South Korea was once one of the poorest countries in the world; now it is one of the richest. Hong Kong went from poor to rich in less than 50 years; so did Singapore.
Even in Bolivia, Mennonite farmers drive around in new Ford trucks while ethnic Bolivians work as field hands. In Uganda, Indians were economically successful while native Ugandans were not. Ethnic Germans made great successes of themselves in Russia. Russians did not.
You are a nice man. Perhaps you are not a very close observer.
Yes, but both Korea and Hong Kong evolved Agrarian societies before the Industrial Revolution. That is a key reason that they were able to get rich later.
Bolivia and Uganda did not.
That difference is largely explained by geography. And the historical legacy of that geographical difference is still with us today.
There were no Agrarian societies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Those that had agriculture were Horticultural societies, meaning they did not use animal-traction plows.
If it was a case of geography, then why did they use animal-traction plows later?
Hence my point about Mennonites and foreigners in Bolivia. These people do live ordinary lives by Western standards. They are productive, organized, well-off. But the Bolivians generally are not. It seems there is a difference between the people who come there and the natives.
I mean, it's pretty shocking when you are there and see the difference.
The Americas has no indigenous mammals capable of pulling plows. The only domesticated animals in the region were turkeys and guinea pigs.
As for why animal-traction plowing was not widely adopted after the Spanish conquest, that is a good question that I can only speculate on.
My guess is the cultural traditions and the fact that peon labor did not require productivity to make the Spanish landowners rich is a big part of the problem. Not sure if it is the full explanation.
I have also run across Mennonite communities in Latin America. It looked like modern-day Nebraska dropped into Latin America. It is a little spooky.
You can also ask why Mennonites have not adopted huge fossil fuel-powered combine harvesters. I think that is more about culture.
I think the role of geography on human history and current economic development is often misunderstood. Geography has been a powerful constraint for almost all of human history, but the technologies of the Industrial Revolution and the global free trade system since 1945 have greatly limited its impact on current rates of economic growth.
For example, if one compares a rank-order list of how prosperous a society is today with the same list for the year 1000, one can see a great deal of commonality. Societies in Europe and those that had recently been settled by Europeans, the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia rank relatively high, while societies in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Siberia, New Guinea, Australia and the Pacific Islands rank relatively low.
The differences go back even further than the year 1000. In a fascinating article entitled Was the Wealth of Nations Determined in 1000 BC?, William Easterly and other researchers find a strong correlation between levels of technology and per capita income today with levels in the years 1500, 1000, 0 and even 1000 BCE!
Geography is the most logical explanation for these differences that endure for 2000 years.
I have a numbers of articles on the topic that you and your readers might be interested in:
Switzerland is geographically rough. Few resources yet it prospers. Russia has enormous natural wealth, yet they suffer. Zimbabwe, Argentina, South Africa, and Uruguay all were wealthy - then they were not. Geography does pay a role, but so does policy. Socialism and Communism shot coming have been laid bare. The third are is attitude. The attitude of the Oppressed v the Oppressors is another loosing ideology. Though sometimes you can see its roots, but it is a disastrous social weed.
I also have a knee jerk reaction to reject Sachs. He is undoubtedly bright but his views indicate that he lack a real word education of traveling with just folks or running a business..
You misunderstand which natural resources have been important for promoting pre-industrial development. It is not what you dig up from the ground that matters. Switzerland was actually blessed by geography compared to the other nations that you mentioned.
What would happen if a cross-section of people from a rich country were moved, with or (likely) without their approval, to the "shithole country" while the entire population of "shithole" citizens were allowed (and made, as necessary) to emigrate to the rich country? What would happen to the two countries, over say a decade (or generation) or two?
My guess:
1. The "shithole" country would miraculously blossom economically and become a mini-replica of the first world country of its new residents.
2. The rich country would become a fraction poorer with the immigrants and their (growing) families doing better than they did in their erstwhile "shithole" country but not achieving parity with the citizens of the rich country whom they replaced.
Question for Caplan: how does "geography" in any way affect my (and I suspect, your) projections of the post-swap state of both countries?
P.S. Extra credit for analyzing "geography as destiny" applied to Haiti and the Dominican Republic (hint: both countries share the island of Hispaniola).
I think Sachs would reply that he has identified an empirical correlation, not a logically necessary principle. Hence specific exceptions do not defeat his thesis. A more relevant criticism would try to explain the correlation in a different way.
