thousands of miles across oceans, turn them into goods andnproducts and ship them back to the source of the naturalnresources where they are sold at a profit. “Adding value” tonnatural resources is much more profitable than producingnthe natural resources in the first place.nThis new equation does not argue that human resourcesnare everything. Obviously, a collectivist system or totalitarianngovernment can squelch even a skilled and motivated worknforce. North Korea’s poverty flows from a flawed economicnand political system — change those factors and I suggestnNorth Korea will do well. East Germany differed from WestnGermany because of a dysfunctional political and economicnsystem. But note that even communism cannot completelynsuppress German industriousness. East Germany had thenmost prosperous economy in the Eastern Bloc. China andnTaiwan share the same cultural traits, but China is governednby a flawed economic and political concept that prevents itnfrom duplicating Taiwan’s success.nA handful of countries have such rich inheritances ofnnatural resources that they are wealthy by inheritance. SaudinArabia, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates did not earn orncreate their wealth. They inherited it. Their experience hasnlittle applicability elsewhere.nIn the non-totalitarian world, I suggest that Larry Harrisonnhas correctly articulated the underdiscussed and underratednfactors in determining the success of nations: culture,nvalues, and attitudes. He is not alone. James Fallows, in hisnbook More Like Us, observes: “In the long run, habits,nvalues, and behavior of ordinary people determine nationalnstrength.” Senator Patrick Moynihan similariy states, “Thencentral conservative truth is that it is culture, not poliHcs,nthat determines the success of a society.” The more Inobserve the world, the more these words make sense to me.nHow do I use the word “culture”? Let us use GeorgenStuart’s definition in People and Places of the Past (1983),nwhere he defines culture as “the learned patterns ofnbehavior that dictate how people organize themselves, whatnthey believe, and the ways they make and do things.” Ornbetter, perhaps, is the classic definition of Sir EdwardnBurnett Tylor, the founder of modern anthropology:nThe principal variable that separatesnthe success of Hong Kong and Taiwannfrom the poverty of Brazil and Kenyanis culture. The values and attitudesnthat people bring to a particular experiencenare of overwhelming importance.n”Culture … is that complex whole which includes knowledge,nbelief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilitiesnand habits acquired by man as a member of society.”nCulture is the “learned” behavior that we acquire as anmember of a society.nEconomic development does not take place in a vacuum.nHuman beings are creatures whose behavior is molded bynculture, customs, and the institutions built by the cultureninto which they are born. “We build our buildings,” saysnWinston Churchill, “then they build us.” Exactly! “Then26/CHRONICLESnnnmold which gives individual action a collective aspect are thenworking rules or culture.”nThis, then, is my thesis: those cultures which stressneducation, delayed gratification, a work ethic, thenacquisition of skills, etc. have an incredible advantage overnthose which do not. Those countries and cultures whichnhave built institutions that recognize merit in advancementn(what you know, rather than who you know), politicalnstability, and which instill in their people a desire forneducation and self-betterment are the countries that havensucceeded in the new international marketplace. Successnand performance are closely linked to attitudes and values.nUnderstand the difference in attitudes and values, and younwill much better understand the difference in performance.n’ Culture is difficult to discuss in academic circles becausenit offends the liberal orthodoxy. Attacking a people’s culturenis thought to be as bad as attacking their race. We buy inton”cultural relativism,” in which all cultures are assumed to benequal. I suggest that all cultures deserve respect andnunderstanding, but they are not all equal. It is not doingnAfrica a favor to reinforce the concept that the legacy ofncolonialism is holding it back. It is internal factors that thenAfricans must correct—not external factors. Tribalism innAfrica better explains Africa’s dilemma than colonialism,nthough the roots of poverty and wealth are multidimensional.nBut we do a grave injustice to our friends when wenreinforce their excuses. Nations, like individuals, love tonblame others for their faults. It’s a human response. Inbelieve, however, that nations in trouble will not get betternuntil they admit the real nature of their problems and takenresponsibility for their own weaknesses.nSome will say I dramatically understate the negativeneffects of colonialism. Perhaps. Schopenhauer wisely observes:n”Every man confuses the limits of his mind for thenlimits of the world.” But common sense tells me thatncolonialism is more of an excuse than an explanation. Itnexcuses much; it explains litfle. If colonialism is to be blamednfor most of Africa’s ills, we should observe a similar impactnwherever colonialism has put down roots. If colonialism is an”dependent variable,” then it must leave its nasty legacynwherever it has existed. Yet many countries have treatedncolonialism as a hurdle — not a barrier. They made use ofnthe advantages of colonialism and were not defeated by thennegatives.nEuropean colonialism in Africa interrupted and disruptedntraditional African societies; it exploited and divided tribes.nIn certain cases, like Portugal and Belgium, the colonizingncountries were particularly brutal and cruel to the localnpeople. Nowhere was colonialism without its abuses. On thenother hand, colonialism also left Africa with incrediblenassets, like better health, education, literacy, infrastructure,nand whole economies that were developed by the colonialistsnand passed on to the newly independent nations.nEuropean colonialism in Africa was nowhere as harsh asnJapanese and Chinese colonialism was in Korea, and innAfrica it lasted 60 years; in Korea, hundreds of years. YetnSouth Korea left colonialism behind, and has prospered.nKorea’s per capita GNP in 1961 stood at $82 (U.S.) —nnear the bottom of the international income scale. “It hadnall the problems of a resource poor, low income developingn