250951744

Sarah McFarlan

2227 Midterm

Question 1: Colonial Division of Labour

The Colonial Division of Labour:

Sowing the Seeds of the Development Project

“The real aim of colonialism was to control people's wealth — what they produced, how they

produced it, and how it was distributed; to control, in other words, the entire realm of the
language of real life.” (Thiong’o, 1985)

The above quotation from Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o succinctly describes the processes of

colonialism and how subjugation of colonized nations occurred through economic means. The
goal of this essay is to explore the specific colonization process of colonial division of labour and
how it relates to the development project. In order to draw connections between colonial division
of labour and the development project, I will first define and explain the functions of the colonial
division of labour, explore how it led to unequal global development, and examine how the
colonial division of labour brought about the necessary conditions for the development project to
occur in the first place.
Starting in the sixteenth century, European colonial powers such as Spain, Portugal,
Holland, France, and Britain travelled across the world to seek raw materials (McMichael, 2016:
31). Throughout the world, European traders and merchant companies established specialized
extraction of the raw materials that were unavailable in their countries of origin by trading them
for manufactured finished goods. These raw materials were then processed in Europe to be sold
and consumed in the rest of the world. The process of specialization of resource extraction in
colonized countries that were manufactured in Europe is known as the colonial division of labour
(McMichael, 2016: 31). This exchange created a fundamentally unequal power dynamic that
built Europe’s industrial economy while destroying the places they colonized ability to be self-
sufficient.
The colonial division of labour generated unequal development because colonized
countries became specialized in the exporter of a handful of raw materials, which came at the
expense of the development of their own diverse manufacturing capabilities. While colonial
nations relied on the resources from the nations they colonized, Europe still held the hegemonic
power that came from monopolizing the manufacturing process and control of the end product.
Previously self-sufficient nations came to rely upon the finished goods of the colonial powers
because European countries made a concerted effort to destroy local handicrafts and production
through increased tariffs (Hooks, 2020: Lecture 3: Instituting the Development Project). For
example, they undermined the Indian craft of producing luxury cotton muslins and calicos by
imposing tariffs of 70 to 80 percent against Indian finished goods (McMichael, 2016: 32).
Practices like imposing tariffs on finished goods and converting countries farming practices to
export monoculture created indentured and exploitative relationships that led to food insecurity,
hunger, famine, and social unrest for colonized nations (Hooks, 2020: Lecture 3: Instituting the
Development Project), all of which persist to this day.
The development project refers to the politically orchestrated program that occurred after
the Second World War, in which postcolonial states were incorporated into the global expansion
of Westernized capitalist markets focused on self-governing markets and self-maximizing
 250951744
Sarah McFarlan

consumers (McMichael, 2016: 4). The reason the colonial division of labour and the
development project are connected is the project itself depended on the unequal relationships that
were forged through colonialism and international division of labour (McMichael, 2016: 38).
Capitalism as an economic system requires and nurtures inequality which was widespread thanks
practices such as the colonial division of labour. In a way, the development project continued the
work of the colonizers by instituting a plan for national and political-economic development that
benefited the “developed” nations at the expense of “developing” nations.
In conclusion, the legacy of the colonial division of labour became embedded in the
Third World economic and social structure where they continued to depend on primary exports
(McMichael, 2016: 54). The colonial division of labour and the social reorganization that it led
to brought about the necessary backdrop for the development project to occur because it created
unequal nation states which meant international capitalism could flourish. The specialization of
resource extraction decimated local and more sustainable practices in colonized countries, which
left them in a vulnerable position to be further exploited through the development project. Both
the colonial division of labour and the development project help explain why so much inequality
persists to this day, and why some countries are rich, and others remain poor.

References

McMichael, P. (2016). Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, inc. 

Thiong’o, N. (1985). The language of African literature. New Left Review, 150, 109–127.

The adoption of the European model of development across the formerly colonial world in the post
World War II era was the underpinnings of what is known as the "development project". The
globalization project that succeeded/replaced the "development project" emerged an alternative way
of organizing economic growth corresponding to the growing scale and power of the transnational
banks and corporations. 

W hen colonies became independent nation-states, their economies continued to depend on primary exports. But

why would political independence be associated with "dependent development"?

 First, the colonial division of labor's legacy of resource extraction was embed- ded in Third World social structures,
where trading classes of landowners and merchants, enriched by the exports of primary goods, would favor continuing
this relationship. And, of course, the First World still desired raw materials and agricultural imports and markets for its
industrial products.
 Second, as newly independent states industrialized, they purchased First World technology, paying with loans or
foreign exchange earned from primary exports.
 Third, nation-states formed within an international framework, with the nor- mative, legal, and financial relationships
of the United Nations (UN) and the

Bretton Woods institutions integrating states into universal political-economic relations.

 250951744
Sarah McFarlan

(54)

In conclusion, vfhjvfs

References

McMichael, P. (2016). Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, inc. 

Thiong’o, N. (1985). The language of African literature. New Left Review, 150, 109–127.

