Suchergebnisse

Was colonization costly for France? Did French taxpayers contribute to colonies' development? This article reveals that French West Africa's colonization took only 0.29 percent of French annual expenditures, including 0.24 percent for military and central administration and 0.05 percent for French West Africa's development. For West Africans, the contribution from French taxpayers was almost negligible: mainland France provided about 2 percent of French West Africa's revenue. In fact, colonization was a considerable burden for African taxpayers since French civil servants' salaries absorbed a disproportionate share of local expenditures.

Was colonization costly for France? Did French taxpayers contribute to colonies' development? This article reveals that French West Africa's colonization took only 0.29 percent of French annual expenditures, including 0.24 percent for military and central administration and 0.05 percent for French West Africa's development. For West Africans, the contribution from French taxpayers was almost negligible: mainland France provided about 2 percent of French West Africa's revenue. In fact, colonization was a considerable burden for African taxpayers since French civil servants' salaries absorbed a disproportionate share of local expenditures.

Was colonization costly for France? Did French taxpayers contribute to colonies' development? This article reveals that French West Africa's colonization took only 0.29 percent of French annual expenditures, including 0.24 percent for military and central administration and 0.05 percent for French West Africa's development. For West Africans, the contribution from French taxpayers was almost negligible: mainland France provided about 2 percent of French West Africa's revenue. In fact, colonization was a considerable burden for African taxpayers since French civil servants' salaries absorbed a disproportionate share of local expenditures.

Was colonization costly for France? Did French taxpayers contribute to colonies' development? This article reveals that French West Africa's colonization took only 0.29 percent of French annual expenditures, including 0.24 percent for military and central administration and 0.05 percent for French West Africa's development. For West Africans, the contribution from French taxpayers was almost negligible: mainland France provided about 2 percent of French West Africa's revenue. In fact, colonization was a considerable burden for African taxpayers since French civil servants' salaries absorbed a disproportionate share of local expenditures.

Was colonization costly for France? Did French taxpayers contribute to colonies' development? This article reveals that French West Africa's colonization took only 0.29 percent of French annual expenditures, including 0.24 percent for military and central administration and 0.05 percent for French West Africa's development. For West Africans, the contribution from French taxpayers was almost negligible: mainland France provided about 2 percent of French West Africa's revenue. In fact, colonization was a considerable burden for African taxpayers since French civil servants' salaries absorbed a disproportionate share of local expenditures.

Was colonization costly for France? Did French taxpayers contribute to colonies' development? This paper reveals that French West Africa's colonization took only 0.29 percent of French annual expenditures, including 0.24 percent for military and central administration and 0.05 percent for French West Africa's development. For West Africans, the contribution from French taxpayers was almost negligible: mainland France provided about two percent of French West Africa's revenue. In fact, colonization was a considerable burden for African taxpayers since French civil servants' salaries absorbed a disproportionate share of local expenditures.

Was colonization costly for France? Did French taxpayers contribute to colonies' development? This paper reveals that French West Africa's colonization took only 0.29 percent of French annual expenditures, including 0.24 percent for military and central administration and 0.05 percent for French West Africa's development. For West Africans, the contribution from French taxpayers was almost negligible: mainland France provided about two percent of French West Africa's revenue. In fact, colonization was a considerable burden for African taxpayers since French civil servants' salaries absorbed a disproportionate share of local expenditures.

Was colonization very costly for the metropole? This view has been widely accepted among French historians even though little empirical evidence has been provided. Using original data from the colonial budgets of French West Africa (AOF) this paper provides new insights into the actual colonial public funding in this part of the French empire. Comparing the financial transfers from the metropole to AOF to total metropolitan expenses reveals that the cost of colonization of the AOF for French taxpayers was extremely low: French subsidies to the AOF represented on average 0.007 percent of total metropolitan expenses. From the AOF side financial transfers from the metropole were not that beneficiary since French subsidies represented on average 0.4 percent of total local revenue. Including the public loans and cash advances from the metropole does not change this general pattern. West Africans therefore funded most colonial public investments which reveal to be very small. One reason for the scarcity of public investments is the cost of French civil servants serving in the colonies which turned out to be a considerable burden for Africans: French government officials alone represented 20 percent of total local public expenses. ; La colonisation française a-t-elle coûté cher à la métropole ? Cette idée a été largement diffusée par certains historiens français, malgré les défaillances des données disponibles sur la question. En utilisant les données des budgets coloniaux de l'Afrique occidentale française, ce papier apporte de nouveaux éléments sur le financement public de la colonisation française dans cette partie de l'empire. En comparant les transferts financiers de la métropole vers l'AOF aux dépenses totales de l'Etat français, il s'avère que le coût de la colonisation pour les contribuables métropolitains a été extrêmement faible : les aides publiques ont représenté en moyenne 0.007 pourcent du total des dépenses métropolitaines. Pour l'AOF, les aides publiques de la France n'ont pas non plus été si avantageuses, ne représentant en moyenne que 0.4 pourcent du total des recettes du territoire. Le fait d'inclure les prêts et les avances ne changent pas fondamentalement le diagnostic. Les habitants de l'AOF ont donc financé eux-mêmes la quasi-totalité des investissements publics effectués sur le territoire, qui sont restés très peu importants. Une des raisons de la rareté des investissements publics était le coût de ces investissements : le poids budgétaire des fonctionnaires français a été un fardeau considérable pour les contribuables africains, le personnel de commandement absorbant à lui seul 20 pourcent du total des dépenses du territoire.

