As for why BASF Company did not simply choose Bulawayo or Nairobi to establish branch factories, the reason was simple: East Africa had opened only its coastal regions, while the interior remained inaccessible.
Moreover, industrial arrangements in the interior were basically centered on East African state-owned enterprises. In reality, the various industrial sectors there were complete, merely weaker in strength. To prevent them from being directly battered by foreign capital, effective barriers remained a viable measure. At the same time, they could compete directly with foreign-funded enterprises in the coastal regions, rather than being trapped by their circumstances and losing the will to forge ahead.
With both a moat and competition to preserve vitality, as long as it was handled properly, East African industry's foundations could stand undefeated.
This method employed by East Africa was not particularly remarkable in the nineteenth century. Even the United States and Germany protected their domestic industries from external shocks through tariff barriers. Germany's Junker nobility was especially conspicuous in this regard; for economic interests, they even opposed any thawing of relations between Germany and Tsarist Russia, causing Tsarist Russia to lean toward the Entente Powers during the First World War.
Naturally, East Africa had similar policies. The difference was that East Africa could bypass commodity-grain agriculture and turn toward tropical cash-crop agriculture, avoiding direct competition. In this field, only Brazil and the Caribbean coastal countries could currently contend with East Africa to any extent.
Although India was a tropical country, it had too large a population and still had to ensure basic food and clothing. It was impossible for it to throw its full strength into competing with East Africa. Moreover, India covered only three million square kilometers, far behind even Brazil. As a British colony, it lacked autonomy and had a low level