Many African countries are currently in the bottom parts of socioeconomic rankings like GDP per capita, life expectancy, literacy, HDI, etc. Some of them possess a decent amount of natural resources and relatively low population burden, so this is disappointing.

Are there historical reasons for this to have happened? And yes, I know there are poor countries everywhere, but there seems to be an unusually high concentration of them especially in the Sub-Saharan region. And before colonization is brought up as a factor, let me remind you the United States is a former British colony.

  • 2
    This question more or less asks if it is on topic. IMO it is not. :-) – Lennart Regebro Oct 31 '11 at 7:25
  • 3
    Might be better to move this to economics.SE – apoorv020 Oct 31 '11 at 11:46
  • 16
    It is a big leap to think that USA and various african countries were colonies in the same sense. After all, how rich are the Native Americans in USA? Are they the economic powerhorse of the USA? Or are they pushed to the edges of society with poor health, lots of crime and drug problems? That should tell you what happens when a country is colonized. – Rory Nov 3 '11 at 15:35
  • 4
    If British colonialism was a factor, it was a positive one. I believe former British colonies have done better in Africa than those of the French or Portuguese. – user2590 Aug 3 '13 at 7:39
  • 2
    @bobb Africa can't buy consumer goods. It's a continent, not a person. – rougon Sep 25 '16 at 17:25

For a country to be economically prosperous you need a couple of things:

  1. You need the rule of law in the economy. A country where people can steal, cheat or break contracts as they wish makes it very difficult to conduct business.

  2. You need ownership rights. If you do not own the land, factory or house that you are using to make money, you will not invest in it as the investment is likely to be taken away from you.

  3. You need a high life expectancy, and you need inheritances. If you are likely to die soon, you won't try to build a business long term. Instead you will try to steal others money, since making your own fortune will take too long. Similarly you will not try to amass a fortune if you can't pass it on to your offspring.

Some things that therefore prevent prosperity are wars, socialism and diseases. Africa has been quite uniquely ravaged by all three during the 20th century. During the 18th and especially 19th century it was ravaged by the western powers who of course based their whole interest there in stealing.[1]

It is notable that natural resources do not figure in the list. In fact, having plenty of natural resources are often a curse, as it will attract people who aren't interested in keeping 1, 2 and 3 alive and well. The natural resources in Africa are sometimes a cause for war, and almost always a cause for large-scale corruption and a practical collapse of the rule of law.


[1] Kevin Shillington, History of Africa. New York: Macmillian Publishers Limited, 2005 or for that matter any history book about colonization.

| improve this answer | |
  • 6
    Point 3 is just plain trash. Societies with similar life expectancies (e.g. Europa before industrialization) did not cause the individuals to stop working, amassing wealth, providing inheritances, etc. More about this on the chat. For once, I will agree with @Bobb. – SJuan76 Sep 28 '16 at 7:35
  • 4
    Also socialism is only detrimental per se, since there's plenty of ways you can have a socialist economy. Britain's post war socialism still allowed free enterprise outside of nationalised industries, and certainly rule of law was maintained then. Indeed socialist Britain created the National Health Service to improve the people's health. So how does that factor against point 3? They cancel each other out? – inappropriateCode Sep 30 '16 at 8:16
  • 2
    Ghana's initial post-independence plan was to model on British socialism by getting funding for a hydro-electric dam, which would power factories which made aluminium for export. Both industries would be nationalised, and the excess electrical output would let the rest of the country industrialise. Unfortunately Britain's promise of funding fell through because of domestic issues, and the American companies that promised to foot the bill refused to do so unless Ghana exported raw materials for their smelts, which would make Ghana poorer. Ghana refused. Then there was a coup, allegedly CIA. – inappropriateCode Sep 30 '16 at 8:19
  • 2
    Thereafter Ghana promised to export raw materials for the American companies. So let's not pretend that it was just the Russians and Chinese would were undermining Africa's fledgling independent governments, nor that socialism is always bad. That outcome was true because the decent socialist regimes were got rid of, and well, all that's left were the ones backed by the USSR or PRC. Like Zimbabwe. – inappropriateCode Sep 30 '16 at 8:29
  • 5
    I think "Africa ravaged by socialism" is quite a bold statement for a continent plagued by dictatorship everywhere. Some of them MAY be "socialist" (Democratic Republic of Kongo says they are socialists, somehow) but most are not. And actually, the one that are the most socials are somehow the one that have more financial power like South Africa. I really don't understand your answer, even if it's backed by a book. – LamaDelRay Jan 17 '17 at 10:33

An interesting analysis on this question was brought up by Jared Diamond author of "Guns, Germs and Steel" and I believe it is a more accurate answer to the question than that offered by Lennart Regebro (no offense intended to that author!). While Regebro is certainly true in explaining major factors to the continuation of many African nations relative poverty, it ignores the root cause of the initial wealth in-balance between Europe and the U.S. in contrast to many African nations. According to Mr. Diamond's analysis, while Africa in general is rich with many types of natural resources, it was initially poor in the resources most important to early civilization, domesticable plant and animal life.

