Whether the not James Watson's expanation of Africa's underperformance is right or not, it is surely worth asking the question. It has been suggested that the relative underperformance of Africa is that economic failure in the nation states on the continent have not resulted in military failure and invasion by a neighbour, as it did through most of the history of Europe. Because it suited America and the Soviet Union to have client states throughout the continent from the end of the colonial era until today, failed states with deeply corrupt and economically suicidal governments have been propped up by military and humanitarian aid.
Empires like Britain's arose because market-based reforms allowed more efficient logistics, and a broader tax-base to finance military expansion. Now to the extent that African countries have armies they are used against their own citizens, or at least vunerable citizens of neighbouring countries.
Maybe this is all crap, but the idea that Zimbabweans are starving because of something the Brits did fifty years ago seems utterly implausible.
