Question One: Neocolonial Practices and Economic Growth in Former colonies
Neocolonialism refers to any attempt by a powerful nation to use economic, cultural, and political pressures to influence their former colonies to act a certain way. Nations could act directly or through influential global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Proponents of neocolonial practices argue that they provide means to stimulate economic growth in less-developed nations. Critics, however, argue that such practices have little benefit on former colonies and they, in fact, stifle real economic growth. Using relevant examples, this text argues that in line with critics’ argument, neocolonial practices impose limits on real economic growth in the target countries since the imposing countries are often driven by personal interests.

Jamaica offers a perfect example of an economy stifled by neocolonial practices as laid out in Stephanie Black’s documentary titled ‘Life and Death’. In the 1970s, at the height of the country’s energy crisis, Jamaica was forced to take out loans to cover the rising costs of fuel-related importations. The then president, Michael Manley, sought financial aid from the IMF and World Bank to implement a long-term development plan that prioritized natural resources for the fragile economy that had just emerged from colonialism. The IMF, however, declined a long-term plan, and instead; i) insisted on a short-term repayment plan and ii) imposed regulations limiting Jamaican authorities from instituting policies that favored local industries at the expense of foreign imports. As a result of these actions, thousands of local Jamaican farmers were driven out of business by cheaper imports. Cheap imports dominated the local market, and the local dairy industry was destroyed by powdered milk imports that dominated the market. Unemployment levels rose to unprecedented levels, making insecurity a serious concern. In one scene, a Jamaican hotel guide warns visiting tourists to beware of thieves who had migrated to the city in search of employment. The country’s economy was at the brink of collapse as a result of the IMF’s...…benefit the powerful nations that develop them at the expense of the poorer colonies.

Unlike most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, China and India did not fully relax their long-term plans for the Consensus’ capital shock. By the 1990s, there were significant differences in inequality levels between the two groups, with countries such as China reporting significantly higher levels of economic success as their counterparts struggled (Schefner & Fernandez-Kelly, 2011). This supports the ideology that neocolonial practices limit economic growth and that countries may be better off without the same.

In summary, the cases of Jamaica, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the former Soviet Union, all of which had their economic growth stifled by neocolonial practices, show that such practices do more harm than good to former colonies. In this regard, there is a need for institutions such as the IMF and World Bank to focus on developing policies that align with countries’ long-term development plans rather than imposing shock therapies whose long-term effects could be…