The long-run effects of the Scramble for Africa (2022)

The 'Scramble for Africa' – the artificial drawing of African political boundaries among European powers in the end of the 19th century – led to the partitioning of several ethnicities across newly created African states. This columns shows that partitioned ethnic groups have suffered significantly longer and more devastating civil wars. It also uncovers substantial spillovers as ethnic conflict spreads from the historical homeland of groups partitioned to nearby areas where non-split ethnicities reside.

The predominant explanations for the deep roots of contemporary African (under)development centre on the influence of Europeans during the colonial period (Acemoglu et al 2005), and on the slave trade in the centuries before colonisation when close to 20 million slaves were exported from Africa (Nunn 2008).1Yet another milestone took place amidst these two major events. In new research (Michalopoulos and Papaioannou 2011) we study the consequences of the "Scramble for Africa", which started with the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 and was completed by the turn of the 20th century. In this brief period, the prospective colonisers partitioned Africa into spheres of influence, protectorates, colonies, and free-trade areas. The borders were designed in European capitals at a time when Europeans had barely settled in Africa with little knowledge of the geography and ethnic composition of the areas whose borders were designing. Despite their arbitrariness these boundaries endured after African independence. As a result, in most African countries a significant fraction (around 40-45%) of the population belongs to groups that have been partitioned by a national border. Yet while case studies suggest that the main impact of Europeans’ influence in Africa was not colonisation per se, but the improper border design, there is little – if any – work that formally examines the impact of ethnic partitioning. Our work is a first step to fill this gap.

Quantifying the effects of the Scramble for Africa requires identifying the partitioned groups. To do so we use anthropological data from the pioneering work of George Peter Murdock (1959), who has mapped the spatial distribution of 834 ethnicities at the time of colonisation in the mid/late 19th century. In Figure 1 we project on top of Murdock’s map the current boundaries of African countries and classify as partitioned groups those ethnicities with at least 10% of their total surface area belonging to more than one country. There are 231 ethnic groups with at least 10% of their historical homeland falling into more than one country. When we use a more restrictive threshold of 20% there are 164 ethnicities partitioned across the national border.

Our procedure identifies most major partitioned ethnic groups. For example, the Maasai have been split between Kenya (62%) and Tanzania (38%), the Anyi between Ghana (58%) and the Ivory Coast (42%), and the Chewa between Mozambique (50%), Malawi (34%), and Zimbabwe (16%). We also calculate the probability that a randomly chosen pixel of the homeland of an ethnic group falls into different countries. The ethnic groups with the highest score in this index are the Malinke, which are split into six different countries; the Ndembu, which are split between Angola, Zaire, and Zambia; and the Nukwe, which are split between Angola, Namibia, Zambia, and Botswana.

Figure 1. Ethnic homelands and national borders in Africa

The long-run effects of the Scramble for Africa (1)

(Video) Stelios Michalopoulos - The Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa

In spite of the conspiracy theories, “the study of European archives supports the accidental rather than a conspiratorial theory of the marking of African boundaries” (Asiwaju 1985). Not only did Europeans have limited knowledge of local geographic conditions, since, with the exception of some coastal areas, the continent was largely unexplored, but at the time Europeans were not drawing borders of prospective states or – in many cases – even colonies. As the British Prime Minister at the time Lord Salisbury summarised: "we have been engaged in drawing lines upon maps where no white man's feet have ever trod; we have been giving away mountains and rivers and lakes to each other, only hindered by the small impediment that we never knew exactly where the mountains and rivers and lakes were."

In the first part of our empirical analysis we formally establish border artificiality. With the sole exceptions of the size of the historical homeland and area under water, we are unable to detect any other significant differences between partitioned and non-partitioned ethnicities with respect to a variety of geographical and ecological characteristics as well as regarding early development and early contact with Europeans. We further show that there are no systematic differences between split and non-partitioned ethnic groups, across several pre-colonial ethnic-specific institutional, cultural, and economic features.

We then employ the Scramble for Africa as a quasi-natural experiment and assess the impact of partitioning on civil conflict, as this has been theorised to be the main channel of influence. In contrast to most previous works examining the long-run effects of historical factors on development and the voluminous literature on the correlates of civil conflict that have relied on cross-country comparisons (see Blattman and Miguel 2010), we use regional data performing the analysis at the historical ethnic homeland level. Figure 2 below portray the spatial distribution of civil conflict across ethnic homelands.

Figure 2. The spatial distribution of civil conflict across ethnic homelands

The long-run effects of the Scramble for Africa (2)

Our regional focus allows us to control at a fine level for geography, the disease environment, natural resources, and other factors that may independently spur conflict and under-development. We also account for all country-level factors that affect civil war, such as institutional quality, ethnic fragmentation, foreign aid, national policies and for broad cross-ethnicity differences in pre-colonial institutional and economic traits.

