Status Updates From Colonialism and Postcolonia...

The idea of Britain having 4 different types of colonialism appears to contradict the notion that a nation must have a single political-economic orientation for its colonies. Also, to what extent is ‘liberal’ low-level colonization often (if not always) a form of ‘mercantilist’ colonization, given that it raises elites, promotes monoculture, extracts revenue, etc? Political-economic ideology is a spectrum.

‘Two sets of variables were at work in inducing Spanish attention to particular reasons during the liberal phase... in one path, the combination of a sparse indigenous population and a strategic commercial port brought people and new institutions... in another path, the combination of a previous high level of colonialism and significant new mineral wealth sustained extensive colonial settlement...’ (122)

Worth noting that in some ways ‘low-level liberal colonialism’ sounds very similar to mercantilist colonialism (in which ‘a small group of elite allies’ are empowered, and thus wield capital/financial supremacy) (29). This implies colonizers may not have institutions of their own independent of colonized area, and that, at least sometimes, they simply made whatever was profitable for that territory.

Focus on institutions as tools for the distribution of resources. The main impact of colonial institutions on post colonial prosperity has to do with the way colonial institutions helped shape the flow of capital and investment, and concentrated wealth in the hands certain collective groups (19-20)

This book is enhancing my hatred of political science...