:09 PM ET
Illustration by Robert Neubecker. Click image to expand.

A generation ago, Christopher Columbus was a hero. No longer. Even my preteen kids can tell you that Columbus' followers brought disease and death to many New World natives. But as the forerunner of European colonization, can Columbus also claim to have ushered in an era of higher standards of living?

One of the deep questions in economics is why some countries are rich and others are poor. It is widely believed that institutions such as clear and enforceable property rights are important to economic growth. Still, debates rage: Do culture, history, government, education, temperature, natural resources, cosmic rays make the difference? The reason it's hard to resolve this question is that we have no controlled experiments comparing otherwise similar places with different sets of legal and economic institutions. In new research, James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, both of Dartmouth College, consider the effect of a particular aspect of history—the length of European colonization—on the current standard of living of a group of 80 tiny, isolated islands that have not previously been used in cross-country comparisons. Their question: Are the islands that experienced European colonization for a longer period of time richer today?

Imagine the ideal experiment for measuring the role of European colonization on economic growth. You would take a bunch of Europeans, set them down on different isolated islands for different lengths of time, wait a few hundred years, and then check to see whether the islands fertilized with Europeans for longer periods had become more prosperous. The insight of Feyrer and Sacerdote's paper is that the colonization that followed European voyages of discovery to the Pacific created just this experiment.

Mitiaro, Pohnpei, and Aitutaki—these are small islands in the Pacific that were colonized by European explorers at different times. They, and 77 other islands in the Atlantic, Pacific, and elsewhere, constitute the data the authors use in their study. Scholars who have made cross-country comparisons before have ignored these islands. Europeans "discovered" some of these places by accident. Pitcairn Island was colonized when the crew of the HMS Bounty staged a mutiny after an arduous trip to Tahiti under Capt. William Bligh. Explorers encountered Penrhyn, in the Cook Islands, after storms wrecked their vessels on its shores.

Feyrer and Sacedote's key findings are that the longer one of the islands spent as a colony, the higher its present-day living standards and the lower its infant mortality rate. Each additional century of European colonization is associated with a 40 percent boost in income today and a reduction in infant mortality of 2.6 deaths per 1,000 births.

By itself, the relationship between longer colonization and higher living standards could arise either because European contact raised living standards or because European explorers colonized the most promising islands first. The authors cleverly reject the latter possibility by noting that the sailing of the day relied on wind, which meant that islands located where wind is weak were "less likely to be discovered, revisited, and colonized by Europeans." Thus, wind conditions, rather than island promise, determined which islands were colonized first, and so which islands remained as colonies longer. The relationship between colonial duration and wealth reflects the effect of colonization on material living standards, rather than the other way around.

So, what did the Europeans do right? The authors conclude that there's no simple answer. The most plausible mechanisms include trade, education, and democratic government. When the study directly measures these factors, some of them help to explain income differences among islands—for example, the places that traded only basic agricultural products in colonial times now have lower living standards. But even after accounting for these concrete determinants, longer European colonization has some extra pro-growth effect. Exposure to European colonizers, it appears, benefits living standards for reasons apart from the direct effects of government, education, and markets.

To be sure, Europeans have not always been benevolent masters. Before the Enlightenment, they tended to view natives as savages who were better off dead than not baptized. After about 1700, however, attitudes began to change. While 16th-century explorers like Magellan set out to spread Christianity as well as make money, later voyages, like those of English Capt. James Cook between 1768 and 1779, had more explicitly scientific aims. The experience of island colonies reflects the difference. When the authors divide the islands into those that were colonized in the centuries before 1700 and those that were colonized after, current island income is 64 percent higher per century for the post-Enlightenment group but only 11 percent higher per century for the pre-Enlightenment one. And, no, the effects don't appear to stem from the replacement of decimated low-income native populations with higher-income Europeans.