(Video) A chat with Stelios Michalopoulos about the Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa

Using detailed data on the location, duration, and total casualties of all civil wars in Africa in the post-independence period (1970–2005), we show that civil conflict is concentrated in the historical homeland of partitioned ethnicities. We obtain similar results even when we restrict our analysis across ethnic homelands close to the national border. Our most conservative estimates suggest that civil conflict intensity, as reflected in casualties and duration, is approximately 25% higher in areas where partitioned ethnicities reside (as compared to the homelands of ethnicities that have not been separated).

The groups with the highest incidence of civil war are the Afar and the Esa, which during the period from 1970 to 2005 have experienced five civil wars. Both groups have been greatly impacted by artificial borders, the Afar being partitioned between Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti, and the Esa being split between Ethiopia and Somalia.

Besides quantifying the direct effect of ethnic partitioning on conflict, we document significant spillovers to areas adjacent to split ethnicities. Spillovers emerge for numerous reasons. First, the battleground between a partitioned ethnic group and the central government (or another ethnicity) might extend beyond the historical homeland of the partitioned ethnicity. For example, the battles between the Somali and Ethiopian tribes have not taken place solely across the border. Second, in many cases the conflict in the homeland of the partitioned ethnicity leads to displacement and refugee flows to nearby areas, which in turn may spur conflict. For example, the discriminatory policies of Mobutu Sese Seko against the Alur led to their displacement from Zaire, affecting adjacent regions both in Zaire and in Uganda.

Our analysis uncovers substantial spillovers. The deleterious consequences of partitioning are not limited to the homeland of split ethnic groups. Tribal areas adjacent to the ethnic homeland of partitioned groups also experience more civil wars, which tend to last longer and be more devastating. Our estimates imply that an ethnic group residing adjacent to a partitioned ethnic homeland is on average 5% more likely to experience civil conflict, ceteris paribus.

We have examined the consequences of a neglected aspect of colonisation, the Scramble for Africa, which resulted in the partitioning of several African ethnicities across different countries. Partitioned ethnicities have suffered systematically more from civil conflict compared to groups that have not been directly affected by the improper border design. We further show that civil conflict is not only concentrated in the historical homeland of partitioned ethnic groups, but groups adjacent to split ethnicities are also more likely to experience longer and more devastating (in terms of casualties) conflicts.

The uncovered differences in the probability and intensity of civil war between partitioned and non-partitioned groups become more dramatic when viewed in light of the fact that these two groups of ethnicities were socially, culturally and economically similar in the eve of colonisation and at the time of African independence. Our work thus suggests that the Scramble for Africa, by partitioning ethnicities in different countries, shaped the trajectory of these societies by spurring civil conflict and unrest.

(Video) The Scramble for Africa

Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A Robinson (2005), “Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth” in Philippe Aghion and Steven Durlauf (eds), The Handbook of Economic Growth, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Alesina, Alberto, William Easterly, and Janina Matuszeski (2011), “Artificial States”, Journal of the European Economic Association 9(2): 246-277.

Asiwaju, A. I. (1985): “The Conceptual Framework,” in Partitioned Africans, pp. 1-18. New York: St. Martin Press.

Blattman, Chris, and Edward Miguel (2010), “Civil War,” Journal of Economic Literature, 48(1), 3-57.

Dowden, Richard (2008), Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles, London: Portobello Books Ltd.

Englebert, Pierre,.Stacey Tarango, and Matthew Carter (2002), “Dismemberment and Suffocation: A Contribution to the Debate on African Boundaries”, Comparative Political Studies, 35(10): 1093-1118.

(Video) The Scramble for Africa

Gennaioli, Nicola and Ilia Rainer (2007), “The Modern Impact of Precolonial Centralization in Africa”, Journal of Economic Growth, 12(3): 185-234.

Herbst, Jeffery (2001), State and Power in Africa, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Michalopoulos, Stelios and Elias Papaioannou (2010), “Divide and Rule or the Rule of the Divided? Evidence from Africa”, CEPR Discussion Paper 8088.

Michalopoulos, Stelios and Elias Papaioannou (2011), “The Long Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa”, CEPR Discussion Paper 8676.

Murdock, George Peter (1959), Africa: Its Peoples and Their Culture History. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Nunn, Nathan (2008), “The Long Term Effects of Africa’s Slave Trades”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(1): 139-176.

(Video) ROH - Scramble for Africa

1 Some recent works also emphasise the effect of deeply rooted pre-colonial ethnic institutions in shaping contemporary economic development in Africa. Gennaioli and Rainer (2007) present cross-country evidence of a robust positive association between pre-colonial political centralisation and the contemporaneous quality of public-goods provision and institutional quality. Michalopoulos and Papaioannou (2010) show that even when one looks within African countries or focuses across adjacent ethnic homelands there is a strong positive correlation between the degree of ethnic political centralisation at the time of colonisation and regional development, as reflected in satellite images on light density at night. See our previous VOX piece.