My own uninformed response would be that when discussing social phenomena like this, perhaps geography provides an upper limit, while unfortunate policy and historical mishaps make the lower bound for nearly anything equally low.
You do have a point and it has a peculiar illustration in the case of the overseas Chinese, who seem able to thrive everywhere other than China. Are we only counting the instances where they obeyed geography? Is policy more important in their case? Why is policy sort of irrelevant for them, except in China itself?
Maybe it is a bit silly to pretend that any of these factors is uniquely important to the exclusion of the others. Our host's suggestion has the virtue that it recommends the same thing no matter what the most important factor actually is.
Sachs got most of geographical constraints on Sub-Saharan Africa. What he got wrong was in assuming that foreign aid could overcome the historical legacy of that geography.
But you miss how the rich countries got rich in the first place. Geography was a necessary precondition for that. It is not an accident that richer nations had ancestors from similar geographies:
You're cherry-picking for contrast while attempting to ignore the counterfactual right in front of your face. That's intellectually dishonest and beneath you. Explain Haiti vs the Dominican and (perhaps) I'll give your larger case a fair hearing. Don't and I won't.
I am not cherry picking. You chose those two nations, not me.
I agree that the current difference in levels of development are unlikely to be due to geography. I have not done an in depth analysis of those two nations, so I cannot say definitively. Most likely some blend of institutions, genes and culture.
I am more interested in how much they shared in common before 1500 in comparison to Europe and East Asia.
Now that I have answered your question, why don’t you read the linked article?
Haiti was generally considered the richest place in the world prior to the black revolution. I realize that is hard to believe, but it is true. I mean "rich" in terms of total production, not in terms of the average person's life. The average person's life was hideous.
Haiti is now one of the poorest countries on earth.
I'm not interested in blather that sees value in comparing the power of a rickshaw with that of an army tank and attributes the discrepancy to the condition of area roads.
Yes, precisely. Hong Kong and Shenzhen have been highlights. But this is recent. In ancient times China was perhaps the most advanced society. But they stalled for several centuries at home, while advancing elsewhere. Hong Kong was under British rule for a century. They did well in Hawaii and California, the “Golden mountain,” and other places like Singapore, against difficult circumstances. The enthusiastic foot shooting at home was reduced in the 1980s with remarkable results. Xi's more recent attitude makes it unclear whether this will continue. Taiwan does seem like an exception, though not such a clear one. Certainly they have done well there, but only while they were ruled as a government in exile/rebel province.
Their experience might count as evidence for the importance of policy, or against culture as a determining factor. It seems consistent with the geographic hypothesis too, as the overseas Chinese seem to have had most impact in coastal regions.
If we accepted the notion that geography is what matters how did developed countries go from extremely poor to rich? We shouldn't have had a period of tens of thousands of years of everything being the same until an explosion of wealth just 200 years ago.
What geography enabled the progress in Japan and South Korea compared to the middle east and africa?
" P&W are writing in a field where the effects of geography are well-established. They aim to show that ancestry matters even controlling for geography – and they succeed. But geographic variables remain highly potent. Who cares, when you can’t change geography? Well, you can’t change the geography of places, but you can change the geography of people. How? Migration! "
My reading of the study is that ancestry matters way more than geography
Geography is a really good foundation for open borders. No amount of international aid or institutional reforms is going to make Chad rich. I think that you could have discussed geographic arguments more in Open Borders, but I think you said it was more magic culture than magic dirt. I think magic dirt is a pretty good way to sum up the difference between the Sahara, Canadian Shield, Himalayas, and other geographic obstacles vs arable lands, navigable rivers and natural harbors.
South Korea was once one of the poorest countries in the world; now it is one of the richest. Hong Kong went from poor to rich in less than 50 years; so did Singapore.
Even in Bolivia, Mennonite farmers drive around in new Ford trucks while ethnic Bolivians work as field hands. In Uganda, Indians were economically successful while native Ugandans were not. Ethnic Germans made great successes of themselves in Russia. Russians did not.
You are a nice man. Perhaps you are not a very close observer.
Yes, but both Korea and Hong Kong evolved Agrarian societies before the Industrial Revolution. That is a key reason that they were able to get rich later.
Bolivia and Uganda did not.
That difference is largely explained by geography. And the historical legacy of that geographical difference is still with us today.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-our-deep-history-explains-global
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/t/geography-by-region
Buganda (Uganda, more or less) had an agrarian society. The totalitarian rulers ran a fairly organized (cruel, oppressive, but organized) state.
