“The French Empire did not allow the development of colonized countries”

by time news

Published on :

In a reference book, researcher Denis Cogneau dismantles certain received ideas about the economic legacy of French colonization. He asserts that the empire set up in Africa and Asia has cost France relatively little, that the resources garnered have only slightly benefited the colonized countries, and that the page of Françafrique is not completely closed. Interview.

RFI: Why did you choose this title: “ A cheap empire » ?

Denis Cogneau : The empire was already cheap for the metropolitan French taxpayer. The colonial military-police states built at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century in North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and Indochina were very effective in levying the fiscal resource, making these states function without claiming a subsidy or very large transfers. important in the metropolis.

Who did it relate to?

Neither public nor private capital trickled into the colonies. These colonial spaces were poor, and initially quite disconnected from international trade. They were forced into the world market. There have been theses which affirm on the contrary that the colonial empire was a burden, and that French capitalism had ended up divorcing this rather special marriage with the colonized territories. I don’t believe that’s the case. I believe that until very late, until independence, French capitalism still saw opportunities for profit. At the end of a very long work of compiling archives which took me about 15 years, I concluded that there were indeed returns of capital to metropolitan France. The gains for the French economy are not gigantic on average, but they are concentrated on a small fraction of the richest settlers established in the colonies, middle capitalists, and civil servants who, thanks to salaries, enjoy large bonuses. ‘expatriation. They have also accelerated their careers and their social mobility.

What did France leave behind? Unequal states?

Yes, authoritarian and unequal states. Nationalist elites took power with, in some cases, a small democratic phase. A few equally democratic exceptions were content to take on the costume and shoes of colonial administrators. And the mode of management that lasted before. We have a form of renewal in the structures of the State that we call dualistic in the economy, composed at the start of a small upper and middle class around the public service. In the 1960s, authors as different as Frantz Fanon, René Dumont and Samir Amin described the reconstitution of this bourgeoisie in the public sector, which received salaries clearly higher than the average income. And who also has the political decision-making power.

There is also a difficulty in redistributing…

African socialists were less successful in breaking with the colonial period, mainly because they nationalized French capital. Essentially, long before the goal of redistribution.

Has development aid progressed over time, between 1830 and independence?

In the beginning, there were wars of conquest, so there was a lot of military spending there. States must be built. Between the end of the 19th century and until 1945, the colonial states were largely self-financed, that is to say, they spent what they were able to raise locally. Therefore, from the point of view of metropolitan transfers, it is very limited. Indochina even made surpluses which financed the First World War. So the transfers tend to go the other way. At some point, that changes. From 1945, France, like Great Britain, told itself that it was necessary to do a little development to have a minimum of hope of maintaining an influence, if not a dominance. Metropolitan aid to colonies increases. At the time, there was a lot of debate in France. Some say “ the Corrèze must pass before the Zambeze “. When we take stock, the Corrèze has received more than the Zambeze.

And then ?

Between 1945 and 1962, we spend to keep the colonies against the independence movements. Civil transfers reach 0.5% of GDP. We never achieve the objective of 0.7% of GDP which is the objective of the OECD today. Colonization is not development aid. (…) You also have to see that France’s share in the aid received by these countries, in trade relations, the foreign direct investments received by these countries, has decreased significantly since the colonial period. A good part of French aid now passes through European aid. It is more diluted. However, I don’t think we can decree the final death of what has been called Françafrique and all that that means in terms of give and take, military, financial and political agreements.

During his trip to Cameroon in July 2022, Emmanuel Macron again put forward the principle of a new relationship between France and Africa, explaining that there is no preserve. Among these proposals, the French president affirms that in the face of competition from other countries, France must diversify its offer. What do you think ?

The speech seems a little more concrete on a number of things, but it also does not reach the level of precision and concreteness that one might wish. The objectives are quite noble and interesting, but I’m just cautious since it’s not the first time that a French president wants to turn the page on Françafrique. (…) According to the IMF data that I have reworked, French capital still represents 1/3 of foreign investment in Africa, knowing that France is not 1/3 of world capital. All the indicators show that the French presence tends to be reduced, perhaps to the despair of some of these actors. When Emmanuel Macron speaks of transparency in competition, it seems to reflect the complaint of some employers that France’s competitors do not have the same environmental, safety, etc. standards. This is the criticism that is often leveled at Chinese investments.

Could the pan-Africanism that we are talking about a lot at the moment be expressed through economic projects? Pipelines, free trade zones? Redefining Africa’s economic borders for lack of redefining political borders?

It’s an exciting and not new idea. The phases of independence led to what has been called a balkanization of Africa and a dissolution of the colonial federations. What certain actors of the time among the separatist leaders, in particular Léopold Sédar Senghor, largely regretted. Because we ended up with small countries immersed in the deep end of the global economy and without the capacity for solidarity. It’s complicated to restore pan-Africanism between the former French colonies or French-speaking countries, for example from the point of view of the monetary franc, the CFA franc. Some of the African elites do not necessarily have an interest in pooling their benefits because in terms of development aid, we benefit from a rent that we would then be obliged to share. There is resistance from the side of the elites who sometimes prefer to be mistresses in their own little domain rather than sharing with others. But there is resistance of the same order in European integration. It is not a specifically African problem, but it exists in Africa.

► All economic news on RFI:

You may also like

Leave a Comment