Australia is lucky the British were the first 'intruders'

& if the off chance there were no colonisers, but remaining as disparate tribes at constant battle over territory - it would have been more difficult to have interaction with the rest of the World, & may have remained in a stone-age existence, with an average lifespan of 40 years. Undoubtedly there were upheavals for both the Aboriginal & colonising populations (many of the latter being brought here unwillingly) at the time, though for at least the Aboriginal descendants in modern-day Australia, they are in a much better position that where they could have been.

Well reasoned article, thank you.

I wonder if Latin America would be better off if the US had not meddled in their internal affairs.

Great article! The history of the world from day one has been one of invasion and conquering with the vast majority of people living as slaves or serfs. British colonisation brought many benefits to Australia, not only civil and common law, but technology, science and education, farming systems, construction methods as well as Christian principles. Everyone has benefited. We should stop playing the victim and race card and get on with it. Australians should be the richest people in the world!!

I have always theorised that countries that attract migrants should do well in the long run. Very simply, those who migrate are more likely to be motivated, productive and "good citizens", the less motivated will stay at home and moan about their circumstances. It's no small thing to move yourself and your family to a new country. So we cherry pick the gene pool to a degree. In Australia the population is roughly 25% people born overseas and 50% with at least one parent born overseas. I would be interested in comparison of these numbers versus other countries and how well they do. Canada, the US, Aust & NZ have quite high net migration. Other (former) British colonies like South Africa, the Caribbean countries, India etc, I expect much lower percentages of net migrants. Same for most of the former Portuguese, Spanish, French colonies etc. Just a theory......

Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is worthwhile reading and makes similar points made within this article although attributing different economic growth characteristics to the adoption of liberal principles over and above just differing legal systems.

So, indigenous Australians really do have a lot to celebrate? The legacy of the 'intruders' is immeasurable suffering and disadvantage. Perhaps reread the famous Redfern speech.

"Highland Clearances, the forced eviction of inhabitants of the Highlands and western islands of Scotland, beginning in the mid-to-late 18th century and continuing intermittently into the mid-19th century. The removals cleared the land of people primarily to allow for the introduction of sheep pastoralism. The Highland Clearances resulted in the destruction of the traditional clan society and began a pattern of rural depopulation and emigration from Scotland."
https://www.britannica.com/event/Highland-Clearances

The displaced Scots migrated throughout the British Empire and made their own luck.
Most 'displaced' Aborigines were concentrated in reserves and did not 'get lucky' for many decades.
I wonder if the CCP has taken note and applied the methods to the Western Tajikis.

In response to Stephen and similar posts, I came across this paper, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369, after reading John Hawkins’ article in Firstlinks last week. Which had a number of references to which my way of thinking is aligned. I found the paper after I had completed my piece here. Some relevant quotes:

“Countries with better “institutions,” more secure property rights, and less distortionary policies will invest more in physical and human capital, and will use these factors more efficiently to achieve a greater level of income (e.g., Douglass C. North and Robert P. Thomas, 1973; Eric L. Jones, 1981; North, 1981).”

“Frederich A. von Hayek (1960) argued that the British common law tradition was superior to the French civil law, which was developed during the Napoleonic era to restrain judges’ interference with state policies (see also Seymour M. Lipset, 1994). More recently, Rafael La Porta et al. (1998, 1999) emphasize the importance of colonial origin (the identity of the colonizer) and legal origin on current institutions, and show that the common-law countries and former British colonies have better property rights and more developed financial markets. Similarly, David Landes (1998 Chapters 19 and 20) and North et al. (1998) argue that former British colonies prospered relative to former French, Spanish, and Portuguese colonies because of the good economic and political institutions and culture they inherited from Britain.”

“the institutions of law and order and private property established during the early phases of colonialism in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Hong Kong, and Singapore have formed the basis of the current day institutions of these countries.”

