How come Burma ended up being poor but Canada didn't even though they were both British colonies?

Sep 2018
40
Sri Lanka
Australia, US, New Zealand did well but a lot of the African countries and Asian countries did so poorly, why is that?
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,519
Las Vegas, NV USA
If you consider only native people, Canada had a relatively poor population compared to the French and English speaking settlers. Densely populated Asian and African colonies had large native populations with relatively small numbers of colonial settlers. The colonizing powers had technological advantages in the 18th and 19th centuries. Consider the First Opium War where China had to sign an unequal treaty after a short war with Britain. China wasn't colonized but India and Burma were.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,643
Spain
Because it is not matter who ruled the land..but the society grew there...Burkina Faso is very poor and Canada is very rich... both were French Dominions....Trandniester is very poor.. Alaska is very rich... both were Russian Dominions....Guatemala is poor, Low Countries are rich.. both were Spanish Dominions...Israel is rich...Albania is poor.. both were Ottoman Dominions...
 

Earl_of_Rochester

Ad Honoris
Feb 2011
13,609
Perambulating in St James' Park
I think it depends upon whether they adopted the British ideals of free trade, entrepreneurship, common law and enterprise. I guess location may play a part too with Singapore being on a major shipping lane. This is partly why I never bought the claims from Guns, Germs & Steel. Society and social values play a major part in economy, imho. Japan is a good example of a nation embracing Western industrialisation.
 

Earl_of_Rochester

Ad Honoris
Feb 2011
13,609
Perambulating in St James' Park
Because it is not matter who ruled the land..but the society grew there...Burkina Faso is very poor and Canada is very rich... both were French Dominions....Trandniester is very poor.. Alaska is very rich... both were Russian Dominions....Guatemala is poor, Low Countries are rich.. both were Spanish Dominions...Israel is rich...Albania is poor.. both were Ottoman Dominions...
A lot of those rich countries have been influenced by Anglo-Saxon trade. Though the Dutch were famous for their own trade, perhaps there's some truth to the Protestant Work Ethic?
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,856
India
First they were British people race so they brought way of life to their colonies. Secondly, British had different policies towards the White Settlers colonies when compared the other colonies where natives formed the majority.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,643
Spain
A lot of those rich countries have been influenced by Anglo-Saxon trade. Though the Dutch were famous for their own trade, perhaps there's some truth to the Protestant Work Ethic?
Well, I think before I must add the Seaborne trade was brought by the Spaniards (and Portuguese) to Europe... so Catholic... any of the great comoditie was brought to Europe by protestants.. nor Tea, nor Coffe, nor chocolate, nor tomatoes, no Paprika, nor Potatoes... etc etc.
But yes I agree with you.. the Portestant work Ethic (based on the Catholic School of Salamanca that so great influenced had in France and Netherlands) mainly Calvinus, Zwinglio and Erasmus was very important for trade in 17th-19th centuries. Protestants were pirates and racist.. but they had a great Work Ethic... most of them. But Sugar Cane was not in America because Dutch Protestant but Spanish Catholics.
 

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,482
Malaysia
I wud say, many cultures & peoples all had their own great work ethics. It is certainly not that only a handful of peoples in the world are industrious & the rest are all lazy sloths. You just go to the countryside of any place, and you can always see folks working their darndest hardest to put food on the table. Only sometimes, their country's leaders made the mistake of choosing the wrong economic development path.