Most resource-oriented economies (oil states, Brazil, Australia, Norway etc) are extraction-oriented and this doesn't seem related to colonialism. "Dutch disease" is named after the over reliance the Dutch developed on their extraction-oriented economic sector - it's a very hard thing to avoid.
Of course Brazil, Australia and Norway export their goods, but they also build other infra needed by their citizens. Colonizers, not so much.
And for it to be sustainable the end user needs to be able to get a gain from it (even if given some fantastic hypothetical world like being robots who depend upon crude oil to survive instead of food).
Essentially the combination of the two may be technically peripheral in that competive advantage results in a dutch diseased country and corruption leads to lack of investment in infastructure beyond what is needed. Thus colonial extractive economy is one cause but it may occur without any colonalism per se - just as a result of internal actions. Lets call this manifestation "pseudocolonial". The only involvement of the foreign in the pseudocolonial is a willingness to trade. One may assign guilt or morality in another nation for choosing to accept trade or boycott or embargo but either is just as much intervention.
To be pedantic I suspect the framework may be conflating aspects - this isn't apologetics towards actual horrific extractive colonies which short sightedly squander human potential and cause needless suffering.
Sure, when oil extraction started, Brazil has not been a colony for a century but the extraction culture was there.
Still, without colonialism, Brazil wouldn't be a thing, there was pretty much no commerce there, unlike with some african areas
I stand by my statement: they'd be better off left to their own fate. But maybe you're right, it's not factual.