>>2869350poor institutions, arbitrary borders, instability and civil war, poor underlying economic structure, lack of urbanisation, attempting to develop too quickly leading to indebtedness, trade barriers by the west…
Rhodesia and South Africa weren't rich, they just had rich people. Rhodesia's GDP per capita in 1970 was $305 against $2305 for England and $390 in Malaysia. South Africa's was better at $935, while Australia had $3310.
this, i admit, is an inference but i would also say poor social structure. to illustrate this, i will compare China and India instead: one reason China got rich faster than India is that Mao smashed most traditional social structures, which are a major barrier to economic development. if you've got a bunch of traditional social ties that say you can't leave your village subsistence farming lifestyle and that women can't work and so on, then you can't move to the city and become an industrial worker, and moving people from rural to urban areas is basically the definition of
civilisation. India, being a semi-democracy, never did this. (e.g. legislation was introduced to reform Indian marriage law in 1950 by outlawing polygamy, giving women the right to divorce and inherit property, and allow inter-caste marriage. as a semi-democracy, this was simply voted down in parliament leading the minister responsible to resign. In Maoist China similar reforms were simply pushed through by the party.)
postscript: a racial explanation of GDP really struggles with the Pacific. Why is Samoa poor (GDP pc: $5470) and American Samoa middle-income? (GDP pc: $18,100) Both are more than 90% Samoan by ethnicity! Meanwhile in New Zealand, Samoan adult income per-head is $36,100.
>>2869381if you like GDP you'll love my numbers :)
>>2869387this is slowly changing. look at someone like Richard Hanania, who started out as a racist for lQ reasons but then realised that some of the lowest lQ specimens of the human race are white nationalists.