Marginal Revolution: Ruggedness: how bad terrain helped parts of Africa

November
S	M	T	W	Th	F	St
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

« Back on the Streets | Main | Conservative Pigs and Liberal Bonobos »

Ruggedness: how bad terrain helped parts of Africa

There is controversy about whether geography matters mainly because of its contemporaneous impact on economic outcomes or because of its interaction with historical events. Looking at terrain ruggedness, we are able to estimate the importance of these two channels. Because rugged terrain hinders trade and most productive activities, it has a negative direct effect on income. However, in Africa rugged terrain afforded protection to those being raided during the slave trades. Since the slave trades retarded subsequent economic development, in Africa ruggedness also has had a historical indirect positive effect on income. Studying all countries worldwide, we find that both effects are significant statistically and that for Africa the indirect positive effect dominates the direct negative effect. Looking within Africa, we provide evidence that the indirect effect operates through the slave trades. We also show that the slave trades, by encouraging population concentrations in rugged areas, have also amplified the negative direct impact of rugged terrain in Africa.

That's a new paper by Nathan Nunn and Diego Puga. Some say the paper is here, not I. Others say you can get it here. I say you can get an html version here. Here is one quick summary of the argument. Here are Nunn's other papers on the slave trade, and how it continues to affect current African development.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 27, 2007 at 07:52 AM in History | Permalink

Comments

The Appalachian - Allegheny - Adirondack mountain chain was considered not only "rugged" but actually a threat to the unity of the young Republic (i.e., those on the western side would, the argument went, have so little contact with the coastal communities to the east that they would cease thinking of themselves as "Americans").

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson used this as an excuse to argue for a Potomac-based (i.e., Virginia-based) canal to the West.

Then the Erie Canal was built -- despite Jefferson's hypocritical (i.e., Virginia-based) objections -- and the rest is economic history.

Posted by: KipEsquire at Nov 27, 2007 11:22:40 AM

Did they look at the effect of slaving in Europe; Britons being enslaved by Irish raiders, Slavs dragged off by all and sundry, Mediterranean coastal people being raided by "Moors", and so on?

Posted by: dearieme at Nov 27, 2007 11:44:46 AM

Because rugged terrain hinders trade and most productive activities, it has a negative direct effect on income.

My paternal grandpa spent his life building roads in the Pacific Northwest; looking at the negative value of his estate .. man ain't that the truth.

those on the western side would, the argument went, have so little contact with the coastal communities to the east that they would cease thinking of themselves as "Americans"

I have a popular history at home; the author is writing about the settlement of the West and claims that if you looked strictly at geography at the end of the 18th century Spain should have dominated North America west of the Mississippi. Why not? They owned that entire region.

He writes "Geography is limiting but rarely determining in human affairs." His point being that there were a horde of Anglo-Celt hillbillies with the highest birthrate in the world at that time spilling off the Blue Ridge.

I think the Northwest Ordnance had more to do with keeping the folks in the West American that the Erie Canal - but the Erie Canal remains my favorite bit of engineering. And funded entirely by New York state at that.

Posted by: Brian at Nov 27, 2007 11:47:23 AM

Is rugged terrain higher altitude terrain? In the tropics, there are advantages to living at altitude -- less enervating heat and humidity, less disease-burden, more rain in desert regions (e.g., Yemen). In the tropics, the ideal is really a fairly flat plateau at moderate but not extreme altitude (e.g., Bolivia is a little too high for ease of human habitation, Ethiopia isn't as bad, but some parts are above 10,000 feet, which is pushing it.)

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 27, 2007 4:57:08 PM

I read the summary and have skimmed the paper, but this isn't striking me as one of those "How stupid of me not to have thought of it" findings (as Huxley said upon reading the "Origin of Species." I don't see many examples of countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are notably more prosperous today because of rugged terrain (Ethiopia? Zimbabwe? Rwanda? Malawi?), so I'm having a hard time seeing what the authors are getting at.

