Is it just me, or is the British colonial legacy better than the French (or Italian or Dutch) colonial legacy?
While some former British colonies certainly have their problems, the former French colonies just seem to be bereft of even basic infrastructure, let alone lasting institutions. I really noticed this in Cambodia and Vietnam, and my wife recently returned from Mauritania and observed a similar absence of lasting colonial legacy, aside from language.
It’s true to a great extent. I had several Political Science profs half jokingly state that a precondition to a colony’s success is to have been British at some point.
The arguments about why are unresolved though.
One argument has it that it’s the political model set up by the British, other’s claim it’s the religious differences (Catholic church played a much greater role politically than the Protestant church, in most colonies), others say it was a combination and yet others claim it’s not true.
In short: