Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Modesto Portilla Gamboa's avatar

Very interesting analysis. If you have traveled around the world it would be straightforward, the plain lands encompass the richest regions and high productive terrains. However, in some countries like Colombia, it does not work that way, astonishingly it is the other way. I do not know what the situation in other Andean regions is, but in Colombia the richest lands are located in the mountains and the poorest lands in the plains, having both of them a lot of rivers. It would be possible to add as a complimentary explanation, to that given by Tomas Pueyo, the terrain land-use or maybe the geological traits of these regions? Most of the times the Geography obeys the Geology rules, and it would be the same constrains for the Technology and future human advances; the Geology will be the chessboard of the World.

Expand full comment
Geoffrey G's avatar

Really succinct analysis. One problem: Why are Russia and Eastern Europe (relatively) poor?

Potential Reason 1: They're just hard to defend. Missing that protective, mountainous ring, the doors of the vast Eurasian Plain are open for everyone from the Mongols to the Nazis to blow on through. But that didn't stop the very-flat, heavily-contested, and oft-invaded Low Countries from becoming very rich, and even being world powers, for a time. Denmark's even more vulnerable there, closer to the East, and is far richer than Poland or the Baltics.

Potential Reason 2: History. There was a time when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the most progressive polity in the world. To the southeast, Ukraine not only has some of the most fertile land in the world (renowned as far back as when it was known as Scythia by the Ancient Greeks), but also excellent ports along the Black Sea. The Austro-Hungarian Empire in that plumb little basin you mentioned was one of the most formidable in the world... until WWI. And now all of those areas are geopolitically marginal and militarily suspended between outside superpowers. And that erosion of sovereignty began as early as Ancient times or the Middle Ages for most of them. Was this just historical contingency, or back to Reason 1?

Potential Reason 3: Primary production makes a country rich in the period of primitive accumulation, but can become a trap at later stages of development as you eventually become far richer from trade, capitalism, and innovation than from primary production or resource extraction. The UK has some fertile lands in Southern England, but that's not why it became rich. Even its modest Pre-Norman wealth came from exporting slaves and tin and then by the Middle Ages from wool. But at least it could grow its own food. Japan, meanwhile, is as hopeless for agriculture as Greece, but was powerful enough by the late 19th Century to defeat the vast, productive lands of Russia in a war and is still the third-richest country in the world. Switzerland, Luxembourg, and the Nordic Countries, by your geographic schema, shouldn't be among the richest countries in the world, but they are. So, this all puts into question how deterministic this "Chessboard of History" remains, doesn't it?

Expand full comment
39 more comments...

No posts