A big part of the problem is that with the exception of mineral rich countries like Botswanta and Gabon, there really isn't that much variation within sub-Saharan African countries in terms of per capita GDP.

Much of the variation between countries over time seems driven by political ups and downs, such as having your President-for-Life be in his prime rather than his dotage. For example, when I briefly worked in the area of African development in the early 1980s, Ivory Coast was the shining star and Ghana was the object lesson, but they've since largely reversed that ranking.

Apparently, the paper argues that there are two countervailing tendencies -- ruggedness drives down prosperity but also protects from the effect of the slave trade (of many generations ago) -- so everybody in Africa comes out about the same. Maybe, but this could also be considered an example of Occam's Butterknife in action, positing two forces that cancel each other out.

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 27, 2007 5:35:10 PM

Yeah, I'm not seeing it either. I'll RTWFA later, but the first blush is evocative of huddled masses of West Africans hiding in rugged jungle from white slave catchers. My understanding is that this image is completely wrong and that the slave trade was driven by existing conflicts between African groups. That the slaves sold to the Europeans were foreign prisoners who otherwise would have been executed, ransomed, or enslaved locally. I'd be happy to learn that I am wrong on this.

It also doesn't seem to jive with my understanding that the highest density areas of Africa are the Ivory Coast areas that played the largest part in the slave trade. Those areas are remarkably not rugged in terms of terrain. There is significant jungle, but it is far denser further inland.

My amateur impression is that the slave trade had minimal impact on the economics of modern Africa and that colonialization had a much larger impact. Both likely served to enrich the coastal and river populations to differing degrees.

Posted by: Rimfax at Nov 27, 2007 6:15:46 PM

There's also the issue that per capita GDP isn't necessarily the best measure of economic success in a Malthusian trap environment. On a GDP per square kilometer basis, places like Java and the Nile Delta are surprisingly prosperous, while Botswana (a relatively high GDP/capita African country) is not.

But that raises the issue of whether the Malthusian trap was operative in Africa. John Reader's "Africa: Biography of a Continent" argues that lack of land was seldom a constraint on population growth -- instead, disease burden that went up with human density kept Africa less densely populated than other locations.

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 27, 2007 6:59:11 PM

By the way, Reader offers the example of an island in Lake Victoria that has no sleeping sickness, no big wild animals to eat crop like elephants, and a slightly milder climate than the lowlands of Africa. On this island, the the general "flavor" of society seems more like traditional southeast Asia than traditional Africa. The island is densely populated, the farmers work hard and use clever techniques to maximize output, and the population seems to be up against a Malthusian limit (with a lot of emigration off the island).

Reader's view is that Africans have done the best they could with the environmental conditions they confronted.

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 27, 2007 7:05:32 PM

There's an early Jeffrey Sachs paper commenting on how, in the tropics, highlands are a better place to practice subsistence agriculture than the lowlands, less malaria, fewer insect pests, and the sun gives as much if not more light, but less heat (higher primary product for agriculture).

Without a more critical examination of the assumption that rugged tropic terrain is bad for human habitation, the synopsis seems like is doesn't demonstrate much.

Posted by: Cyrus at Nov 27, 2007 7:52:47 PM

I think the premise is pretty flawed. Technology plays a bigger part in wealth than freedom from meddling. Technology is a collaborative process. Being connected to Arabia and North Africa and, by extension, India and east Asia played an enormous role in Eurasia becoming home of the world's dominant world powers. Algebra, calculus, granaries, Bronze Smelting, etc... all were developed within a day's travel of the Mediterranean. This is because the Mediterranean is the opposite of rough terrain. It's large, but long and narrow. It connected numerous peoples but was capable of being crossed in a day by good sailors. It was protected from larger storms and free of ice. It's no accident that the Renaissance began in Italy - at the heart of the Mediterranean. Being connected to other people allows for ideas to spread. It means you don't have to invent the wheel by yourself (the American Indians didn't). It means that even while you're being pillaged, you're gaining things like the saddle.