FAQs

What were the long term effects of the scramble for Africa? ›

The 'Scramble for Africa' – the artificial drawing of African political boundaries among European powers in the end of the 19th century – led to the partitioning of several ethnicities across newly created African states.

What was the scramble for Africa answers? ›

The Scramble for Africa is referred to as the period between 1881 and 1914, when European powers were dividing and colonizing African territories. It was during the era of 'New Imperialism' when European governments focused on enhancing their empires and acquiring territories around the world.

What was the long term impact of the colonization of Africa? ›

The European colonization of Africa brought racism, civil unrest, and insatiable greed; all of which have had lasting impacts on Africa. Along with the power of owning vast amounts of land, white explorers brought an air of supremacy with them.

What were the positive effects of the scramble for Africa? ›

Some positives historians have pointed out are medicine, education, improved infrastructure, Christianity, and boundaries. The growth of the African population was aided by the Western medicine introduced by Europeans.

What were the causes and effects of the scramble for Africa? ›

Causes of colonisation

During this time of colonisation, an economic depression was occurring in Europe, and powerful countries such as Germany, France, and Great Britain, were losing money. Africa seemed to be out of harm's way and had an abundance of raw materials from which Europe could make money from.

What was the scramble for Africa summary? ›

Abstract. The Scramble for Africa refers to the period between roughly 1884 and 1914, when the European colonisers partitioned the – up to that point – largely unexplored African continent into protectorates, colonies and 'free-trade areas'.

Was the scramble for Africa positive or negative? ›

However, they were also some of the last major events in the history of the Scramble for Africa. ​In all, the Scramble for Africa had a profound impact on the history of the world. It led to both positive and negative outcomes for the people of Europe and Africa.

Who won scramble Africa? ›

Within forty years, by 1914 and the end of the scramble for Africa, Great Britain dominated the breadth of the African continent from Egypt to South Africa, as well as Nigeria and the Gold Coast; the French occupied vast expanses of west Africa; the Germans boasted control over modern-day Tanzania and Namibia; the ...

Who began the scramble for Africa? ›

The scramble for Africa led Bismarck to propose the 1884-85 Berlin Conference. Following the 1904 Entente cordiale between France and the UK, Germany tried to test the alliance in 1905, with the First Moroccan Crisis.

What are 5 effects of colonization? ›

Some of the negative impacts that are associated with colonization include; degradation of natural resources, capitalist, urbanization, introduction of foreign diseases to livestock and humans. Change of the social systems of living. Nevertheless, colonialism too impacted positively on the economies and social systems.

What were the long term effects of colonization? ›

Colonialism's impacts include environmental degradation, the spread of disease, economic instability, ethnic rivalries, and human rights violations—issues that can long outlast one group's colonial rule.

What are the positive and negative effects of the colonization? ›

Where colonizers established medical centers, they succeeded in lowering infant mortality and promoted vaccination and disease prevention. While the colonizers did bring positive improvements and advancements, the inhabitants often lacked immunity to the pathogens the colonizers also brought from their home countries.

What are the positive and negative effects of imperialism in Africa? ›

In conclusion, there were many positive and negative effects during the imperialism of Africa. Some of the positives were overall improvement in education, health, and medicine. Some of the negatives were taking land by force, starting unnecessary wars, and taking wealth out of countries.

What were the effects of the partition of Africa? ›

First of all, the partition of Africa laid the foundation for the Europeans to colonize the continent. After the partition of the continent among the various European countries trading in Africa, any territory where a European country had spheres of influence “legally” became a colony for that European country.

What were the effects of colonization in Africa? ›

Furthermore, colonialism introduced a dual economic structure within the African economy. It also brought about disarticulation of African economy, education, trade, market, transport and currency institution. Colonialism made African colonies dependent by introducing a mono- cultural economy for the territories.

What was the scramble for Africa essay? ›

What is the Scramble for Africa? The Scramble for Africa was a time when many European countries raced to take over parts of Africa, each of them hoping to gain access to her natural resources, people, and money. By the early 1900's, nearly all of the continent was ruled by a European power.

Who Found Africa? ›

Portuguese explorer Prince Henry, known as the Navigator, was the first European to methodically explore Africa and the oceanic route to the Indies.

How many countries are Africa? ›

There are 54 countries in Africa today, according to the United Nations. The full list is shown in the table below, with current population and subregion (based on the United Nations official statistics).

Who divided Africa? ›

The Berlin Conference spanned almost four months of deliberations, from 15 November 1884 to 26 February 1885. By the end of the Conference the European powers had neatly divided Africa up amongst themselves, drawing the boundaries of Africa much as we know them today.

