Goa, colonial and post-colonial administrative and census data, as reported in the
literature, and existing cross-national measures of state capacity, literacy and welfare
outcomes.
The African case is Mozambique and the Asian subnational case is Goa. The case selection
is based on the fact that both territories had been under the Portuguese for four hundred
years. There are two reasons for the case selection. First, it fills a gap in the literature on
comparative colonial legacies, which, although longer-lasting than the British, French, or
Belgian empires and covering territory in Africa, Asia, and South America, has only
received intermittent attention (Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson, 2001; Nunn, 2008;
Lange, Mahoney and vom Hau, 2006), while the field of comparative colonial and
precolonial legacies has expanded greatly (Wilfahrt, 2021; Chlouba, Pierskalla and
Wibbels, 2023; Neupert-Wentz and Müller-Crepon, 2024). Second, it brings a South-South
comparative perspective that is lacking in the decolonisation literature, comparing an
African sovereign state with a South Asian subnational territory, both having a Lusophone
colonial past. Along with , this paper adopts the concept of contingent path dependence
as an analytical tool. This conception lies somewhere between the strong path dependency
accounts which suggest that the colonial past leaves little space for the postcolonial
present, and the voluntarist accounts which emphasize that the colonial past did not fix
the postcolonial present trajectory, but rather restricted the choice of options for
postcolonial actors. This is done through three analytical lenses: bureaucratic capacity,
legal continuity, and centre-periphery relations, rather than the one lens found in previous
comparative studies (Acemoglu, 2001; Lange, 2006; Mahoney, 2010), which allows for a
comparison that includes the various ways in which the same colonial architecture
generated different outcomes in the domains of administration, law, and political economy.
Colonial Legacies: Theoretical Frameworks
There has been an enormous amount of literature on the impact of colonialism on
postcolonial politics and development, and considerable disagreement over the same. In
the mid-twentieth century modernisation theorists (Rostow,1960) tended to see colonial
institutions as potential vehicles of development, as they carried over property rights, legal
order and infrastructure to the successor states. On the other hand, dependency and
world-systems theories saw colonialism as a structural cause of underdevelopment, as
they extracted surplus and precluded autonomous industrialisation, continuing into the
postcolonial phase (Frank, 1967; Wallerstein, 1974).
Recent scholarship in this area has transcended this two-sided perspective by examining
the impact of colonialism in specific institutional terms. The paper by Acemoglu, Johnson
and Robinson (2001) rely on the variation in settler mortality across Europe to isolate the
long run effect of the type of colonial institutions on income, with inclusive 'settler colonies'
versus extractive ones with predatory institutional arrangements set up by Europeans. On
the other hand, Lange, Mahoney and Vom Hau (2006) offer a different view, demonstrating
that the extent of colonial state-bureaucratisation rather than simply the presence of
settlers is a more important determinant of postcolonial development pathways. Herbst
(2000) emphasizes the territorial dimension, claiming that the inability to establish control
over sparsely populated African territories led to structural weaknesses in postcolonial