First, Mr. Diamond identifies 14 major domesticable animal types of which five are most important those being sheep, goats, cows, pigs and horses. The lesser animal types include the Arabian camel, Bactrian camel, Llama and Alpaca, Donkey, Reindeer, Water Buffalo, Yak, Bali cattle, Mitha. It is important to point out that NONE of these animals have ancestors in sub-Saharan Africa; 13 of the 14 DO have ancestors in Eurasia. Most animals in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, are either difficult to domesticate or do not provide sufficient quantities of meat, milk, or labor. Furthermore, four of the five major domesticable plant types: wheat, corn, rice, barley, and sorghum are found in Eurasia. Climate was also a factor as it promoted the diffusion of both domesticable animals and plants throughout Eurasia while hindering their spread through Africa and the Americas.

All this slowed the development of civilization in Africa and subsequent technological advances, while assisting development in Europe and Asia. Hence, while major empires such as the Sassanian, Han Chinese, Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian, Babylonian, Mongolian etc all derive from Eurasia, Africa has had less success in cultivating sedentary agricultural societies necessary to develop empires and subsequent technological/societal advancement (likewise the environmental devastation caused by many early farming techniques helps in part to explain the decline of the empires of the once-fertile crescent and the now relative poverty of non-oil bearing Arabian states).

Colonialization is a major factor indeed, and while not a symptom of poverty it has greatly exacerbated it. The development of colonies has created a continuing drain on African nation's resources and the destructive political/military intervention of outside powers (note current destabilizing American wars in Yemen and Somalia). However I would note for the asker that the difference between the colonization of America and that of African nations is more profound then the author realizes. In the former Britian sought to develop widespread settlement in North America, whereas in the latter European powers have instead sought widespread control of resources. Thus many of the British settlers in North America grew powerful as a result of owning/working the land and the largely beneficial policies/support of Britian (despite taxation w/out representation, the colonists did receive a great deal of military, technological and financial investment), whereas African nations were subject to massive resource theft and control from a small minority of European colonists. The key point here is that American colonists benefited from the advantages bestowed by their client empire (which in turn was granted them by luck), whereas American natives and Africans have suffered precisely because of said advantages to early Eurasian development.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    nice and thoughtful answer – ihtkwot Mar 21 '12 at 3:28
  • 10
    +1 for bringing up Jared Diamond. One thing though that I did not find reflected in your answer is that JD also argues that Eurasia being an "horizontal" continent, agricultural innovations made in one of its parts can easily be imported in another one. This is not true for Africa with a clear distinction between sub-Saharan and North Africa for instance. IIRC he cites (in this book or may be in another, I read that a long time ago) the Bantu expansion as being more localised than say the European neolithic revolution. – Alain Pannetier Mar 31 '12 at 8:21
  • 6
    The shape/climate factor is an important one. Europe had the advantage of being "long," east to west, meaning that goods going from one end to the other traveled ACROSS longitudes AT similar latitudes. Whereas Africa is "long" north to south, meaning that goods from from one end to the other would travel across climate zones. – Tom Au Apr 23 '12 at 23:05
  • 3
    @astabada No, both Jared Diamond and I are well aware of the African Elephant. As explained in [i]Guns, Germs, and Steel[/i] the African Elephant wasn't domesticated, it was tamed. A major distinction brought about by the problem of captive breeding. Furthermore, the whole point of the referenced material is that it points out [i]why[/i] European nations were able to occupy Africa. Africa was able to develop more quickly initially than Europe, but the natural lack of domesticated plant and animal life (not cultural or genetic differences) is what ultimately lead to European domination. – BrotherJack Feb 14 '13 at 20:09
  • 2
    One could posit that whichever continent homo sapiens evolved on (Africa) would co-evolve animals that were more distrustful of humans and hence less domesticable. I would refer to a www.NSF.gov article on this, but the US is undergoing a congressional spasm/service outage at the moment. – LateralFractal Oct 1 '13 at 20:36

Most African nations became independent around 1950-1965. That is almost 70 years ago. Blaming all problems on colonial powers who left them to fence for themselves is a pretty weak argument by now. At the same time Asian countries became independent and they've done a whole lot better. Add to that the almost limitless development aid western nations supply. Thailand, for example has never received anything, and they do pretty well.

So, what reasons can I give?

  • Rampant corruption. Thailand rates high on the corruption index, but Africa trumps the list. With (dis)honors. Leaders enrich themselves and their entourage, nobody else.

