Why are some African countries doing better today than others? Why are some stuck in repeated conflict while their neighbors grow and stay calm? For years researchers pointed to one big historical factor, which is whether a strong state existed before European colonization. Some studies had argued that the presence of a pre-colonial state indicated better roads, schools, and incomes today. Other studies had highlighted that those same places also have more civil conflict. These findings created a bigger question: what is the true impact of a pre-colonial state on African countries today?
Political scientist Martha Wilfahrt provides an answer: the nature of the pre-colonial state can help determine whether the state would be prosperous today, or more likely to be embroiled in a conflict. But what do we mean by the nature of the pre-colonial state? States are not all organized the same way, even in our contemporary world order. Some states have power that rests entirely with the leader, while others spread power across regions, institutions, or local strongmen.
Using a novel map of almost 250 pre-colonial African states that she designed, Martha Wilfahrt classified every state according to one of four types. This classification was based on the extent to which power was concentrated with the leader or spread out among elites and local authorities. The types were: despotic states, where power was highly concentrated and the monarch ruled directly through loyal appointees; regal states, where authority was restricted to a narrow royal clan or noble caste; gatekeeper states, where the monarch relied on diverse elites for indirect administration and high local autonomy; and federations, where power was least concentrated, with a council coordinating external affairs while members retained near-complete internal independence.
Once it was determined what kind of pre-colonial state existed in each area, Wilfahrt turned to the present day. She divided the whole of sub-Saharan Africa into thousands of small grid squares and used satellite night-time lights, high-resolution poverty maps, and detailed records of every civil conflict between 1989 and 2013 to see which historical type of kingdom best predicted today’s peace and prosperity.
Places that once had the most top-down, authoritarian kingdoms now have the highest rates of civil conflict and are often no better off economically than regions that never had a state at all. In contrast, the areas that once belonged to kingdoms where rulers had the least concentrated power are today noticeably richer and the most peaceful parts of the continent than many places that were historically stateless.
The reason is simple. In kingdoms where nearly all power sat with one monarch or a narrow elite, politics operated in a top-down fashion. Disagreement was a threat to be crushed. That mindset still makes violence more likely. In contrast, states that had less concentrated power and involved local leaders in decision making are less embroiled in violence. This is because, in those places, people learned to negotiate, trade favors, and accept compromise. Over generations, people learned that politics worked through discussion and deal making. Those same habits now make it easier for communities to cooperate, attract investment, and avoid conflict.
Wilfahrt’s work shows that history matters enormously in Africa. A country that is peaceful and growing, or trapped in conflict and poverty, depends far less on whether a kingdom existed long ago and far more on what kind of kingdom it was. The organization of the pre-colonial kingdom has far-reaching impacts today. That single distinction still explains much of what we see on the news today. ■
WILFAHRT, MARTHA. 2025. “A Precolonial Paradox? Rethinking Political Centralization and Its Legacies.” American Political Science Review: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055425101044
