What is your evidence for that? Countries with the least colonial involvement are not richer then those with colonial involvement. You can simply not explain wealth in Africa based on history of colonialism. The data just does not check out.

Can you provide some data?

It seems that pretty much all of Africa was affected by colonialism; even "litte" colonial involvment would have dramatic effects. Just upsetting an established government can lead to extreme instability down the road, and redrawing country borders can pit cultures into unresolvable conflicts forever.

A country not affected by colonialism would be Japan which did quite well throughout the years.

It has been a long time since I went really deep into this topic, so I can not remember where exactly what paper or book had the numbers.

Almost all of Africa was in some way effected, but that leaves you with the same problem. Why is Botswana doing fantastically well when Zimbabwe is going down the drain. Why is Tunis doing better then Libya?

We also have to account for the fact that all of these countries were pretty poor before the Europeans arrived as well. So you can really only blame Europeans for them to continue to not do very well.

Colonization is still a very important topic, but more in the context of how it shaped the institutions in those countries. The question we are trying to explain is why are all these countries unable to make sustainable institutional changes NOW.

> A country not affected by colonialism would be Japan which did quite well throughout the years.

Well, first I would argue that Japan culture has been far more effected by the West then the culture of Nigeria or Botswana. Why the Japan is a pretty special and unique case is a separate debate.

The same pattern does not hold for south east Asia for example. The countries not colonized are not doing better then those who have.

In 1990 people thought the German unification would be a piece of cake. We're rich and we're sprinkle some market economy on the formerly communist part.

Turns out that even under perfect conditions developing a country that was held back just 40 years in its development is extremely difficult.

Africa was held back 1000x more, and in crucial moments in history (industrialization) at that. The situation of Japan is highly relevant as an example what can happen when you have continuity and a stable environment.

I agree with everything you say. It just to narrow. Japan would not have not developed if not pushed. Botswana would not as rich if the Brits had never come.

It just not as simple, its not linear and then colonialism comes along and is holding you back. The reality is that the institutions need to develop are complex, culture, foreign involvement, geography all play a role.

Africa is poor because colonialism story just does not hold up. Its a part of the story, but by itself it explains little.

Japan is not successful because they were not a colony. The are successful because they had a centralized state for a long time, that state was was able adopt new institutions. Even had the been a colony, once the imperialist leave Japan would probably have better growth is the avg. growth in Africa.

Japan is a terrible example of a country unaffected by colonialism. Perry's Black Fleet triggered the downfall of the Shogunate and the Meiji Restoration, and so Japan's industrialization and embarcation on a path towards being a colonial power in its own right.

They were very very rich before colonization?

Africa's poverty is an African issue. In fact (and don't take this as a pro-colonization statement because I'm very anti-colonization) they were in many cases materially better off under foreign rule. Zimbabwe comes to mind.