ABSTRACT
It is widely accepted that the prosperity of the highly industrialised nations as well as the poverty of the so-called Third World are the outcome of the exploitation of the latter by the former. Suppose the British had not put their money into India: the railways, the factories and the plantations would have been far fewer. Perhaps that would have been better, and the inhabitants might have been happier. The concept of exploitation becomes even hazier if people put some value on the function of maintaining peace. True, from a nationalistic viewpoint any form of rule by foreigners is bad, but this is a valuation which is quite distinct from the evils of exploitation. One can claim that the colonialists should have renounced some of their profits or emoluments, allowed more favourable terms of trade, or steered economic development into channels more advantageous to the local populations and less to the metropolitan exporters or importers.
