Why have many of Britain's former colonies fared better than those of other nations?

Question

Why have many of Britain's former colonies fared better than those of other nations?

Answer 1

nioo

Answer 2

Because of the investment.  training,  building,  and political democratic set up established in them   A much more solid foundation than most other colonies    

Answer 3

I did an academic geo-statistical analysis of the New World a few years ago. The findings suggested that the length of time since independence and size were the main factors in success.  Time=more time to develop infrastructure.  + more time to expand=more and more varied resources.  An easy way to look at it, if the USA had remained in the British region it wouldn't be the powerhouse it is today.

I don't know how this would work with the former colonies outside of the New World.

Answer 4

because Britain was strong enough to really drill in there lifestyle into there colonies, and thus they acted more like britain thus fairing off better

Answer 5

Zimbabwe isn't looking too good now is it?

I get what you mean though, Australia, New Zealand, USA, the Carribean islands, all seem very stable and successful.

Answer 6

i agree with dumberth

Answer 7

they immigrate here, earn their millions, then send it back where they came, and it increases through exchange rate. well, that's how india did it.

Answer 8

A few people have pointed to the sucess of USA, Australia, and New Zealand  (comparing them to Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan etc)  ...er...isn't the rather obvious difference that in those countries the British massacred the great majority of the indigenous population and then just took over the land?  Hardly the same as running a colony comprised of the indigenous people (where, in most cases, I'm not sure one could argue that many British colonies have fared better than those of other nations).

Answer 9

Actually, Ed is a little misleading, as Rhodesia and then Zimbabwe was extremely wealthy and stable until only just recently when Robert Mugabe decided to destroy the farm economy to defuse the tension from his unemployed revolutionaries. In fact, until about three years ago Zimbabwe was literally the food source for all of southern Africa.

While other European nations set up colonies solely to strip mine raw materials (copper, sugar, slaves, ivory, etc), Britain had set up their colonies as partially self-sufficient trading partners and as stable economies to absorb their overpopulation and to provide new realms for the third and fourth sons of their nobility, with the idea of avoiding the problems that led to  the French Revolution (nobles with nothing to do but leach off of the crown and devour the bounty of the countryside with nothing in return and complain and cause discontent with the masses).

Answer 10

Depends how you measure how well they have fared.  USA and Australia may look like they've fared well, but the indigenous people in these countries haven't fared too well.

Marc's jingoistic view of Indian immigration (I'm assuming he includes Bangladesh as part of India) ignores the political background behind the post-war immigration, which meant Britain was able to recover from the war a lot quicker than most combatants.