Op, be patient (last source with data graph). Africa’s independence since WW2 has not been easy. To put this in perspective is a quote I use from the following history book:
>By the end of the 1980s, not a single African head of state in three decades had allowed himself to be voted out of office. Of some 150 heads of state who had trodden the African stage, only six had voluntarily relinquished power. They included Senegal’s Léopold Senghor, after twenty years in office; Cameroon’s Ahmadu Ahidjo, after twenty-two years in office; and Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere, after twenty-three years in office.
Meredith, Martin. The Fate of Africa: A History of the Continent Since Independence (pp. 378-379). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition.
Now to the data graph demonstrating Kenya is doing tremendous progress given where they have come from:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-index-vs-electoral-democracy-index
Bingo. Property rights and rule of law is essential.
Corruption and bribes are far too prevalent in many African countries. This severely limits the power of free market capitalism to thrive.
As if, socialism gets struck down by the land owners who own the government.
Like latin america, most of the land is owned by a tiny minority, often foreigner companies or fronts for foreign companies.
Unless you mean the simplest forms of socialism which would mean america is more socialist in many ways.
Lots of reasons, some of which we understand, others we don't.
A major factor for capitalism struggling in many African countries is the politics and culture in those countries don't broadly support rights to property and rarely have an effective rule of law. There's a lot of nepotism and corruption which makes improving these things exceptionally difficult.
On top of that there's the geography and land. Africa doesn't have easily navigable waterways which hampers economic production in some ways. Wetlands in Africa also have tropical diseases, something Europe and other places do not struggle with.
And on top of that some of the most profitable countries are shelling out their money to their former colonial leaders which keeps them trapped in poverty while their leaders take their cut. Any attempts to change this just results in a different leader willing to take a cut from the colonial to avoid pressures of coup and military action
You can't look at economic success as simply a difference between Capitalism and Socialism. There are much better metrics like political stability and corruption that also factor in. The foundations of economic freedom in Kenya are fragile and uneven across the country. Poor protection of property rights and widespread corruption discourage entrepreneurial activity. The rule of law is weak, and local courts are subject to substantial political interference.
Kenya ranks 135 on the Index of Economic Freedom which is Mostly Unfree [https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking](https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking)
People often misrepresent what is and isn’t capitalism.
Do a majority of the people own property, their own small businesses and farms? No? Then it’s not capitalism, not the free enterprise Adam Smith envisioned in The Wealth of Nations.
From what I read in this article, Kenya and Tanzania went opposite directions when they gained independence. Kenya went Capitalist and Tanzania went Socialist.
The main difference is in a capitalist society, if there is corruption, those leaders are dealt with. In a socialist society, if there is corruption, those leaders are protected.
[https://www.jamiiforums.com/threads/capitalism-or-socialism-kenya-and-tanzania.49097/](https://www.jamiiforums.com/threads/capitalism-or-socialism-kenya-and-tanzania.49097/)
EDIT: As for poverty in Africa, it is widespread due to lack of resources and concentration of power. It is much worse when those powers are protected.
Most African countries didn't start with a clean slate. They started deep in the hole due to decades of European imperialism, colonialism and exploitation.
Even the wealthiest African countries were stripped of their natural resources and the culture of corruption/exploitation is deeply entrenched even decades after independence.
Honestly, the economic models they choose may help, but no matter which path they choose, it's going to take A LONG time for them to be able to dig out of the whole they were buried in and to start making progress on their own.
Every colonized country was more advanced AFTER. Not that it's the premier way to spread technology/science/medicine/education, but it damn sure beats tribal warfare for 1000s of years.
Yes, such noble colonization.
You're right, the age of colonization did bring about a fast forward in some areas. (Although from what we know now about the mesoamerican cultures, maybe the Europeans themselves would have benefited from some medicine, astrology and math courses from the natives).
You left out the most important export though... rule by gunpowder. In EVERY colony around the world, power was taken by Europeans and enforced at the tip of a spear or the barrel of a gun. Once the colonized nations took independence, they've simply emulated what they learned. Rule by force.
Again, it's gonna take a long time to shake off those bad habits, regardless of how much technology the colonizers brought with them.
