More Than Extraction: How the Colonial State Designed Institutions in the Belgian Congo

In this blog post Jean-Paul K. Tsasa (Universite Protestante au Congo) presents their research.

—

When people think about colonial Africa, they often picture the extraction of rubber, copper, ivory, or other natural resources. Colonial governments are commonly portrayed as administrations primarily interested in exploiting wealth before transferring it to Europe. While this image contains much truth, it tells only part of the story.

Colonial administrations also governed. They regulated labour markets, defined property rights, organized agricultural production, supervised prices, created administrative procedures, and established legal rules that structured everyday economic life. These institutional choices mattered not only during the colonial period but also long after independence.

Our recent research explores this overlooked dimension of the Belgian Congo by examining nearly 900 regulatory acts issued between 1942 and 1946. Rather than focusing on colonial ideology or political speeches, we ask a simple question: what did the colonial state actually regulate?

The answer reveals a government that was remarkably active in designing economic institutions.

The regulations covered an impressive range of issues. Labour relations occupied a central place, but so did land administration, price controls, commercial activities, transportation, justice, agriculture, taxation, education, public health, and local administration. Far from reacting to isolated problems, the colonial government continuously produced rules intended to organize markets and coordinate economic activity.

The timing of these regulations is equally revealing. For instance, during the Second World War, many measures addressed immediate wartime concerns. The administration intervened to stabilize supplies, mobilize labour, and secure strategic production. Yet, as the war drew to a close, regulatory priorities gradually shifted. Increasing attention was devoted to longer-term institutional questions such as land governance, judicial organization, administrative procedures, and the functioning of domestic markets.

This transition suggests that the colonial state was not simply managing emergencies. It was consolidating an institutional framework intended to endure.

One particularly striking finding concerns labour and social protection. Many regulations focused on formal employment relationships, wage administration, and labour obligations. By contrast, the vast majority of informal economic activities remained largely outside these regulatory frameworks.

This distinction continues to resonate today. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, most workers still earn their living in the informal economy, where access to contributory social protection remains limited. Although contemporary institutions have evolved considerably since independence, our historical evidence suggests that some of the administrative foundations of this dual system were established during the colonial period, when regulation primarily targeted formally recognised workers and enterprises.

The broader lesson extends beyond the Congolese case. Economic historians have long debated whether colonial institutions promoted or hindered long-run development. These debates often distinguish between “extractive” and “inclusive” institutions. Our findings invite a complementary perspective. Before asking whether institutions were good or bad for development, we should first understand how they were built in practice.

Institutions are not abstract concepts. They emerge through thousands of administrative decisions, legal texts, and regulatory adjustments. Day after day, governments define who owns land, who pays taxes, how contracts are enforced, which markets are supervised, and which workers are protected. The cumulative effect of these seemingly technical decisions shapes the economic environment for decades.

Looking closely at the Belgian Congo between 1942 and 1946 therefore reveals more than a colonial administration managing an empire. It reveals a state engaged in the continuous production of rules that organised economic life.

This does not diminish the realities of colonial domination or exploitation. Rather, it highlights an additional dimension of colonial governance that deserves greater attention. Understanding the historical architecture of institutions helps explain why certain administrative arrangements persist, why some policy challenges prove remarkably durable, and why institutional reform is often more difficult than it first appears.

History rarely survives only in monuments or archives. It also survives in the rules that continue to shape how economies function. By reconstructing the regulatory landscape of the Belgian Congo, we gain a clearer picture not only of the colonial state itself but also of the institutional legacies that continue to influence contemporary Africa.

To contact the author:

Jean-Paul K. Tsasa

Center for Interuniversity Research in Mathematical Economics, Universite Protestante au Congo, UPC B.P. 4745, Lingwala, Kinshasa II, DRC

tsasa.jean-paul@upc.ac.cd