3 ms·

Well, for one, their infrastructure wouldn't be extraction-oriented. Right?

the-dude 6y ago
I actually don't know, maybe you are right. Do you have any ideas on what it would be instead?
shakow 6y ago
Why wouldn't it? Assuming that Nigera was never colonized, there is no reason to assume they wouldn't extract the resources on their soil for their own economical development.
- bantunes 6y ago
  That much is obvious, every country extracts their resources. In this context "extraction-oriented" means extraction to a foreign power, ie building roads to ports and disregarding all other infrastructure needs that do not further the exportation of raw materials and goods to imperial ports.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    So in other words the problem with "extraction oriented" is by definition it stops with the extraction as opposed to bootstrapping to other infastructure both humanitarian and foundational for more advanced economy?
    - bantunes 6y ago
      Precisely. Since colonies are seen as money makers, there's little point in having expenditures that don't further your bottom line back home.
nl 6y ago
That doesn't seem obvious to me at all. 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.
- asa4akj 6y ago
  In Brazil's case, it was a colony for sugar extraction(and other farm products) and later gold extraction. 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
- bantunes 6y ago
  In this context "extraction-oriented" means extraction to a foreign power, ie building roads to ports and disregarding all other infrastructure needs that do not further the exportation of raw materials and goods to imperial ports. Of course Brazil, Australia and Norway export their goods, but they also build other infra needed by their citizens. Colonizers, not so much.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Doesn't by definition doesn't an extraction oriented economy need a foreign customer to use the end input? If they used it themselves it wouldn't be extraction oriented. 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.

I actually don't know, maybe you are right. Do you have any ideas on what it would be instead?

Why wouldn't it? Assuming that Nigera was never colonized, there is no reason to assume they wouldn't extract the resources on their soil for their own economical development.

bantunes 6y ago
That much is obvious, every country extracts their resources. In this context "extraction-oriented" means extraction to a foreign power, ie building roads to ports and disregarding all other infrastructure needs that do not further the exportation of raw materials and goods to imperial ports.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  So in other words the problem with "extraction oriented" is by definition it stops with the extraction as opposed to bootstrapping to other infastructure both humanitarian and foundational for more advanced economy?
  - bantunes 6y ago
    Precisely. Since colonies are seen as money makers, there's little point in having expenditures that don't further your bottom line back home.

nl 6y ago

That doesn't seem obvious to me at all. 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.

asa4akj 6y ago
In Brazil's case, it was a colony for sugar extraction(and other farm products) and later gold extraction. 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
bantunes 6y ago
In this context "extraction-oriented" means extraction to a foreign power, ie building roads to ports and disregarding all other infrastructure needs that do not further the exportation of raw materials and goods to imperial ports. Of course Brazil, Australia and Norway export their goods, but they also build other infra needed by their citizens. Colonizers, not so much.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Doesn't by definition doesn't an extraction oriented economy need a foreign customer to use the end input? If they used it themselves it wouldn't be extraction oriented. 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.