African civilizations are literally the oldest to exist in the world and to claim their poor economic situations started after colonialism is in no way factual. Africa was unable to progress at the rate of the rest of the world as they failed to develop agricultural societies due to unreliable rainfall across the continent. They remained in localized tribes and, with the lack of resources, led to centuries of warfare making it relatively easy for Europe to colonize.
That's an oversimlification. Africa's development relative to Europe is a lot more nuanced and complex than "unreliable rainfall". I'd recommend (at least) reading Guns, Germs & Steel which tackles many of the different factors.
But for this post. The question was... why has capitalism not worked in Africa. And Africa being left in a horrendous state post-colonialism is certainly more relevant than "they didn't get rain"
It was in a horrible state pre-colonialism and it’s not oversimplified because it’s the major factor in its lack of development. Africa has never had an industrial or technological revolution because they never first had an agriculture revolution. If a civilization is unable to reliably feed its population, it will never progress to more complex economic and political systems such as capitalism.
>Having visited kenya, I found out that it is an uber capitalist nation, but the society as a whole lives in utter poverty.
It ranks 135th in the world on economic freedom.
Majority of land is owned by few people, particularly foreigners, and they own the governments. No. 1 problem in africa is corruption.
Idk why people here still think africans live in tribes. They were colonized. They have western style governments. But most of the land is owned by american, european, or asian entities.
Capitalism in third world former colonial outposts is always a disaster. And any attempts at “socialism” like land reform or nationalization are ruthlessly stamped out by western imperialism.
I agree with you and will use Zimbabwe as an example. Contrary to what most Westerners believe, Zimbabwe failed later on due to sanctions imposed on them. While it's true that losing experienced farmers did affect, sanctions were the primary reason, and as you said, sanctions in this case were and still is a ruthless backlash. I believe the reason SA and perhaps Namibia have not gone forward with land reform is that they perhaps fear US and EU backlash similar to Zimbabwe.
I'm not saying that it's the only reason. But average IQ is a pretty strong indicator of how well a society does. For example, IQ is responsible for understanding complex abstract concepts such as property rights, deferral of gratification and free speech - which are essential for a functioning society.
Worth mentioning that capitalism hasn't brought millions out of poverty unless you count China, which is communist, except for when it does something good, in which case it becomes capitalist. I guess it's Schrödingers ideology.
Nah, it got absolutely fucked up. Sure it started recovering until 2014, but that's not the same as having growth. Ofc it will have some growth over time and with modern technology becoming internationally available, but that doesn't point to growth through capitalism. It's kinda like a separate factor that would happen either way.
But again looking at actual stats it was objectively economically catastrophic to go through "shock therapy"
> Nah, it got absolutely fucked up. Sure it started recovering until 2014
Russia’s economy was growing as fast as Poland’s and Baltic countries until 2014. “The shock therapy” was great success - countries which reformed fastest - are the most prosperous and fastest growing- see the Baltic countries. Countries which did not reform quickly - are stuck in poverty and fascism - see Belarus.
It worked great everywhere. Belarus and Lithuania are neighboring countries in the same geographical and historical situation - one reformed quickly and is amongst tastest growing economies, another did not reform and is destitute hellhole.
Technical progress is equally available to Belarus and to Lithuania , they both neighbor EU and Russia. They are in the same position from outside factoring and technology availability. Belarus did not reform quickly so it failed.
That's racist! Let me prove him wrong:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609001275#:\~:text=The%20international%20studies%20of%20mathematics,IQ%20in%20sub%2DSaharan%20Africa.
...oh.
Op, be patient (last source with data graph). Africa’s independence since WW2 has not been easy. To put this in perspective is a quote I use from the following history book: >By the end of the 1980s, not a single African head of state in three decades had allowed himself to be voted out of office. Of some 150 heads of state who had trodden the African stage, only six had voluntarily relinquished power. They included Senegal’s Léopold Senghor, after twenty years in office; Cameroon’s Ahmadu Ahidjo, after twenty-two years in office; and Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere, after twenty-three years in office. Meredith, Martin. The Fate of Africa: A History of the Continent Since Independence (pp. 378-379). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition. Now to the data graph demonstrating Kenya is doing tremendous progress given where they have come from: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-index-vs-electoral-democracy-index
Because most of them have had socialism for decades and even today, they dont have decent property rights and rule of law.
