Abstract Recent research shows that colonialism reversed levels of development in much of the non‐European world. To explain this reversal, analysts focus on conditions within the colonized areas. By contrast, drawing on evidence from Spanish and British colonialism, the authors show that the economic models of the colonizing nations also affected the reversals of fortune. Mercantilist Spain tended to colonize most extensively precolonial regions that were populous and highly developed; in turn, extensive Spanish colonization had negative consequences for postcolonial development. In comparison, liberal Britain tended to colonize most extensively precolonial regions that were sparsely populated and underdeveloped; in turn, extensive British colonialism had comparatively positive effects. Thus, both Spain and Britain reversed the fortunes of precolonial regions, but in largely opposite ways. Show Journal Information Current issues are now on the Chicago Journals website. Read the latest issue.Established in 1895 as the first US scholarly journal in its field, the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) presents pathbreaking work from all areas of sociology, with an emphasis on theory building and innovative methods. AJS strives to speak to the general sociology reader and is open to contributions from across the social sciences—political science, economics, history, anthropology, and statistics in addition to sociology—that seriously engage the sociological literature to forge new ways of understanding the social. AJS offers a substantial book review section that identifies the most salient work of both emerging and enduring scholars of social science. Commissioned review essays appear occasionally, offering the readers a comparative, in-depth examination of prominent titles. Publisher Information Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Today, the Journals Division publishes more than 70 journals and hardcover serials, in a wide range of academic disciplines, including the social sciences, the humanities, education, the biological and medical sciences, and the physical sciences. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website. If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.
Why did the colonial regions develop differently?Colonial America depended on the natural environment for the basic needs of the people and the colony. Available natural resources determined each region's unique specialty. Specialized economies quickly emerged as a result of human and environmental interaction.
How did life differ in the three regions of the colonies?New England had poor soil and a cold climate, but plenty of forests and fish. The Middle Colonies had fertile soil, a warmer climate, and rivers for trans- portation. The Southern Colonies had an even warmer climate and many waterways in the tidewater. the geography and climate of each of these three regions.
What are the 3 factors that affected or shaped regional economic growth in the American colonies?Climate, soil conditions, and other natural resources shaped regional economic development.
What was the primary cause of economic differences among the colonies?Geography, including regional differences in soils, rainfall, and growing seasons was the primary cause of economic differences among the colonies in North America.
|
