Did you just compare an oil rich country ( Nigeria ) against a land locked central African nation to prove your point ?
I can compare India ( per capita $6,209 ) which was invaded by the British, has official Language as English and copied most of it's political system from Britain, to Mongolia ( per capita $11,024 ) which was never invaded by British ( Mongolia has a fair amount of mineral reserves ).
In the US, the European settlers killed all of the natives and took the land over for themselves. In the northern states, the economy was a mix of small farms and industrial production. In the southern states, the economy was plantation-based, built on slave labor of imported Africans. In both North and South, most of the accumulated wealth stayed local, though the two regions ended up with radically different social structures and a substantially different level of per capita wealth.
In Latin America, by contrast, there were only a few settlers who set themselves up as elite rulers of the natives, who they subjugated and robbed, but left alive (excepting the large proportion who died of disease or were killed in armed rebellions). All of the wealth created by indigenous Latin Americans was systematically stolen and given over to the colonial Spanish authorities, and much of it was shipped back to Spain.
Later on, the US was able to build a strong federal government with a diverse power base. In Mexico, by contrast, since independence the government has been relatively weak with looser control over the country, and power has been much more concentrated, with less power equality.
You can’t just chalk this up to “English” vs. “Spanish” culture. What Spain did in Latin America is much more similar to what the British did in India or southern Africa (or Ireland for that matter), with analogous though not precisely identical historical outcomes. There are lots of other geographical, logistic, geopolitical, etc. differences between all of these places, so colonial strategy alone isn’t any kind of complete model.
In the third world, they did. Those systems are what drive poverty.
Quite a few places would have been better off without the fucking over by the Europeans, and infinitely better off if given a large capital infusion without conditions (see the Marshall plan and the reconstruction of Japan).
The wholesale destruction of life and property in Europe in WW1 and WW2 had huge benefits to people living there now (due to the wholesale rebuilding of social infrastructure).
Sure about that? I wouldn't want 50 harmless cats exterminated just because they bother the uptight guests of the hotel occasionally. I live in a country were stray cats are everywhere, and they routinely come in my apartment too. No problem, I enjoy it and have had they chance to raise many kittens as well.
Full disclaimer: I took a young feral cat into my custody once (after it appeared behind my window on the second floor), but it is still worth mentioning.
I like cats as much as the next guy, but seriously.
It took a couple of months to get an exterminator in willing to deal with them; cats = black magic = no employees (relatively well educated and very well paid for the town) were willing to deal with them.
The fact that you're writing this post in English significantly bolsters the point the author made about acculturation. You live in a world in which the English essentially won the culture war, and imposed their culture on a vast swath of the globe. (Check out this fine map of places England has not invaded for some perspective: http://www.humanosphere.org/basics/2013/08/map-of-the-day-wh...)
While it might be controversial to say that English culture generates on average more wealth than some other cultures, I think it would be reasonably easy to demonstrate that something about the English acculturation of colonies left them better off financially than other European and Asian colonizers.
And, by better off, I mean vastly better off. Compare Nigeria (British, $3k+ per person GDP) to CAR (French, $350 per person GDP). I'm not cherry picking, either. America to Mexico. We live in a world shaped by the Brits.
To your point, financial well-being isn't anything like the only measure. At least in America, part of what made growth easy was whole-sale genocide. Places with more balanced colonization plans got much more strung out violence and economic difficulty. I would argue due to culture conflicts, at least in part.
I don't think the author is disputing this in the essay, though. He is instead saying that more individualistic cultures who will not engage with Western school systems hurt their economic outcomes, for a variety of reasons.