To what extent do colonial public investments continue to influence current regional inequalities in French-speaking West Africa? Using a new database and the spatial discontinuities of colonial investment policy, this paper gives evidence that early colonial investments had large and persistent effects on current outcomes. The nature of investments also matters. Current educational outcomes have been more specifically determined by colonial investments in education rather than health and infrastructures, and vice versa. I show that a major channel for this historical dependency is a strong persistence of investments; regions that got more at the early colonial times continued to get more.

To what extent do colonial public investments continue to influence current regional inequalities in French-speaking West Africa? Using a new database and the spatial discontinuities of colonial investment policy, this paper gives evidence that early colonial investments had large and persistent effects on current outcomes. The nature of investments also matters. Current educational outcomes have been more specifically determined by colonial investments in education rather than health and infrastructures, and vice versa. I show that a major channel for this historical dependency is a strong persistence of investments; regions that got more at the early colonial times continued to get more.

Was colonization very costly for the metropole? This view has been widely accepted among French historians, even though little empirical evidence has been provided. Using original data from the colonial budgets of French West Africa (AOF), this paper provides new insights into the actual colonial public funding in this part of the French empire. Comparing the financial transfers from the metropole to AOF to total metropolitan expenses reveals that the cost of colonization of the AOF for French taxpayers was extremely low: French subsidies to the AOF represented on average 0.007 percent of total metropolitan expenses. From the AOF side, financial transfers from the metropole were not that beneficiary since French subsidies represented on average 0.4 percent of total local revenue. Including the public loans and cash advances from the metropole does not change this general pattern. West Africans therefore funded most colonial public investments, which reveal to be very small. One reason for the scarcity of public investments is the cost of French civil servants serving in the colonies, which turned out to be a considerable burden for Africans: French government officials alone represented 20 percent of total local public expenses.

Was colonization very costly for the metropole? This view has been widely accepted among French historians even though little empirical evidence has been provided. Using original data from the colonial budgets of French West Africa (AOF) this paper provides new insights into the actual colonial public funding in this part of the French empire. Comparing the financial transfers from the metropole to AOF to total metropolitan expenses reveals that the cost of colonization of the AOF for French taxpayers was extremely low: French subsidies to the AOF represented on average 0.007 percent of total metropolitan expenses. From the AOF side financial transfers from the metropole were not that beneficiary since French subsidies represented on average 0.4 percent of total local revenue. Including the public loans and cash advances from the metropole does not change this general pattern. West Africans therefore funded most colonial public investments which reveal to be very small. One reason for the scarcity of public investments is the cost of French civil servants serving in the colonies which turned out to be a considerable burden for Africans: French government officials alone represented 20 percent of total local public expenses. ; La colonisation française a-t-elle coûté cher à la métropole ? Cette idée a été largement diffusée par certains historiens français, malgré les défaillances des données disponibles sur la question. En utilisant les données des budgets coloniaux de l'Afrique occidentale française, ce papier apporte de nouveaux éléments sur le financement public de la colonisation française dans cette partie de l'empire. En comparant les transferts financiers de la métropole vers l'AOF aux dépenses totales de l'Etat français, il s'avère que le coût de la colonisation pour les contribuables métropolitains a été extrêmement faible : les aides publiques ont représenté en moyenne 0.007 pourcent du total des dépenses métropolitaines. Pour l'AOF, les aides publiques de la France n'ont pas non plus été si avantageuses, ne représentant en moyenne que 0.4 pourcent du total des recettes du territoire. Le fait d'inclure les prêts et les avances ne changent pas fondamentalement le diagnostic. Les habitants de l'AOF ont donc financé eux-mêmes la quasi-totalité des investissements publics effectués sur le territoire, qui sont restés très peu importants. Une des raisons de la rareté des investissements publics était le coût de ces investissements : le poids budgétaire des fonctionnaires français a été un fardeau considérable pour les contribuables africains, le personnel de commandement absorbant à lui seul 20 pourcent du total des dépenses du territoire.