The authors also compare the experiences of separate Pacific islands with eight different colonizers: the United States, Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Japan, Germany, and France.* Their verdict is that the islands that are best off, in terms of income growth, are the ones that were colonized by the United States—as in Guam and Puerto Rico. Next best is time spent as a Dutch, British, or French colony. At the bottom are the countries colonized by the Spanish and especially the Portuguese.

There is no disputing that thousands died in the wake of European explorers' discovery of the New World. That's bad. But we can still give a small cheer for Columbus, because European colonization brought riches in its wake.

Correction, Oct. 23, 2006: The original sentence included Denmark among the eight colonizers that the study compares. It should have included the Netherlands instead. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Illustration by Robert Neubecker.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

You have to be joking. Imperialism (let's call it what it is) was and continues to be a complete disaster for the majority of those upon whom it is visited. These economists want to make a generalization about colonialism from studying isolated Pacific Islands? Someone should take away their credentials. The U.S., a set of early colonies, became the global hegemon through genocidal westward expansion, plantation slavery, economically colonizing Latin America (military interventions included, on behalf of multinationals like Dole), industrializing around the same time as Europe, and making it through WWII without being de-industrialized. Instead of distinguishing, dubiously, between pre- and post-Enlightenment colonization (the Enlightenment brought its own share of colonial atrocities, some of them worse than those that came before), or among which imperial administration, it would be far more useful to understand a) the profiteering partnership between imperial administrations and colonial elites, and their parasitical relationship vis a vis the dispossessed; b) the continuity of that relationship through today (the cheer for Columbus bringing riches in his wake would not be joined by a majority of the postcolonial world); and c) the position of each colonial territory vis a vis the development of world capitalism. In order to understand why Feyrer, Sacerdote, and Waldfogel are not simply incorrect, or even wrong, but heinously ahistoric in their analysis, I recommend for example "Open Veins of Latin America," by Galeano, or even economists such as Stiglitz and Krugman. The conclusion of the piece left me gobsmacked: it's like deciding to cheer the development of Hollywood because the Holocaust gave us all those nice Jewish-American directors.

--corvad

(To reply, click here.)

These conclusions have absolutely no support without consideration of key historical facts. Just to name one, Puerto Rico had been a Spanish colony for 400 years BEFORE the US even thought about colonizing it. It was already a nation with government institutions and economic infrastructures. You can never compare this from taking islands from point zero like some other countries had to do. Besides US island colonization basically dates back to only 110 years...should we REALLY be comparing this to the European case? The answer is NO. Please stop judging colonial history as if you were dealing with ants.

--Bbal

(To reply, click here.)

The biggest question: Why do this study at all? To create public policy that recommends centuries-long re-colonization for the poorest of islands?

There is so much silliness in the basic assumptions of the study that it's hard to believe it could be taken seriously by anyone [The rest of this post is a comprehensive critique of the article and underlying study. It is well worth the read, but too long to quote here. You can read further here —G.A.]

--FatsDurston

(To read more, click here.)

This article is at most misinformed, at worse misleading, as evidenced by the biased picking and choosing of countries, then ignoring the few countries in the world which were not colonized and compare them to their neighbors.

The gist of the article was colonization by European colonies was good. But let's see examined the non-colonized countries (there are very few) compared to comparable colonzied countries.

For example, Thailand was not colonized by any European country and is presently doing much better economically and socially than its British-colonized neighbor Myanmar or its French-colonized neighbors of Laos or Cambodia.

--Liquid

(To reply, click here.)

A clarification of the author's final paragraph. Historians have long identified the "Columbian Exchange" (cross-fertilization of flora, fauna, and diseases between the Old and New World) as the most significant long-term outcome of European colonization.

The "many thousands" reference is surely well-wide of the mark: most reasonable estimates place that number in the many millions, not thousands. Among the Aztecs (Mexica) alone, the pre-contact population approached some 20 million. Less than 100 years later (c. 1600), that number plummeted to around 1 million.

The culprit of this demographic disaster was disease, of course, not European avarice. But the scale of this effect must be considered more honestly in any cost-benefit analysis of European colonization.

--clioguy

(To reply, click here.)

(10/22)