Of course there will be factors other than legal systems that contribute to a nation’s wealth, as alluded to by Stephen. But it would appear that the legal system introduced to a colony was noteworthy.

And finally just to clarify. My article does not conclude that Common Law is a superior legal system. Rather, that Common Law was “more conducive to a capitalist style economy”.

i read Nigal Bigger's article,
for a different anglo perspective on Australians settlement read True Girt by David Hunt, you may be surprised.
for a different perspective of what the locals were up to when Phil arrived read Dark Emu by Bruce Pascoe, you will be surprised.
for an understanding why some have more than others read Guns, Germs & Steel by Jared Diamond
Or don't!

Whoa! I’m not sure Mr Dillon makes valid comparisons about the success of countries with Common versus Civil law systems. The now wealthy countries such as the US, Canada and Australia were relatively less populated and have enormous agricultural and natural resources. Where the British occupied more populated lands with less natural resources, such as Pakistani and India or simply more populated, such as South Africa, the economic outcomes weren’t so good. Maybe the level of population to the amount of natural resources had some part to play in later economic destiny of those countries occupied by Europeans.

The conclusion about the superiority of Common law system is due to the selective use of examples. If the Common law system is so superior, why are counties in Western Europe, none of which use Common law, so wealthy?

Wow, I have to say this is a ahistorically bad take. We've learned today that the editors need better judgement before wading into deeply complex histories where slavery, violence, murder, looting and extraction of wealth in the service individual private property and Empire continue to resonate and is today reflected in the relative economic and democratic performance of nations who should apparently be grateful for the example set by British "rule of law" and its systems of governance. Again, do better.

No no no! Democratic & British influences allow us to publish and have discussions about these things. The systems of governance around the world that disallow such freedom of speech have an efflux of their citizens and are not so admired. A wide array of different and provoking articles make this website such a good read.

Agree 100%.

Surely there has been an uncharacteristic lapse in editorial oversight here. The insensitivity of this article and the subsequent commentary is appalling and regrettable.
I think it best if Mr Dillon's article and the commentary are removed. An apology should be considered.

Hi DanM,

I am sorry that you feel that way. There was certainly no disrespect or insensitivity to anyone intended in the article. I merely posed a question based on observations and facts, concluding the piece with: “the question as to the influence of a legal system on a nation’s wealth, at least historically, is a valid one.”

Freedom of expression and robust debate is vital for the functioning of a healthy democracy, while censorship is most definitely not. And I applaud Firstlinks for promoting a diversity of views.

Just because you disagree with someone's dissertation does not give you a right to ask to censor / have a retraction. 

Apology to whom?

I'm sorry you feel unable to read articles with different viewpoints than yours without getting upset.

Agree 100% as do most here

I think in the 1700s, when the British first arrived the mindset wasn’t one of “invasion” . They saw themselves as establishing a penal colony and new settlements

Call it what you want John, England invaded/colonised/ set up house in over 100+ countries. The outcome for the existing population have been a significant loss of culture, loss of history, death of their society, loss of productive land etc. Whether its India/Pakistan, Ireland, America or Austaralia, where these countries are now doesnt excuse the systematic approach the British took to build their Empire. Making out they were just 'giving things a go' is niave at best.
Woohoo for old blighty and their ignorance of what they were doing (not), these cultures have not been able to thrive and have been changed forever by this. 

I believe it was being considered by the united nations for there to be a jewish nation somewhere in the kimberley region north western australia ? Wonder what the outcomes would have been then as an alternative 'what if' historical scenario ?

Wonder what would have happened way back then if certain different cultures arrived instead of the British. Imagine there could have been some horrific outcomes. Two words: Nanjing, China.
Also the defence of Australia during WW2 would not have been possible without western culture predominance.
The social security regime, even if considered minimal still provides a much higher standard of living than existed here 250 years prior

Absolutely agree we should all be very grateful the English got here first, we also gained the English language which is the dominant language for the world.