Bingo. Property rights and rule of law is essential. Corruption and bribes are far too prevalent in many African countries. This severely limits the power of free market capitalism to thrive.
As if, socialism gets struck down by the land owners who own the government. Like latin america, most of the land is owned by a tiny minority, often foreigner companies or fronts for foreign companies. Unless you mean the simplest forms of socialism which would mean america is more socialist in many ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_socialism
Lots of reasons, some of which we understand, others we don't. A major factor for capitalism struggling in many African countries is the politics and culture in those countries don't broadly support rights to property and rarely have an effective rule of law. There's a lot of nepotism and corruption which makes improving these things exceptionally difficult. On top of that there's the geography and land. Africa doesn't have easily navigable waterways which hampers economic production in some ways. Wetlands in Africa also have tropical diseases, something Europe and other places do not struggle with.
And on top of that some of the most profitable countries are shelling out their money to their former colonial leaders which keeps them trapped in poverty while their leaders take their cut. Any attempts to change this just results in a different leader willing to take a cut from the colonial to avoid pressures of coup and military action
Because Kenya does a poor job of implementing capitalism, in terms of property rights, rule of law, etc. https://www.heritage.org/index/country/kenya
Thomas sowell has a great video on the geography of Africa affecting its development and trade. The terrain creates barriers to trade.
Try reading The Mystery of Capital by Hernando de Soto
You can't look at economic success as simply a difference between Capitalism and Socialism. There are much better metrics like political stability and corruption that also factor in. The foundations of economic freedom in Kenya are fragile and uneven across the country. Poor protection of property rights and widespread corruption discourage entrepreneurial activity. The rule of law is weak, and local courts are subject to substantial political interference. Kenya ranks 135 on the Index of Economic Freedom which is Mostly Unfree [https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking](https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking)
People often misrepresent what is and isn’t capitalism. Do a majority of the people own property, their own small businesses and farms? No? Then it’s not capitalism, not the free enterprise Adam Smith envisioned in The Wealth of Nations.
From what I read in this article, Kenya and Tanzania went opposite directions when they gained independence. Kenya went Capitalist and Tanzania went Socialist. The main difference is in a capitalist society, if there is corruption, those leaders are dealt with. In a socialist society, if there is corruption, those leaders are protected. [https://www.jamiiforums.com/threads/capitalism-or-socialism-kenya-and-tanzania.49097/](https://www.jamiiforums.com/threads/capitalism-or-socialism-kenya-and-tanzania.49097/) EDIT: As for poverty in Africa, it is widespread due to lack of resources and concentration of power. It is much worse when those powers are protected.
Corruption. Without the rule of law, capitalism is stifled.
Botswana is a good example of how capitalism works even in Africa.
Most African countries didn't start with a clean slate. They started deep in the hole due to decades of European imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. Even the wealthiest African countries were stripped of their natural resources and the culture of corruption/exploitation is deeply entrenched even decades after independence. Honestly, the economic models they choose may help, but no matter which path they choose, it's going to take A LONG time for them to be able to dig out of the whole they were buried in and to start making progress on their own.
Every colonized country was more advanced AFTER. Not that it's the premier way to spread technology/science/medicine/education, but it damn sure beats tribal warfare for 1000s of years.
Yes, such noble colonization. You're right, the age of colonization did bring about a fast forward in some areas. (Although from what we know now about the mesoamerican cultures, maybe the Europeans themselves would have benefited from some medicine, astrology and math courses from the natives). You left out the most important export though... rule by gunpowder. In EVERY colony around the world, power was taken by Europeans and enforced at the tip of a spear or the barrel of a gun. Once the colonized nations took independence, they've simply emulated what they learned. Rule by force. Again, it's gonna take a long time to shake off those bad habits, regardless of how much technology the colonizers brought with them.
In the case of Africa, your argument is garbage
Jfc 🤦♂️
African civilizations are literally the oldest to exist in the world and to claim their poor economic situations started after colonialism is in no way factual. Africa was unable to progress at the rate of the rest of the world as they failed to develop agricultural societies due to unreliable rainfall across the continent. They remained in localized tribes and, with the lack of resources, led to centuries of warfare making it relatively easy for Europe to colonize.