You also get exposed to disease early rather than late.

In the long run, it's better to not be isolated. Which means we better hope aliens find us soon.

Posted by: VC at Nov 27, 2007 9:16:58 PM

"In the long run, it's better to not be isolated. Which means we better hope aliens find us soon."

Maybe you should ask a Tasmanian about the advantages of not being isolated anymore? Or a Chatham Islander? Or a Tierra Del Fuegan? Or an Andaman Islander?

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 28, 2007 1:03:22 AM

"In the long run, it's better to not be isolated. Which means we better hope aliens find us soon."

Maybe you should ask a Tasmanian about the advantages of not being isolated anymore? Or a Chatham Islander? Or a Tierra Del Fuegan? Or an Andaman Islander?

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 28, 2007 1:04:17 AM

Maybe you should ask a Tasmanian about the advantages of not being isolated anymore?

These are the guys that had lost the art of sewing and boat building, yes? I think they would have been better off to have retained contact and acquired immunity against European disease and technology to fight off acquisitive English.

Posted by: Brian at Nov 28, 2007 2:28:08 AM

Jack Powelson's _History of Wealth and Poverty_ addresses this issue. http://tqe.quaker.org/wealth-and-poverty/ -- previously published in print, he recovered the copyright and published it online.

Posted by: Russell Nelson at Nov 28, 2007 3:57:33 AM

in Africa rugged terrain afforded protection to those being raided during the slave trades.

Presumably rugged terrain also afforded protection to those being attacked after the slave trades - that is, within the last century and a half. How did he allow for this effect?

Posted by: ad at Nov 28, 2007 4:55:37 PM

"Maybe you should ask a Tasmanian about the advantages of not being isolated anymore?

These are the guys that had lost the art of sewing and boat building, yes?"

They had lost the art of FISHING, on an ISLAND. There were only about 4 to 5 thousand of them on an island the size of most US states. They were in a very precarious position, and a single natural disaster could easily wipe out every single person who had a particular skill.

The Chatham islanders were even worse. Living on an island with readily clubbed seals everywhere, they had lost even hand weapons (except clubs). Once the New Zealand maoris reached them, they had no defense and were swiftly eaten.

These are all classic examples of why being isolated is a very bad thing.

Posted by: doctorpat at Nov 28, 2007 9:55:49 PM

doctorpat: "These [Tasmania and Chatham] are all classic examples of why being isolated is a very bad thing."

Yes but in both those cases it was the end of their isolation that ultimately did them in. If aliens showed up tomorrow and wiped us out your conclusion would be that isolation is bad, and that we were dumb to have remained isolated. Those islanders should have invited the colonizers earlier, that's your conclusion?

Posted by: James at Nov 29, 2007 2:07:12 PM

Hang on. Didnt slavery, organized masss version, stop oooh, 200 years ago? So how can 10 generations later it have an effect? This seems to be PC research. As other posters have mentioned, lots of places raided lots of places, and slavery isnt used as an excuse or explanation for economci problems.

Posted by: Querelous at Dec 1, 2007 12:59:22 PM

hi,I University majoring in the legal profession.After graduation,I 徵信 the work of the strong interest.Has worked in several徵信社.Has a wealth of experience. Now I immigrants France,Hope to continue to engage in the work of徵信 credit.

now,is to wake up every day to drink 咖啡, shopping. I hope that early awareness of Boles.

thanks,thank very much.

Posted by: Jack at Mar 17, 2008 10:18:19 PM

i hope徵信社|徵信社|燈光音響|徵信

Posted by: Alii at Apr 3, 2008 8:48:33 PM

Here suppling of a large number of cheap tiffany Jewelry,tiffany Replica Jewelry,Imitation Tiffany Jewelry and Knockoff Tiffany Jewelry,Silver Jewelry,925 tiffany Jewelry,Tiffany Silver Jewelry,So cheap!!!

Posted by: aion kina at Mar 19, 2009 9:58:50 PM