My Brazilian friend said we were so lucky to have the British come to Australia.
When I asked why, he said:
"When the British came, first they built a jail, then they built a church and then they built a school.
When the Portuguese came to Brazil, first they built a church and then they built a jail."
He also explained the land tenure tangles in Brazil where someone turns up with a piece of paper to claim they own a certain area of land that was granted to their family by a past emperor. Without am effective and centralised land tenure system established during colonial times, it is exceedingly hard to sort out who has a legitimate claim and who does not.
Plus the arguments in the article above do not explain why some middle eastern countries are so rich compared to others in the same region.

Funny how ~all the former Brit colonies _
- until independence - were going ok. Not perfect but ok; unlike the basket case colonies of others prior to and after their independence, if any.
Yes there are exceptions.
Yes one group whacked it over others at times. Guess what, that human trait endures widely and will continue!
Should we wring our hands and try and embark on reparations?
Not on your Nelly. It’s done.
Look forward everyone and make the most of what you have and what you can earn not be given.
Pip pip.

What a nonsense, sorry, but it has to be said. Including India, Pakistan, the Caribbean countries and all the former African colonies would paint a different picture. Having said that: any explanation of complex situations based mono causality is generally simplistic and wrong. Finally: it seems that the author has no idea about how civil law (in its different variations) functions and indeed evolves.

je suis d'accord

Not to mention all the wonderful sports that originated in England and are played to varying degrees around the world.

Surely Lidia Thorpe's outburst in Parliament last week wouldn't have been any different regardless of who the first intruders were ? The point is they were intruders. But, yes, I guess if you do have to 'suffer' intruders at least pick one with a decent system of law etc etc !

Bottom line is our laws allowed individuals to flourish because their property rights were respected and their hard work rewarded. This is in contrast to so many nations where centralised authority exerts control to the detriment of individuals.

Were indigenous property rights respected?

I don't agree that viewing the impact through a solely economic perspective gives a fair view.

Looking at demographics, 15% of Mexicans identify as indigenous, and 80% have some indigenous ancestry. In Brazil, the figures are 10% and 30% respectively.

By contrast, in the US only 1% identify as indigenous and 3% identify as "some indigenous ancestry". In Australia, the indigenous population is 3% (I could not find Australian figures for partial ancestry, but likely well behind Latin America.)

In summary, if I were a native and I saw a European boat come over the horizon, I'd be hoping the flag was Spanish or Portuguese, not British.

It’s a shame you were born 150 years too late!

"Australian figures for partial ancestry":

'812,728 people identified as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin, representing 3.2 per cent of the total population.'

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people-census/latest-release

Identifying as Aboriginal does not require having an Aboriginal ancestor - only need to claim to be and recognised by others as such.

Whats your point ...

What about India?

Perhaps we'd be better off if we'd been invaded by Vikings. The Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark on average have 38% greater GDP per capita than the United Kingdom (2023 via Trading Economics). The Nordic Countries follow a unique tradition known as "Nordic Law". It is pragmatic and less formalistic than typical Civil Law systems, focusing on practical solutions and fairness, giving judges interpretative flexibility. Not only are the Nordic people wealthier they also lead the world in happiness. Now that's something to aspire to.

In 2024 Norway was higher, Denmark about the same and Sweden 12% less than Australia. I think the oil from Norway is giving a false impression of Nordic wealth. At least the British tried to establish governing democracies, where Spain, France and Portugal just left a mess.

The Nordic countries are interesting. Often referred to as a successful blend of capitalism and socialism, with a strong private sector capitalist structure, and a healthy welfare system supported by high taxation.

Thanks for having the courage to write a factual article like this. Obviously there are negatives in our history; there are negatives in everyone's history. The economic facts you've noted have occurred for a reason. The fact that migrants around the world try to get to English speaking countries is another fact that occurs for reasons.

Aren't we ALL lucky that Britain got here first

We got the rights of Britain to things like free speech and law, not dependent upon class or wealth