Korrekturen

In doing that, mother countries generated trade surplus which increased their wealth.

To be able to go on exporting their finished products to their colonies, the mother countries used disloyal commercial practices to prevent their colonies from industrializing.

It seems that, according to the author, mercantilism is necessarily related to colonialism.

But it is also necessary to point out that new forms of mercantilism appeared.

For instance some countries manage to keep a positive trade balance with developing countries without colonializing them.

For this purpose they use: -Idealism (In The stages of economic growth, Rostow explained that even if the industrial sector of developed countries is strong whereas the one of developing countries is embryonic, developing countries have to take part in free trade and open their markets in order to easier industrialization.) -Threats (They threatened developing countries to stop lending them money if they didn’t privatize firms and natural resources in order to repay the previous loans.

In most cases, it was a western firm which purchased natural resources which made it difficult for developing countries to industrialize).

Since they get developing countries to act as if they were colonized (even if they are not politically colonized), this new form of mercantilism was called neo-colonialism.

Colonialism matches the zero-sum game principle.

Indeed, mother countries wanted to prevent colonies from industrializing because they thought that if colonies became industrialized, the wealth gained by the colonies thanks this industrialization would be a lost for the mother countries.

The author seems to think that it is now too late for formers colonies to industrialize.

According to him the lead of former mother countries in terms of industrialization is too important: former colonies cannot compete against developed countries. I don’t agree.

Indeed, even for industry segments which have a strong added value, the labour cost in western countries is becoming too expensive.

Consequently, Asian countries like China are taking over the high added value industries and African countries are to take over the low added values industries.

However, the author mentions that, into the British Empire, relations between the UK and its colonies were more trade-based.

Indeed the UK took a great advantage of its kingdom.

However, nowadays some former British colonies have a much better economic situation than French ones: Canada and Australia are ones of the most developed countries, South Africa have a much better economic and political situation than other African countries (South Africa accounts for 40% of African industrial exportations, the democratic system is relatively stable even violence has not disappeared yet…)… Lastly, I think that we should also consider the advantages and disadvantages of colonialism on political point of view (indeed, mercantilism stresses the fact that nations must ensure their wealth and safety not only thanks to economy but also thanks to the military industry and diplomacy).

Thanks to their colonies European countries gained prestige.

It made them safer.

On the contrary, colonies lost prestige because of their dependency on Europe.

They appeared weaker, even after the decolonization (even if they got a strong state structure thanks to colonization: in most cases France and England delegated some power to local inhabitants which made it possible for them to build a sustainable state structure).

This analysis fits with the mercantilist principal of zero sum game.