English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

6 answers

How long have you got? Prepare for a rant!

Because their primary resources were exploited / exported by colonialists. A pittance was paid for them. Secondary and Tertiary production, where the money was made, was done elsewhere. Colonialists had their eye on what they could get out of the country, not the social welfare of the individuals.
Following colonialism, the World Bank and other such 'charitable' organizations decided to loan cash to them so that they could 'develop' along the lines of Western development models. This often resulted in inappropriate development projects that were not sustainable and exceptionally expensive. Remember after colonialism, those who came to power were those who were 'favoured' by the outgoing colonialists and so many of them had little choice when seeking investment. The interest rates were ridiculous and unpayable. And then there is the whole issue of 'tied aid' where money would be 'given' for development providing it was spent in specific ways. Also, donor countries were often the ones who provided the services, products etc for 'development' thus suppressing local markets.
In the mean time, 'ownership 'of the natural resources was transferred into the hands of the 'few'. Often, this resulted in certain ethnic factions having 'more' and others having 'less.' Consequently, disputes occurred due to the disparity of the distribution of wealth and 'ownership.' As the new 'powers' had certain affiliations with ethnic groups / regions of the country, the disparities were exacerbated.
Then when you have such a valuable resource as gold and the UK government decides to sell off loads of its stockpile in order to cancel 'third world debt', it actually reduces price of one of the resources they had that could hold any value on the world market.


I could go on, but I'll stop ranting now...

2006-12-20 08:11:51 · answer #1 · answered by Rachael B 3 · 0 0

Becauese resources have nothing to do with wealth. Japan, for example, is extremely resource-poor, yet it is one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

In the long run, the wealth or poverty of a nation is determined by whether its political and social institutions are conductive for economic growth. Many African countries lack proper institutions and are flush with improper ones, such as corrupt government and incessant warfare...

2006-12-20 05:12:07 · answer #2 · answered by NC 7 · 0 1

Corruption
Tyrants
Lack of rule of law
Lack of private property rights
.

2006-12-20 00:02:42 · answer #3 · answered by Zak 5 · 0 1

They have corupt governments and tribal and religious wars.

2006-12-19 18:07:56 · answer #4 · answered by October 7 · 0 1

bcuz they produce it and sell for a low amount of money and most goes to tha govt...

2006-12-19 18:09:08 · answer #5 · answered by canarybrd09 2 · 1 1

being from south africa and being into africa...its corruption and goverment officails.

2006-12-19 18:57:07 · answer #6 · answered by visualwind 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers