Apologia on Tibet.

The tricky part of colonial studies is dealing with claims of development. The imperial apologists always make a point of showing the Signs of Progress, or how the Advanced Nation helped it's lesser brethren, albeit by the barrel of a gun. And, they usually are able to produce evidence of postive change.

This is often misleading and requires serious consideration. States and cultures are not static, and their are always cycles of development and innovation. Capital is brought in, if necessary by Cheating, Lying and Stealing(TM), people are resourceful, and some changes just penetrate by osmosis.

To really say that an imperial experience was positive overall, you need to demonstrate 1) that there were positive changes made BY THE COLONIZING POWER, and 2) congruent or equal changes would not have been possible if they had remained independent. And if you want to be a dick, 3) that these positive changes weren't lost in the trauma of colonization or the violence of later decolonization.

This is a trick question, of course, because (2) cannot be answered. History didn't allow that path to be followed. We can conjecture, we can analyze the pre-colonial sequence, we can plan alternative histories and run simulations, but empirical conclusions are impossible.

For examples, look at Korean and Taiwanese colonial and post-colonial economic histories, as well as the history of Ireland. And, while you're at it, the economic history of 3/4 of the world.