Was colonization very costly for the metropole? This view has been widely accepted among French historians even though little empirical evidence has been provided. Using original data from the colonial budgets of French West Africa (AOF) this paper provides new insights into the actual colonial public funding in this part of the French empire. Comparing the financial transfers from the metropole to AOF to total metropolitan expenses reveals that the cost of colonization of the AOF for French taxpayers was extremely low: French subsidies to the AOF represented on average 0.007 percent of total metropolitan expenses. From the AOF side financial transfers from the metropole were not that beneficiary since French subsidies represented on average 0.4 percent of total local revenue. Including the public loans and cash advances from the metropole does not change this general pattern. West Africans therefore funded most colonial public investments which reveal to be very small. One reason for the scarcity of public investments is the cost of French civil servants serving in the colonies which turned out to be a considerable burden for Africans: French government officials alone represented 20 percent of total local public expenses. ; La colonisation française a-t-elle coûté cher à la métropole ? Cette idée a été largement diffusée par certains historiens français, malgré les défaillances des données disponibles sur la question. En utilisant les données des budgets coloniaux de l'Afrique occidentale française, ce papier apporte de nouveaux éléments sur le financement public de la colonisation française dans cette partie de l'empire. En comparant les transferts financiers de la métropole vers l'AOF aux dépenses totales de l'Etat français, il s'avère que le coût de la colonisation pour les contribuables métropolitains a été extrêmement faible : les aides publiques ont représenté en moyenne 0.007 pourcent du total des dépenses métropolitaines. Pour l'AOF, les aides publiques de la France n'ont pas non plus été si avantageuses, ne représentant en moyenne que 0.4 pourcent du total des recettes du territoire. Le fait d'inclure les prêts et les avances ne changent pas fondamentalement le diagnostic. Les habitants de l'AOF ont donc financé eux-mêmes la quasi-totalité des investissements publics effectués sur le territoire, qui sont restés très peu importants. Une des raisons de la rareté des investissements publics était le coût de ces investissements : le poids budgétaire des fonctionnaires français a été un fardeau considérable pour les contribuables africains, le personnel de commandement absorbant à lui seul 20 pourcent du total des dépenses du territoire.

Was colonization very costly for the metropole? This view has been widely accepted among French historians even though little empirical evidence has been provided. Using original data from the colonial budgets of French West Africa (AOF) this paper provides new insights into the actual colonial public funding in this part of the French empire. Comparing the financial transfers from the metropole to AOF to total metropolitan expenses reveals that the cost of colonization of the AOF for French taxpayers was extremely low: French subsidies to the AOF represented on average 0.007 percent of total metropolitan expenses. From the AOF side financial transfers from the metropole were not that beneficiary since French subsidies represented on average 0.4 percent of total local revenue. Including the public loans and cash advances from the metropole does not change this general pattern. West Africans therefore funded most colonial public investments which reveal to be very small. One reason for the scarcity of public investments is the cost of French civil servants serving in the colonies which turned out to be a considerable burden for Africans: French government officials alone represented 20 percent of total local public expenses. ; La colonisation française a-t-elle coûté cher à la métropole ? Cette idée a été largement diffusée par certains historiens français, malgré les défaillances des données disponibles sur la question. En utilisant les données des budgets coloniaux de l'Afrique occidentale française, ce papier apporte de nouveaux éléments sur le financement public de la colonisation française dans cette partie de l'empire. En comparant les transferts financiers de la métropole vers l'AOF aux dépenses totales de l'Etat français, il s'avère que le coût de la colonisation pour les contribuables métropolitains a été extrêmement faible : les aides publiques ont représenté en moyenne 0.007 pourcent du total des dépenses métropolitaines. Pour l'AOF, les aides publiques de la France n'ont pas non plus été si ...

Was colonization very costly for the metropole? This view has been widely accepted among French historians, even though little empirical evidence has been provided. Using original data from the colonial budgets of French West Africa (AOF), this paper provides new insights into the actual colonial public funding in this part of the French empire. Comparing the financial transfers from the metropole to AOF to total metropolitan expenses reveals that the cost of colonization of the AOF for French taxpayers was extremely low: French subsidies to the AOF represented on average 0.007 percent of total metropolitan expenses. From the AOF side, financial transfers from the metropole were not that beneficiary since French subsidies represented on average 0.4 percent of total local revenue. Including the public loans and cash advances from the metropole does not change this general pattern. West Africans therefore funded most colonial public investments, which reveal to be very small. One reason for the scarcity of public investments is the cost of French civil servants serving in the colonies, which turned out to be a considerable burden for Africans: French government officials alone represented 20 percent of total local public expenses.