"This investigation reveals that areas that were directly ruled have lower levels of access to schools, healthcare, and roads, ranging from 1 to 3 percentage points, in the present day. The authors find that these disparities may have been driven by differences in land systems and accountability mechanisms" - If I were a colonizer, I would much prefer to directly rule (collecting the taxes and funding the infrastructure in) areas that were well-developed, well-located etc. I would stay away from rugged landscapes, sparse and badly-educated populations etc.
"Conversely, another study on colonial India finds that proximity to Protestant missions has had a positive impact on long-term literacy rates. Specifically, for every mission per 1,000 sq. km, literacy increases by almost 32 percentage points." If you have limited resources to expand a religion, and travel is difficult and dangerous, would you prefer to send your missionaries to the remote, sparsely populated, economically underdeveloped, lawless and possibly violent regions? Or would you send your missionaries to big, fast-growing cities with somewhat educated people, a colonial military presence, and some literary/philosophical clubs?
Too often, historical economic data fails to distinguish between causality and correlation. Something worth considering
The arguments you present for direct vs indirect rule can also be said for for former African colonies: English typically invoked indirect rule whereas the French were more direct. And we see the difference today
This seems to be comparing impacts within colonialised areas: some parts affected differently to others. Have there been attempts to compare colonialism vs. no colonialism at all? E.g. vs. contact and trade?
"This investigation reveals that areas that were directly ruled have lower levels of access to schools, healthcare, and roads, ranging from 1 to 3 percentage points, in the present day. The authors find that these disparities may have been driven by differences in land systems and accountability mechanisms" - If I were a colonizer, I would much prefer to directly rule (collecting the taxes and funding the infrastructure in) areas that were well-developed, well-located etc. I would stay away from rugged landscapes, sparse and badly-educated populations etc.
"Conversely, another study on colonial India finds that proximity to Protestant missions has had a positive impact on long-term literacy rates. Specifically, for every mission per 1,000 sq. km, literacy increases by almost 32 percentage points." If you have limited resources to expand a religion, and travel is difficult and dangerous, would you prefer to send your missionaries to the remote, sparsely populated, economically underdeveloped, lawless and possibly violent regions? Or would you send your missionaries to big, fast-growing cities with somewhat educated people, a colonial military presence, and some literary/philosophical clubs?
Too often, historical economic data fails to distinguish between causality and correlation. Something worth considering
The arguments you present for direct vs indirect rule can also be said for for former African colonies: English typically invoked indirect rule whereas the French were more direct. And we see the difference today
This seems to be comparing impacts within colonialised areas: some parts affected differently to others. Have there been attempts to compare colonialism vs. no colonialism at all? E.g. vs. contact and trade?