Rough notes

Natio~-states (vere territorially defined political systems based on the government-citizen relationship that emerged
in nineteenth-century Europe. Colonialism e1ported this political model (with it~ military shell), framing the politics
of tp.e decolonization movement, even where national boundar- ies made little tense.

At this point, the colonial rule of subjects under the guise of civilizing inferior races morphed into the devel-
opment project, based on the ideal of self-governing states composed of citi- zens united by the ideology of
nationalism. And by the twenty-first century, the global development project focused. on market governance of and
by self-maximizing consumers. Given this trajectory, development is conven- tionally understood as economic
growth and rising consumption.

“development historically depended on the unequal relationships of colonialism, which included

an unequal division of labor and unequal ecological exchanges—both of which produced a
legacy of “underdevelopment” in the colonial and postcolonial worlds.” -38

— In other words, as the ‘development project’ universalised the ‘national’ model of

economic development as a key to completion of the state system, following
decolonisation, at the same time a ‘new international division of labour’ in agriculture
began to form around transnational commodity complexes (Raynolds et al. 1993).
◦ The ‘development project’ refers to a politically-orchestrated initiative following
the Second World War, incorporating postcolonial states into an imperial field of
power to legitimise and expand capitalist markets as the vehicle of ‘national’
economic growth and modernity (McMichael 1996)
 250951744
Sarah McFarlan

India. Until the nineteenth century, Indian cotton muslins and calicos were

luxury imports into Europe (as were Chinese silks and satins). By that time,

While colonial powers relied on the resources that

monopolized the power to turn the raw materials into useable and consumable products, this
enabled their economies to flourish, while colonized nations had the power that came with the
end product

— “The colonial division of labour created unequal development because colonized

countries were converted into exporters of raw materials, at the expense of their own
development. The relationship created dependency because the raw materials of the
colonized countries were turned into finished goods that were used by the colonies.”

— While the colonial division of labor stimulated European industrializa- tion, it forced non-Europeans into
primary commodity production. Special- ization at each end of the exchange set in motion a transformation
of social and environmental relationships, fueled by a dynamic relocation of resources and energy from
colony to metropolis: an unequal ecological exchange.3 Not only were the colonies converted into exporters
of raw materials and food- stuffs, but they also became "exporters of sustainability. "4
— 31
— The colonial division of labor, as cause and consequence of economic growth, exposed
non-European cultures and ecologies to profound disorga- nization, as c~lonies were
converted into supply zones of labor and resources. Local crafts and mixed farming
systems were undermined, alien- ating land and (orests for commercial exploitation and
rupturing the eco- logical balan~. Not only did non-European cultures surrender their
handicraft industries in this exchange, but also their agriculture was often reduced to a
specialized export monoculture, where local farmers produced a single crop, such as
peanuts or coffee, for export, or plantations (sugar, cotton, tea, rubber, bananas) were
imposed on land appropriated from those who became plantation laborers. Systems of
export agriculture interrupted centuries-old patterns of diet and cultivation, creating the
all-too-familiar commercial food economy, in which "what was grown became
disconnected from what was eaten, and for the first time in history, money determined
what people ate and even if they ate. "5

— Handicraft decline was often deliberate and widespread. Perhaps the best-
— known destruction of native crafts occurred through Britain's conquest of
— India. Until the nineteenth century, Indian cotton muslins and calicos were
— luxury imports into Europe (as were Chinese silks and satins). By that time,
— however, the Eah India Company (which ruled India for the British Crown
— until 1858) undermined this Indian craft and, in its own words, "succeeded in
— converting India' from a manufacturing country into a country exporting raw
— produce." 6 Th~company had convinced the Briti;h government to use tariffs
— of 70 percent t~ ~Opercent against Indian finished goods and to permit virtu-
 250951744
Sarah McFarlan

— ally free entry 1f raw cotton into England. In turn, British traders flooded India
— with cheap cloth manufactured in Manchester. Industrial technology (textile
— machinery and the steam engine) combined with political power to impose the
— colonial divisiqr1of labor, as British-built railway systems moved Indian raw
— cotton to coas~~lports for shipment to Liverpool 'and returned across India
— selling machine-r,rtadeproducts-and un~ermini~g a time-honored craft.
◦ (32)
— The coloniat 4ivision of labor devastated producing communities and their craft- and
agriculture-based systems (34)
— his was a global process, whereby slaves, peasants, and laborers in the colonies
provisioned European industrial classes with cheap colonial products, such as sugar, tea,
tropical oils, and cotton for clothing. European development was realized through a
racialized global relationship, "underdevelopiμg" colonial cultures.
◦ The legacy of which exists today (34)
— The colonial ·division of labor developed European capitalist civilization (with food arid
raw materials) at the same time that it undermined non- European culfures and ecologies
(36)

Development project:

“development historically depended on the unequal relationships of colonialism, which included

an unequal division of labor and unequal ecological exchanges—both of which produced a
legacy of “underdevelopment” in the colonial and postcolonial worlds.” -38

