Question 1:

a) This statement means that slavery in Africa was practiced long before any foreign
trade of slaves started. The kings and heads of tribes used to practice slavery.
b) Slave owners started to sell slaves to Europeans and specifically to Portuguese to get
Portuguese products in exchange. Products like firearms, textile products and
alcohol were received in return for these slaves.
c) Europeans were involved in this slave trade because, to satisfy the growing need of
their products they needed cheap labor. The slaves in Africa provided them with this
and hence, they were involved in this slave trade.
d) After the colonial time, Africa was not able to industrialize and move away from
poverty due to several reasons:
1. The colonial governments in Africa did not take any responsibility or make
any attempt to educate the Africans (this was left to the religious authorities,
this being the Christian missionaries and Muslim Madrasahs). The literacy
rate of the African population remained quite low until they were
independent.
2. The colonial governments failed to establish any local bank that would be
used to finance any investments into the economy.
3. As for economic policies for development, the colonial governments adopted
only element of the 19th century standard development model – improved
transportation. Extensive railway networks were built largely to facilitate the
export of primary products by linking the interior region to the ports.
4. Furthermore, the European colonies, mainly the German, Belgian and French
colonies that were residing in Western part of Africa, adopted a land and
labor policy. Under this, the land of natives was expropriated and given away
to investors in Europe which then used them for plantations and mining. This
went against the interest of the natives.
5. The prices of the two main products (palm oil and cocoa) exported by
Africans were on a downward trajectory. This fall in export prices led to a fall
in incomes for the farmers.
Question 2:
Part 1:

a) The two key differences between North America and South/ Latin America which
helped North America to develop faster were:
1. First key difference which helped North America to develop faster was the
geography. Geography of the region mattered because it affected the ability
to trade with the Europeans. North America was much favorable in this
regard as it was closer to Europe than South/Latin America. It was favorable
because Europe was the main market for export of the colonies. Secondly,
with the shipping costs being high for South/Latin America, the North
American could take advantage and produce and export significantly wider
range of products. Another advantage of geography was in the interior of the
two regions. The interior of North America was quite well connected with the
help of several rivers which are the Mississippi, the Mohawk-Hudson and the
St. Lawrence. Also, the eastern coastline of the continent was quite wide and
fertile enough to support a significant economy. In contrast to this, Mexico
was quite a land-locked country. We can say that most of the economic
activity of Latin America occurred in the interior of Mexico and the Andes.
There were no rivers connecting these regions to the coast so the
transportation cost of exports was high.
2. Second key difference which helped North America was the demography. The
temperate climate in the USA, Canada and much of South America presented
little threat of disease to the Europeans. This helped their colonies to flourish
in these areas. In contrast to this tropical disease occurring in the regions of
the Caribbean and Amazon led to high mortality rate of the Europeans and
hence, this suppressed the growth of their population in these areas.
b) Mexico struggled in early stages because of various reasons:
1. Firstly, the wages of their laborers. The real wages had slumped from the
twice the level of subsistence in 1780 to a bare bone level of subsistence in
1830. This means that the laborers earned very high wages in 1780 and then
gradually, the earned enough to maintain a bare bones diet, a diet in which
the food was minimal.
2. Greater international competition undermining the manufacturing sector in
late 18th century which led to deindustrialization.
3. The “standard model for economic development” was missing in Latin
America. There was no mass education, no elimination of internal tariffs and
no expansion of the transportation infrastructure. This is one of the key
reasons why development did not kick off in Mexico.
4. Supply of technology was low in Latin America.
5. Also, the lack of literacy led to a lack in skill of the laborers.
c) The ISI and the dependency theory are used to describe the development of Latin
America in the 20th century because:
1. Under the import substitution industrialization, Latin America laid over
90,000 kilometers of railway network in places like Argentina, Mexico, Chile
and Brazil. Secondly, Latin America imposed tariffs to protect their industries
 like textiles and iron. Third, they followed the Russian model where in the
investment was financed abroad. The fourth thing was education. They
lapsed here because they failed to provide universal education. An exception
for this was Argentina as they gave free schooling in 1884. This led to half of
their population being literate compared to 25% in countries like Brazil,
Mexico and Venezuela. The manufacturing gained pace behind the imposed
tariffs.
2. The dependency theory: falling prices of primary products with respect to
prices of manufactured imports and the recommended promotion of the
state to counter this trend. The dependency theory led to a comprehensive
application of the standard model for economic development. Universal
education was made available. Development and investment banks were
established to invest in the economy and to fund the development. Tariffs
were imposed and government controls were there to promote native
industries. Manufacturing output rose and the urbanization within the
countries soared.
Question 3:
Part 1:

As we can see in the first picture, there was prosperity in the Soviet. The agricultural
industry generated large amounts of output. The agriculture industry was quite flourished.
While, in the second picture which is an article, we can observe and see that there is a
famine. People do not have enough food to eat. A huge part of the population has starved
to death due to this famine.

This situation might have occurred to due collectivism. Under this, the ownership of private
land was abolished and the land owned by the citizens was then made publicly owned. This
was politically the most controversial policy because, it was something that the peasants
totally disliked. Peasants were the kind of people who preferred small family-owned farms
and also the periodic redistribution of the farmland done by the village to ensure their
equality. In this event of collectivization, it was a huge failure as it resulted in huge fall in the
farm output and eventually led to the famine which we can see in the article. This famine
occurred in 1933.

Collectivization was a failure because the people who owned these farms might have gotten
upset with the introduction of this policy. The peasants who earned several parts of farm
land usually preferred to work on these lands themselves. Since now that they no longer
have ownership of their own land, they might prefer not to work or produce enough to only
feed themselves and their families. This might be a problem for the whole country as there
is not enough output to feed the entire population. When we compare this to stats, we can
see that an average woman in the 1920s in the Soviet Union has seven kids. To feed this kid
of population is quite a challenge when you already have small amount of agricultural
output.

Also, most of the Russian population lived in the countryside where they made handicraft
products and practiced agriculture on a small scale. In a country where the agriculture is
already done on a small scale and then you impose a policy which upsets these farmers
makes the situation from bad to worse. The Russian GDP per capita might have risen from
the mass mortality that occurred in this period due to the famine, but this does not change
the fact the policy of collectivization led to mass starvation. Collectivization also led to
migration of people from the countryside to modern and urban cities.

Overall, I think that collectivization was not a good policy as first of all it upset the farmer
peasants. Then it led to a huge fall in farm output. Then it led to a famine which led to mass
starvation which led to death of 6 million people.