I had a tour guide tell me something along these line while visiting Madagascar in 2004. He said at least we, in the English speaking Caribbean, had the British. The French did not leave much. I have not visited much French colonies but I think with the smaller entities they did an OK job but once it got larger the French were not up to it.
The British left, some more order and simple processes which the people could follow. The colonies that were able to adapt prospered.
It would be interesting a hundred years from now to see what the economic colonist might say about the China, American, and European models.

From what I can tell, our biggest colony, Indonesia, is recently doing very well for itself (see http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/02/rise_of_the_timbis).
The separation of Indonesia was very bloody, and the Dutch military misbehaved terribly (an official apology for one particular bloodbath was issued late last year).
We did make an effort though to stay connected after the separation. A lot of our foreign aid went to Indonesia, and we always kept close economic ties.

Still, apart from the introduction of the idea of democracy (i.e. they saw that we had it, and they wanted their own), I don't think we can claim a lot of credit for Indonesia's success.

Being of Indian decent Harvard University economist Lakshmi Iyer should have known better. Hyderabad is better today not because of native rule but the central govt. pumped in thousands of crores of rupees in to Hyderabad like HAL, DRDO, HMT, IDPL etc. Also people from British held coastal areas from the same state have migrated to Hyderabad. Education in British held areas eg. Madras and Andhra universities were way better than the Osmania university in Hyderabad. Request not to twist facts to suit your arguments.

It's sure French colonies were not a paradise, but just as any colony wasn't. But what is true is the fact that especially in Africa, France left totally disorganised countries, in which State weren't up to the task!

Still now, we can speak of french neo-colonianism in Africa...

Frank Berthelot

May I suggest Niall Ferguson and Foreign Policy look at FP's own, truly marvelous "Failed States Index" -- and simply do the math?

I did the British Empire the favor the last time, when Newsweek was being persnickety about it. I'm sure someone's over there's got time for a little arithmetic on the French.

http://trueslant.com/mpnunan/2009/08/25/sorry-newsweek-portugal-wrecked-the-world/

Best regards,

MP Nunan

There are a number of ways in which Britain differs from France and other mainland European countries.

Britain has been independent for a very long time - whereas France and Germany were part of the same monarchy.

Britain uses a common law system where law is clarified by judges, where a Jury of peers decide the fate of accused, where there are generally a huge number of protections for the accused.

The mainland uses Napoleonic civil law where law is dictated, judges are state employees trained in state academies, and there are no juries.

The function of the law is different. In common law, order is seen as something coming from society itself, in Napoleonic civil law, it is dictated by the state.

When countries were decolonized, it was easier to reestablish law and order where the system of law was less dependent on an authoritarian power and more respected in-and-of-itself.

My question for this, though, is what were the yields like of the territories before colonial rule? Obviously, this is a difficult question to answer since such data probably does not exist, but a confounding variable to this study could be that the territories administered by the British and French in Cameroon were far different. There could be greater wealth because the land was richer, thereby impacting things like cash available for investment in public water systems or civil service.

The British legacy is certainly mixed: their legacy was very positive in many countries, but in places like Somalia (which is partially the fault of the Italians), the Sudan, or Yemen, they dropped the ball.

of the British and French empires, as well as the variables and definition of "good", which is very subjective, makes such a question almost unanswerable. While it is true that post-colonialist theorists do not give the British credit for the good they do, blaming all local woes on the colonizers, and ignore the pathological nature of pre-colonial elites and local cultures, let's not go all Economist, shall we? The British empire was disastrous for some. A perfect example would be free markets, good for whom? Not Irish or Bengali peasants or South Asian artisans.

The reason former Brit colonies are the best off is because the Brits took the best real estate for themselves.

I'd like to know the extent and depth of field and schloraly expertise of this PhD candidate to deserve mention in this FP. Usual, and worse, case of FP American solipsism.

Key points. Colonisation is all about power and plunder. French and UK colonialism started 500 years ago with the slave trade and went global thereon. The Brits approaches differed over time and place eg India in the late1700s was 'owned" by the East India Company which in early 1800's went bust (!) and so taken over by the Crown. Which wanted semi responsible governance and "free trade' that favored the UK.

Still, British rule in India was always associated grinding poverty with more poor people than the rest of the world. As noted by the Roosevelts.

Worse cases were Rhodesia, Kenya and above all South Africa.

The French were much more focused on lebensraum and plunder, beginning with the West Indies to North Africa, sub Saharan Africa to SE Asia. The post slavery episode began with Algeria, where from 1835 to 45 half the native population was wiped out and 80% of their land stolen. That set Paris' colonial pattern for the next 100 years. Liberty egalite et fraternity indeed. Tailed off as the century progressed except in Algeria and Vietnam..

Young Lee might have found a good way to extract a doctoral degree from Stanford, but there would have to be a great deal of guesswork in any such study. The current state of any former colony reflects more than the benefices and deficits of the European experience. It also reflects in some degree the quality of services before the colonizers took over, and statistical information -- the sort that social "science" academic supervisors like and reward -- tends to be rare and not entirely trustworthy about those earlier standards.

Left out of the insults from sundry contributors above has so far been Belgium, which seems to have handled its responsibilities to Congo very shabbily to evident ill effect from the moment the Belgians went home 50 years ago.

Two of the better bright and shiny colonial survivors also have not been mentioned.

Canada had the experience of being first a French colony, then a British one. Somewhere close by Canada there's another famous British colony which these days names itself proudly as the United States of America. How has that experiment worked out? And has Governor Rick Perry been right in suggesting that Texas is a colony of the USA which might one day proudly assert independence of its colonial masters in faroff Washington DC?

Think the E.U.'s problem is that it is too weak, needs stronger enforcement capabilities and more funding.... and many of the most powerful parts of the E.U. such as the European Commission, are unelected...good work!
pecas
aeronaves

One area where I think the British subjects were better off ( though obviously, we can say this only now. who would have known then !! ) was in terms of the language. English is the lingua france of the world.
Like, for example in India, we have such a huge advantage because of English becoming a widespread language. Imagine if India was ruled by the French or the Portuguese (I know there are other former colonies which are good in spite of being ruled by France or Portugal, but still).
Or maybe because it was the British who colonised America and America has been the most prolific country for past century. Because of the fact that Americans spoke English mainly, it swamped out all the other languages, and hence gave a huge advantage to all others too who learnt (or, made to learn) and spoke English.

The EU is in need of some serious makeover when it comes to their policies. They need people who are capable of strong leadership, and who will not wobble back and fourth on a decision. I was in the London recently trying to finalize a deal on Harmsco filters. My client and I got into a rather nice discussion on the fact that many of the seats of power that in America would be elected, are commissioned instead. Those people are often not in the best position to develop leadership.