  • Tribalism. You can only partly blame this on colonial powers. As far as I know very few African nations are a real nation. People feel first member of tribe X and only then citizen of state Y. After 50 years of independence you might expect to see less tribalism.

  • Very poor education. A few lucky ones can study in Europe or America. Upon graduation, they more often than not decide to stay where they are. That way they make a lot more money. Their countries don't benefit from their knowledge.

  • Western (and Chinese) exploitation. Development aid almost always comes with strings attached. Usually the wrong ones: "we only give you xxx million if you buy our products". Or "If you invest in growing more whatevers (which we don't want) we cut your aid."

There are plenty more reasons, but these I see as the main ones.

| improve this answer | |
  • Sources would improve this answer; this is a string of unsupported opinions. – Mark C. Wallace Oct 1 '17 at 12:10


We use cross-country data and instrumental variables widely used in the literature to show that (i) institutions (such as property rights and the rule of law) do not explain industrialization and (ii) agrarian countries and industrial countries have entirely different determinants for income levels. In particular, geography, rather than institutions, explains the income differences among agrarian countries, while institutions appear to matter only for income variations in industrial economies. Moreover, we find it is the stage of economic development (or the absence/presence of industrialization) that explains a country’s quality of institutions rather than vice versa. The finding that institutions do not explain industrialization but are instead explained by industrialization lends support to the well-received view among prominent economic historians—that institutional changes in 17th and 18th century England did not cause the Industrial Revolution.

Climate geography explains most economic development. This is the reason why certain regions, such as Africa, are significantly poorer than temperate, dry, UV-protected regions such as Europe.

There is the problem of causality. But it clearly runs from climate to development in most cases. There is no third variable causing both winter temperature and GDP, for example, and there is no plausible way that GDP would affect winter temperature (besides global warming, but that points in the wrong direction).

There may be various geological and racial reasons why this is the case, but that's a separate question.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    The quote does not support your argument; authors of the paper mention climate only in the context of a common sense reinforcement of a subordinate conclusion. The thesis of the paper you cite is that there are different factors that influence social development at different developmental stages. – Mark C. Wallace Sep 26 '16 at 16:15
  • 2
    @MarkC.Wallace this is a re-post of a deleted answer where the answerer admitted to being unable to find evidence to back up his claims. He blamed academia for being "autistic" as the reason why he couldn't find good sources. – rougon Sep 26 '16 at 16:22
  • all in all, you're right – Bak1139 Sep 27 '16 at 5:57
  1. Lack of appreciation for free market culture.
  2. Government intervention in economy.
  3. Genocide against the best and brightest.
  4. Religion
  5. Lower average IQ (this is not that serious)
  6. Trade restriction
  7. Centralized economy

Same problem everywhere actually. Now they are improving greatly due to global trade. If we look at wealth of all countries and compute disparity of wealth not in money but in years, they're not too far behind actually. Just 50 years or so.

Source: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/africa-needs-free-market-economies

In countries with state control of the economy, opposition tends to weaken. Those who disagree with the ruling party soon find themselves without a job and without an income. In contrast, a free economy provides for diffusion of wealth and power. It also provides for higher rates of growth. Thus, between 1966 and 2006, Botswana’s average annual growth rate was 7.22 percent — among the world’s highest. Its income per capita adjusted for inflation and purchasing power parity rose from $671 in 1966 to $10,813 in 2005.

Some African countries ended up with nutty dictators. Idi Amin of Uganda, for example, kicked millions of the most productive people out of the country, while Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic was so enthralled by Napoleon Bonaparte that he had himself crowned emperor.

Bad government has devastating consequences.

Take Zimbabwe, where a power-hungry dictator took land away from farmers, both white and black, “guilty” of the crime of supporting the democratic opposition. Zimbabwe’s agriculture-based economy promptly collapsed and with it, its standard of living. An average Zimbabwean was richer when Ronald Reagan became the President of the United States than today.

| improve this answer | |
  • Could you please identify your sources. (This sounds very much like Hernado de Soto, the IMHO "one-trick-pony", plus perhaps some Murray-and-Herrnstein for good measure :) Not to say that there's not an element of truth (or "truth"), but sources must be clear. – Drux Feb 7 '13 at 7:09
  • 5. Lower average IQ (this is not that serious). – astabada Feb 7 '13 at 9:36
  • Sources given. There are so many source it's too obvious. Actually a theory that fit data again and again and again must be an awesome theory. So what's so wrong about one trick pony? – user4951 Feb 7 '13 at 17:10
  • 3
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting :) – Drux Feb 7 '13 at 17:55
  • 1
    @JimThio: Some points are correct, some points brutally incorrect and prejudiced. – Lennart Regebro Aug 4 '13 at 13:28

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.