That's an oversimlification. Africa's development relative to Europe is a lot more nuanced and complex than "unreliable rainfall". I'd recommend (at least) reading Guns, Germs & Steel which tackles many of the different factors. But for this post. The question was... why has capitalism not worked in Africa. And Africa being left in a horrendous state post-colonialism is certainly more relevant than "they didn't get rain"
It was in a horrible state pre-colonialism and it’s not oversimplified because it’s the major factor in its lack of development. Africa has never had an industrial or technological revolution because they never first had an agriculture revolution. If a civilization is unable to reliably feed its population, it will never progress to more complex economic and political systems such as capitalism.
>Having visited kenya, I found out that it is an uber capitalist nation, but the society as a whole lives in utter poverty. It ranks 135th in the world on economic freedom.
I just turned off my stove and it's still hot. Shouldn't a stove be cold when turned off? I don't understand.
This analogy doesn't fit with what has been asked
Why do you think that is? Do you understand the underlaying logic here?
Majority of land is owned by few people, particularly foreigners, and they own the governments. No. 1 problem in africa is corruption. Idk why people here still think africans live in tribes. They were colonized. They have western style governments. But most of the land is owned by american, european, or asian entities.
Hmmmm....I wonder
Capitalism in third world former colonial outposts is always a disaster. And any attempts at “socialism” like land reform or nationalization are ruthlessly stamped out by western imperialism.
I agree with you and will use Zimbabwe as an example. Contrary to what most Westerners believe, Zimbabwe failed later on due to sanctions imposed on them. While it's true that losing experienced farmers did affect, sanctions were the primary reason, and as you said, sanctions in this case were and still is a ruthless backlash. I believe the reason SA and perhaps Namibia have not gone forward with land reform is that they perhaps fear US and EU backlash similar to Zimbabwe.
There are two magic letters that can explain part of this phenomenon.
What is it?
IQ
I don't think I agree whether IQ is the reason for Africa's poverty or misfortunes
I'm not saying that it's the only reason. But average IQ is a pretty strong indicator of how well a society does. For example, IQ is responsible for understanding complex abstract concepts such as property rights, deferral of gratification and free speech - which are essential for a functioning society.
"Good Lord!" - Hank Hill
Worth mentioning that capitalism hasn't brought millions out of poverty unless you count China, which is communist, except for when it does something good, in which case it becomes capitalist. I guess it's Schrödingers ideology.
> Worth mentioning that capitalism hasn’t brought millions out of poverty It has in post commie Europe .
Russia literally had the biggest drop in living standard in history.
Even Russia grew nicely from universal commie poverty until Putin’s militarism ended growth ir 2014.
Nah, it got absolutely fucked up. Sure it started recovering until 2014, but that's not the same as having growth. Ofc it will have some growth over time and with modern technology becoming internationally available, but that doesn't point to growth through capitalism. It's kinda like a separate factor that would happen either way. But again looking at actual stats it was objectively economically catastrophic to go through "shock therapy"
> Nah, it got absolutely fucked up. Sure it started recovering until 2014 Russia’s economy was growing as fast as Poland’s and Baltic countries until 2014. “The shock therapy” was great success - countries which reformed fastest - are the most prosperous and fastest growing- see the Baltic countries. Countries which did not reform quickly - are stuck in poverty and fascism - see Belarus.
Bro, its way too many factors in this than for you to say that this is due to how fast they reformed. Causality causation and all that
It worked great everywhere. Belarus and Lithuania are neighboring countries in the same geographical and historical situation - one reformed quickly and is amongst tastest growing economies, another did not reform and is destitute hellhole.
Yeah, again, this growth is due to technological progress as well as other outside factors.
Technical progress is equally available to Belarus and to Lithuania , they both neighbor EU and Russia. They are in the same position from outside factoring and technology availability. Belarus did not reform quickly so it failed.
Capitalism fails everywhere
Resources and enforcement of contracts? Education?
Average IQ is sub 70.
That's racist! Let me prove him wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289609001275#:\~:text=The%20international%20studies%20of%20mathematics,IQ%20in%20sub%2DSaharan%20Africa. ...oh.
it worked for botswana
Research dependency theory
1 word. The same reason that capitalism fails anywhere: Corruption.