Bolivia, I don't know. I do know that Bolivians don't seem to be able to make much of their society unless their ancestors came from somewhere else.
There were no Agrarian societies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Those that had agriculture were Horticultural societies, meaning they did not use animal-traction plows.
Same for Bolivia.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/agrarian-societies
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-you-need-to-know-about-society
I see the distinction you are making, thank you.
Why didn't they?
If it was a case of geography, then why did they use animal-traction plows later?
Hence my point about Mennonites and foreigners in Bolivia. These people do live ordinary lives by Western standards. They are productive, organized, well-off. But the Bolivians generally are not. It seems there is a difference between the people who come there and the natives.
I mean, it's pretty shocking when you are there and see the difference.
The Americas has no indigenous mammals capable of pulling plows. The only domesticated animals in the region were turkeys and guinea pigs.
As for why animal-traction plowing was not widely adopted after the Spanish conquest, that is a good question that I can only speculate on.
My guess is the cultural traditions and the fact that peon labor did not require productivity to make the Spanish landowners rich is a big part of the problem. Not sure if it is the full explanation.
I have also run across Mennonite communities in Latin America. It looked like modern-day Nebraska dropped into Latin America. It is a little spooky.
You can also ask why Mennonites have not adopted huge fossil fuel-powered combine harvesters. I think that is more about culture.
Animal breeding can create tractable animals, can't it? I mean over time, via artificial selection and training.
I think the role of geography on human history and current economic development is often misunderstood. Geography has been a powerful constraint for almost all of human history, but the technologies of the Industrial Revolution and the global free trade system since 1945 have greatly limited its impact on current rates of economic growth.
For example, if one compares a rank-order list of how prosperous a society is today with the same list for the year 1000, one can see a great deal of commonality. Societies in Europe and those that had recently been settled by Europeans, the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia rank relatively high, while societies in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Siberia, New Guinea, Australia and the Pacific Islands rank relatively low.
The differences go back even further than the year 1000. In a fascinating article entitled Was the Wealth of Nations Determined in 1000 BC?, William Easterly and other researchers find a strong correlation between levels of technology and per capita income today with levels in the years 1500, 1000, 0 and even 1000 BCE!
Geography is the most logical explanation for these differences that endure for 2000 years.
I have a numbers of articles on the topic that you and your readers might be interested in:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/t/geography
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-our-deep-history-explains-global
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-are-there-such-huge-variations
Switzerland is geographically rough. Few resources yet it prospers. Russia has enormous natural wealth, yet they suffer. Zimbabwe, Argentina, South Africa, and Uruguay all were wealthy - then they were not. Geography does pay a role, but so does policy. Socialism and Communism shot coming have been laid bare. The third are is attitude. The attitude of the Oppressed v the Oppressors is another loosing ideology. Though sometimes you can see its roots, but it is a disastrous social weed.
I also have a knee jerk reaction to reject Sachs. He is undoubtedly bright but his views indicate that he lack a real word education of traveling with just folks or running a business..
You misunderstand which natural resources have been important for promoting pre-industrial development. It is not what you dig up from the ground that matters. Switzerland was actually blessed by geography compared to the other nations that you mentioned.
For example, biomes are critical:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-geography-enabled-northern-european
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/biomes-have-profoundly-shaped-human
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/more-ways-geography-has-constrained
What would happen if a cross-section of people from a rich country were moved, with or (likely) without their approval, to the "shithole country" while the entire population of "shithole" citizens were allowed (and made, as necessary) to emigrate to the rich country? What would happen to the two countries, over say a decade (or generation) or two?
My guess:
1. The "shithole" country would miraculously blossom economically and become a mini-replica of the first world country of its new residents.
2. The rich country would become a fraction poorer with the immigrants and their (growing) families doing better than they did in their erstwhile "shithole" country but not achieving parity with the citizens of the rich country whom they replaced.
Question for Caplan: how does "geography" in any way affect my (and I suspect, your) projections of the post-swap state of both countries?
P.S. Extra credit for analyzing "geography as destiny" applied to Haiti and the Dominican Republic (hint: both countries share the island of Hispaniola).
I think Sachs would reply that he has identified an empirical correlation, not a logically necessary principle. Hence specific exceptions do not defeat his thesis. A more relevant criticism would try to explain the correlation in a different way.
