Navigation auf uzh.ch
Navigation auf uzh.ch
Similar to trade concentration, we can categorize colonies regarding their dependence on direct investment from the metropole country. The data situation, however, is very poor for the colonial period itself. As a proxy, we relied on the data in Stock of Private Direct Investment by D.A.C. Countries in Developing Countries End 1967 provided by the OECD (1972), again complemented by sources such as colonial/national histories and estimates. As in the case of trade concentration, we classified the cases in five categories:
In twelve cases (15%), we found no colonial investment effect, in eight cases a moderate and in nine case a significant investment effect. That means, that in little more one third of the countries of our sample, there is no persisting investment concentration (more than half of total foreign investment) detectable which could be related to a specific colonial experience. That also makes two thirds of the cases for more than 50% dependent on investment from the former metropole country, many of them beyond independence. 10 cases can be attributed to ‘level 3’, while in 44 cases (53%) at least two thirds of private direct investment in colonial and/or in postcolonial times stem from the respective metropole country. It seems that colonial domination strongly relates to investment flows, with persisting effects beyond political decolonization. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are more likely to have a high direct investment concentration than the ones in Asia/North Africa (see 'Descriptive Statistics'). There are significant correlations with the intensity of political domination (DOMFORM) and the instrumentalization of ethnolinguistic and/or religious cleavages, with several other indicators of economic transformation – trade concentration (TRADECON), bullion mining (GOLD), the significance of colonial investments in infrastructure (INVEST) and of plantations (PLANTAT) – and two indicators of social transformation
