Sachs does in fact talk about colonialism and is clear in his condemnation of it. He explicitly rebuts Niall Ferguson’s contention that colonialism was good for colonies, including Africa, because it sped industrialisation:

These are misleading accounts in my view, for although empire did extend infrastructure and technology, it did so to Britain’s advantage. Without empire, the same technologies could have diffused in many other ways… Japan, for example, did not fall prey to empire to achieve the technological benefits of the age, By keeping its sovereignty, Japan enjoyed an even quicker ascent into industrialisation than the colonies.

He’s also clear about colonialism’s effect on Africa specifically:

Little surpasses the western world in the cruelty and depredations that it has long imposed on Africa. Three centuries of slave trade… were followed by a century of brutal colonial rule. Far from lifting Africa economically, the colonial era left Africa bereft of educated citizens and leaders, basic infrastructure, and public health facilities.

So Sachs is certainly aware of colonialism and its adverse affects on Africa’s development. But there’s no question it’s not a central part of his thesis on Africa’s failure to develop. Why?

Simply, I think he simply thinks other factors are more important: notably, geography, disease and lack of exposure to important technologies. He notes that Africa’s income has grown over the last two hundred or so years, just consistently less fast than the West’s, and this explains the difference between them now. Colonialism is certainly part of the reason for Africa (and Asia’s) slow growth, but I suspect Sachs simply wouldn’t rate it as one of the most important reasons.

The idea that colonialism and slavery are central to the picture is related to “dependency theory,” a view that became popular in the 1970’s amongst African economists and politicians. It argues that Africa’s poverty is a necessary complement to the West’s wealth, because it is off the backs of Africa that the West has got rich; so involvement with the West will only ever harm Africa. This view is still heard today, in modified form, in the view that globalisation only ever works to the benefit of rich countries.

Sachs, while aware of the inequities of extreme and excessively fast globalisation, is having none of the wider point.

Many people assume that the rich have gotten rich because the poor have gotten poor. In other words, they assume that Europe and the United States used military force and political strength during and after the era of colonialism to extract wealth from the poorest regions, and thereby to grow rich. This interpretation of events would be plausible if gross world product had remained roughly constant, with a rising share going to the powerful regions and a declining share going to the poorer regions. However, this is not at all what happened. Gross world product rose nearly fifty-fold. Every region of the world experienced some growth… but some regions experienced much more growth than others. The key fact of modern times is not the transfer of income from one region to another, by force or otherwise, but rather the overall increase in world income, but at a different rate in different regions. (My emphasis)

So in other words, Sachs recognises the role of colonialism in slowing Africa’s growth, but sees it as one of many factors causing this. But he doesn’t accept the idea that Africa’s impoverishment is in some way a necessary part of the West’s wealth, or that wealth for both sides isn’t possible. “All of the world, including today’s laggard regions, has a reasonable hope of reaping the benefits of technological advance. Economic development is not a zero-sum game… this game is one that everyone can win.”

Hope that clears that up. I’m not saying Sachs has it right. Lord knows I need to finish the book before I start analysing some of the criticisms of it. But it’s not an issue he’s ignored… rather, I just didn’t address his comments on it properly before.

One thing that puzzled me: In his history of economic development Sachs has made no mention of the fact of exploitation in Africa? The fact is bare, that quantities of mineral wealth, food, and even people, were simply removed from Africa by the industrialised nations during the last two centuries; does that not explain Africa’s “failure to benefit” from economic growth? Seems like a large oversight to me.

Cheers, Huggsy