My own uninformed response would be that when discussing social phenomena like this, perhaps geography provides an upper limit, while unfortunate policy and historical mishaps make the lower bound for nearly anything equally low.
You do have a point and it has a peculiar illustration in the case of the overseas Chinese, who seem able to thrive everywhere other than China. Are we only counting the instances where they obeyed geography? Is policy more important in their case? Why is policy sort of irrelevant for them, except in China itself?
Maybe it is a bit silly to pretend that any of these factors is uniquely important to the exclusion of the others. Our host's suggestion has the virtue that it recommends the same thing no matter what the most important factor actually is.
Sachs got most of geographical constraints on Sub-Saharan Africa. What he got wrong was in assuming that foreign aid could overcome the historical legacy of that geography.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-geography-constrained-development
China PRC has had the world's fastest-growing economy for two decades. Taiwan ROC is one of the richest countries in the world.
Yes, but you miss how different the path of China and the rest of East Asia was compared to the rest of the world before 1500.
That was largely due to geography:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/biomes-have-profoundly-shaped-human
That is an interesting page, but I don't see that it demonstrates any relevant point here.
But you miss how the rich countries got rich in the first place. Geography was a necessary precondition for that. It is not an accident that richer nations had ancestors from similar geographies:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/biomes-have-profoundly-shaped-human
Geography is not destiny. It is a necessary precondition before the Industrial Revolution and it left a historical legacy after it.
Haiti, the Dominican Republic, island of Hispaniola. Have at it.
Not a very compelling explanation for Hispaniola's poverty compared to Europe, North America, and East Asia. I will stick with mine.
You're cherry-picking for contrast while attempting to ignore the counterfactual right in front of your face. That's intellectually dishonest and beneath you. Explain Haiti vs the Dominican and (perhaps) I'll give your larger case a fair hearing. Don't and I won't.
I am not cherry picking. You chose those two nations, not me.
I agree that the current difference in levels of development are unlikely to be due to geography. I have not done an in depth analysis of those two nations, so I cannot say definitively. Most likely some blend of institutions, genes and culture.
I am more interested in how much they shared in common before 1500 in comparison to Europe and East Asia.
Now that I have answered your question, why don’t you read the linked article?
Haiti was generally considered the richest place in the world prior to the black revolution. I realize that is hard to believe, but it is true. I mean "rich" in terms of total production, not in terms of the average person's life. The average person's life was hideous.
Haiti is now one of the poorest countries on earth.
I'm not interested in blather that sees value in comparing the power of a rickshaw with that of an army tank and attributes the discrepancy to the condition of area roads.
Yes, precisely. Hong Kong and Shenzhen have been highlights. But this is recent. In ancient times China was perhaps the most advanced society. But they stalled for several centuries at home, while advancing elsewhere. Hong Kong was under British rule for a century. They did well in Hawaii and California, the “Golden mountain,” and other places like Singapore, against difficult circumstances. The enthusiastic foot shooting at home was reduced in the 1980s with remarkable results. Xi's more recent attitude makes it unclear whether this will continue. Taiwan does seem like an exception, though not such a clear one. Certainly they have done well there, but only while they were ruled as a government in exile/rebel province.
Their experience might count as evidence for the importance of policy, or against culture as a determining factor. It seems consistent with the geographic hypothesis too, as the overseas Chinese seem to have had most impact in coastal regions.
If we accepted the notion that geography is what matters how did developed countries go from extremely poor to rich? We shouldn't have had a period of tens of thousands of years of everything being the same until an explosion of wealth just 200 years ago.
What geography enabled the progress in Japan and South Korea compared to the middle east and africa?
From the econlog article:
" P&W are writing in a field where the effects of geography are well-established. They aim to show that ancestry matters even controlling for geography – and they succeed. But geographic variables remain highly potent. Who cares, when you can’t change geography? Well, you can’t change the geography of places, but you can change the geography of people. How? Migration! "
My reading of the study is that ancestry matters way more than geography
Geography is a really good foundation for open borders. No amount of international aid or institutional reforms is going to make Chad rich. I think that you could have discussed geographic arguments more in Open Borders, but I think you said it was more magic culture than magic dirt. I think magic dirt is a pretty good way to sum up the difference between the Sahara, Canadian Shield, Himalayas, and other geographic obstacles vs arable lands, navigable rivers and natural harbors.