2
(1998; 1999; and 2000) who argued that the experience of colonization can have
permanently lasting effect on the legal system of any country and through that on that
country’s economic performance.
Individuals have only imperfect control over their memory. They are not able to
learn everything that they would like to, mainly because it is too difficult for them. It is
only possible to integrate new knowledge into one’s memory by applying sufficient
effort, time and resources. Unlearning various practices enforced by habits formed under
colonial institutions, i.e. removing information from one’s memory on colonial ways of
organizing economic activities is more difficult to achieve. It is, for example, impossible
to forget the information that the price of salt was fixed so artificially high by the colonial
authorities that smuggling was profitable and this was often the only way many families
could obtain the salt that they needed. One would be better off not knowing that
smuggling was the only means for obtaining salt for their most basic consumption, but
one could not choose to forget such utility enhancing information given their colonial
circumstances. This “retention effect” suggests that there is a fundamental asymmetry
between learning and unlearning.
Moreover, making an effort to get rid of a piece of information stored in our memory
tends to have a counterproductive effect: it is rendered more vivid and therewith stored
more effectively in our memory. For example, parents who constantly advise their
children not to drink alcohol, to take drugs or engage in sex, often make it more difficult
for the children not to think of it. This “imprinting effect” produces higher transaction
costs in principal-agent relationships. Similar counterproductive effects can also be found
in the colonial political economy where the colonized as dependents (like children) of the
Convention