What were the effects of the partition of Africa? ›

First of all, the partition of Africa laid the foundation for the Europeans to colonize the continent. After the partition of the continent among the various European countries trading in Africa, any territory where a European country had spheres of influence “legally” became a colony for that European country.

What were the three effects of European imperialism on Africa? ›

The European Imperialism in Africa influenced the future of the citizens in Africa and Africa as a whole in three ways, the forced labor or slavery from the countries with valuable rescoures, the forced spread of Christianity, and the decreasing amounts of resources in Africa because of the abundant amount of trade.

What long term impact did the Berlin conference have on Africa? ›

It established the rules for the conquest and partition of Africa, in the process legitimising the ideas of Africa as a playground for outsiders, its mineral wealth as a resource for the outside world not for Africans and its fate as a matter not to be left to Africans.

Did the scramble for Africa cause ww1? ›

The Scramble of Africa led to the start of World War I because it increased rivalry between the European nations as they fought against each other for territory in Africa and control over different regions.

What are the effects of the scramble and partition of Africa? ›

The Scramble for Africa has contributed to economic, social, and political underdevelopment by spurring ethnic-tainted civil conflict and discrimination and by shaping the ethnic composition, size, shape and landlocked status of the newly independent states.

What was the scramble for Africa essay? ›

What is the Scramble for Africa? The Scramble for Africa was a time when many European countries raced to take over parts of Africa, each of them hoping to gain access to her natural resources, people, and money. By the early 1900's, nearly all of the continent was ruled by a European power.

Who won the scramble for Africa? ›

The two greatest victors in the Scramble for Africa were Britain and France.

What were the positive and negative effects of imperialism in Africa? ›

In conclusion, there were many positive and negative effects during the imperialism of Africa. Some of the positives were overall improvement in education, health, and medicine. Some of the negatives were taking land by force, starting unnecessary wars, and taking wealth out of countries.

What positive effects did imperialism have on Africa? ›

Although Imperialism has had many positive effects such as the spread of medicine, education and a more prosperous economy it mainly deprived small countries of their rights, own culture, own resources and allowed big countries…show more content…

Which was a major effect of European imperialism in Africa? ›

Imperialism disrupted traditional African ways of life, political organization, and social norms. European imperialism turned subsistence farming into large-scale commodity exports and patriarchal social structures into European-dominated hierarchies and imposed Christianity and Western ideals.

Was the scramble for Africa positive or negative for the continent? ›

However, they were also some of the last major events in the history of the Scramble for Africa. ​In all, the Scramble for Africa had a profound impact on the history of the world. It led to both positive and negative outcomes for the people of Europe and Africa.

How did Africa react to the scramble for Africa? ›

Africans escaped colonial military and administrative abuses through avoidance tactics. Hearing of approaching colonial armies, tax collectors, or labor recruiters, Africans fled their homes or concealed themselves to avoid violent confrontations and dispossession.

What were the political reasons for the scramble for Africa? ›

The rivalry between European powers was also one of the main drives behind the Scramble for Africa. In order to prevent each other from acquiring more territories, the Europeans carved up the African continent into colonies.

What were 3 long term effects of ww1? ›

It led to the Russian Revolution, the collapse of the German Empire and the collapse of the Hapsburg Monarchy, and it led to the restructuring of the political order in Europe and in other parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East.

What are the 4 main long term causes of ww1? ›

SUMMARY: The assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 s said to be the spark that's started the war but there were many long term causes that led to the outbreak of the First World War. Historians argue they can be split into four categories: Imperialism; Nationalism; Militarism; and Alliances.

What are long term causes? ›

Long term causes are things that happened years, decades or centuries ago that contribute towards a new event. The weak leadership of King Louis XVI of France is considered to be a long term cause of the French Revolution of 1789. When looking at causation, long term causes are often the most difficult to find.

Videos

1. Imperialism-Scramble for Africa
(marshall canosa)
2. Scramble for Africa
(Justin Schwenk)
3. The Scramble for Africa
(Holden Morter)
4. The impact of colonialism in Sub-Saharan Africa?
(Mikias Ghebrehiwot)
5. Scramble for Africa Lecture
(Dean Obrokta)
6. The Scramble For Africa Lathan Field
(lathan field)

Top Articles

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Msgr. Refugio Daniel

Last Updated: 08/21/2022

Views: 6456

Rating: 4.3 / 5 (54 voted)

Reviews: 93% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Msgr. Refugio Daniel

Birthday: 1999-09-15

Address: 8416 Beatty Center, Derekfort, VA 72092-0500

Phone: +6838967160603

Job: Mining Executive

Hobby: Woodworking, Knitting, Fishing, Coffee roasting, Kayaking, Horseback riding, Kite flying

Introduction: My name is Msgr. Refugio Daniel, I am a fine, precious, encouraging, calm, glamorous, vivacious, friendly person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.