— In other words, as the ‘development project’ universalised the ‘national’ model of

economic development as a key to completion of the state system, following
decolonisation, at the same time a ‘new international division of labour’ in agriculture
began to form around transnational commodity complexes (Raynolds et al. 1993).
◦ The ‘development project’ refers to a politically-orchestrated initiative following
the Second World War, incorporating postcolonial states into an imperial field of
power to legitimise and expand capitalist markets as the vehicle of ‘national’
economic growth and modernity (McMichael 1996)

Colonialism was far-reaching and multidimensional in its effects. We focus here on the colonial
division of labor because it isolates a key issue in the development puzzle. Unless we see the
interdependence created through this division of world labor, it is easy to take our unequal world
at face value and view it as a natural continuum, with an advanced European region showing the
way for a backward, non-European region. But viewing world inequality as relational
(interdependent) rather than as sequential (catch-up), calls the conventional
modern understanding of “development” into question. The conventional understanding is that
individual societies experience or pursue development in sequence, on a “development ladder.”
If, however, industrial growth in Europe depended on agricultural monoculture in the non-
 250951744
Sarah McFarlan

European world, then development was more than simply a national process, even if represented
as such. What we can conclude from the colonial project is that development historically
depended on the unequal relationships of colonialism, which included an unequal division of
labor and unequal ecological exchanges—both of which produced a legacy of
“underdevelopment” in the colonial and postcolonial worlds. Persisting global inequality today,
in material and governance terms, prompts the charge of “recolonization.”

38

— the worldwide decolonization movement peaked {s European colonialism collapsed in the mid-twentieth
century, when World War II sapped the power of the French, Dutch, British, and J;

— Belgian states 'to withstand anticolonial struggles. -38

— c

Lecture:
— Colonies forced to produce and extract raw materials and primary commodity unavailable
in Europe
◦ These primary commodities fueled European manufacturing
— This colonial division of labor transformed social and environmental relationships
◦ Established unequal ecological exchange in which colonies exported
sustainability
— Mixed farming systems converted to specialized export monocultures
— Creation of a commercial food economy
— Local handcrafts destroyed through tariffs
— Example: Through tariffs of 70 to 80 percent against Indian finished goods, British
traders used industrial technology (textile machinery and steam engine) and political
power to undermine India’s export luxury cotton cloth production so that India would
export raw cotton to Manchester’s mills.
— European development realized through “underdeveloping” colonial cultures
— A racialized global relationship
— Best farming lands lost to specialized commercial export agriculture (plantations)
— Destroyed food security, leading to hunger, famine, and social unrest
— Resources and craft traditions lost
— Colonial subjects forced to work in mines, fields and plantations – as slave, convict or
indentured laborers – to sustain European factories
— Created new gender inequalities
Outcomes of capitalism:
— Extraction of labor, cultural treasures and resources to enrich the colonial power
— Cultural genocide and marginalization of indigenous peoples
— New class, gender, race and caste tensions continue in post-colonial societies
— Ideologies to justify colonial rule, including racism and backwardness
— Various responses by colonial subjects:
— Death, submission, and internalization of inferiority
— Resistances: everyday forms, sporadic uprisings and mass political mobilization
 250951744
Sarah McFarlan

Decolonization:
— Development was a pragmatic effort to preserve colonies by improving material
conditions
— Colonial subjects demanded development as an entitlement
— Mass political resistance movements
— Militarized national liberation struggles in Portuguese African Colonies, French Indo-
China
— Labor unrest in West Indian and African colonies in 1930s
— New world order: the era of development
— 105 new states joining the United Nations from 1945 to 1981; sovereignty for millions of
non-Europeans
— Idealism: First and Third World coordinated to stimulate economic growth, social
improvements and promote political citizenship
— New national leaders proclaimed goal of equality in the UN Universal Declaration of
Human Rights
Conditions of the development project:
— A political and intellectual response to world conditions at time of decolonization
— Understood social change as economic
— Nation-State as framework
— Territorially defined political systems based on 19th century European government-citizen
relationship
— Arbitrary boundaries drawn in Africa
— In spite of African anti-colonialists who advocated pan-African federalism
— Arbitrarily drawn borders separated peoples and created states divided by conflict
— Economic Growth
— Objective of 1945 UN Charter was “rising standard of living,” measured by gross
national product (GNP) or national average of per capita income
— Introduction of market system
— Need to overcome “traditional obstacles,” i.e., wealth sharing, cooperative labor
— Solution: Introduce private property and accumulation of wealth
— Required introduction of banking, accounting, education, stock markets, legal systems,
and public infrastructure
Summary:
— Idea of development emerged during colonial era
— European Colonialism disorganized non-European societies
◦ Reconstructed labor systems toward specialized, ecologically degrading, export
production
◦ Disorganized subjects’ social psychology
— liberal discourse on rights fueled anti-colonial movements
— The Development Project
◦ A plan for national political-economic development
◦ Plan to make the “free world” safe for business
◦ Westernization promoted in politics, economics and culture, limiting sovereignty
and diversity 
 250951744
Sarah McFarlan