-
Welcome, everyone.
-
Today we are going to begin a new unit.
-
We are going to be talking about
geography and development.
-
And by geography, I mean the relatively
immutable and constant features,
-
things like location, topography, climate,
-
including temperature,
rainfall, soil quality,
-
wildlife, especially parasites,
-
and the influence of all of these
on development.
-
This is obviously a big topic,
-
so today we are just going to focus on
geography and trade.
-
So I want to begin by
giving two perspectives on trade.
-
The first is the Ricardian perspective.
-
So Ricardo said, when 2 countries
specialize in their comparative advantage,
-
that is, they specialize in
producing the good,
-
which they can produce
at lowest opportunity cost,
-
and then they trade,
-
both nations are better off.
-
Now, notice that innovation
is not the focus of Ricardo.
-
So Ricardo says, "There already are
two goods, wine and cloth.
-
We can get more of both goods
if Portugal specializes in producing wine,
-
England specializes in producing cloth,
and then they trade."
-
So for Ricardo,
-
trade is about improvements
in static efficiency.
-
Notice also that in Ricardo,
market size is really not a key variable.
-
The situation is very different
in Adam Smith.
-
Adam Smith has a
completely different theory of trade.
-
Let's take a look at that.
-
Smith lays out his theory of trade
in a chapter in the Wealth of Nations
-
called The division of labor is limited
by the extent of the market.
-
And Smith makes this remarkable
and very deep insight.
-
He says, "As by means of water-carriage,"
that is by ship and boat,
-
"a more extensive market is opened
to every sort of industry
-
than what land-carriage alone
can afford it.
-
So it is upon the sea-coast,
and along the banks of navigable rivers,
-
that industry of every kind
-
naturally begins
to subdivide and improve."
-
So what Adam Smith is saying is that
when you're along in sea coast
-
you have access to a larger market.
-
You can sell your goods
in a larger market.
-
And because of that, --
-
you get economies of scale but, also,
you get specialization of knowledge.
-
You get people learning more as
they produce more.
-
This creates improvements.
-
So for Adam Smith,
trade is a dynamic growth story.
-
Trade, means larger markets.
-
Larger markets means more specialization.
-
It means more improvements in knowledge,
and therefore it means more growth.
-
So let's take a look at
Adam Smith's theory
-
and see if we can see it today.
-
So what we have here is
a map of GDP density,
-
that is, the amount of GDP
produced per square kilometer.
-
And what you can see from this map
is that Smith was absolutely correct.
-
So what you can see is that
where GDP is, where civilization is,
-
it's along the coast.
-
Here's the coastal United States
-
and, along these navigable rivers,
the Great Lakes region.
-
You can also see Western Europe,
all along the coast,
-
all of this coastal area,
Western Europe, highly developed.
-
Over here, Japan,
-
and, of course, it's the coast of China
-
which is rapidly developing
all due to those export markets.
-
Here again, the coast of Australia.
-
Now, in fact, what you can also see
-
is that even in places
where there are great institutions,
-
where they have
institutions of law and order,
-
property rights, and incentives,
and so forth,
-
that we can still have low GDP
per square kilometer.
-
So take a look at Canada.
-
So most of Canada,
it's like the Sahara Desert, --
-
in terms of GDP.
-
Canada, where Canada is developed,
-
it's along the coast and
along navigable rivers
-
close to the United States.
-
Even in the United States,
-
there are entire regions
which really are bereft of GDP
-
which are almost as barren
as is the Sahara Desert.
-
So if you are looking
just at institutions,
-
you might say,
"Well, even in the United States,
-
where we have these
great institutions,
-
there's plenty of places
where there isn't much GDP,
-
so it must be something else,
-
and geography, --
-
particular closeness to rivers
and closeness to sea coast
-
is an important element of this.
-
By the way, economists really
used to ignore geography.
-
And it's due to Jeff Sachs
and some of his co-authors,
-
particular John Gallup
and Andrew Mellinger
-
that a lot of this work
started to be done.
-
In addition to the article
which I've noted here, --
-
these three authors have a review article
in Scientific American, 2001,
-
called The Geography of
Poverty and Wealth,
-
which I recommend.
-
Now, if being close to rivers,
-
if being close to the sea coast
is important
-
then what is the worst thing?
-
Well, the worst thing that can happen
is if you are landlocked.
-
Let's take a look.
-
So what we're showing here
is GDP per capita in countries
-
which have access to the coast over here,
-
compared to countries
that are landlocked over here.
-
And what you see immediately
is that countries which are landlocked
-
have half, actually,
a little bit less
-
than half the GDP of countries
which have access to the coast.
-
If we look over here,
at the landlocked countries,
-
you can see there's actually
a few landlocked ones in Europe:
-
Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary,
of course, Switzerland.
-
But, equally true, these countries
are actually quite close to the coast
-
and they are close
to other rich countries.
-
If you take those countries out,
the differences become even more stark.
-
Among the landlocked nations,
-
the richest outside of Europe
is actually Botswana,
-
which has diamonds.
-
Pretty lucky for them.
-
What you also notice is that
all of these countries here,
-
they are all in Africa.
-
In fact, Africa has more
landlocked countries
-
than any other continent.
-
Let's take a close look
at why this is the case.
-
Okay, here is a standard-looking
map of the world
-
you probably all seen it before.
-
It's not obvious from this map
why Africa should be
-
particularly landlocked.
-
But there's also something funny
about this map, something odd.
-
Take a look at Greenland.
-
Greenland on this map looks huge,
-
it looks almost as big as Africa.
-
And, yet, when you check the statistics,
-
what you find is that Greenland is,
in fact, 1/11 the size of Africa.
-
What's going on?
-
Well, this is actually an illusion.
-
It's an illusion created by
the particular projection we've used,
-
the Mercator projection, --
-
to project a 3D surface,
namely a globe, onto 2 dimensions.
-
Whenever you take a 3D surface
and you map it in 2 dimensions,
-
you are bound to get some illusions.
-
And in this case,
we get the illusion of size.
-
Let's take a look at
a different projection.
-
This is the Albers Projection,
-
which maintains equal sizes areas.
-
We are going to get some illusions
about the shape of continents,
-
but we are going to get
the right equivalent sizes.
-
And on this projection
what you see, quite correctly,
-
is that Greenland
is much smaller than Africa.
-
What you also see is that Africa is huge.
-
Africa is an enormous continent.
-
Let's also show that in a different way.
-
Okay, here's another way
of looking at Africa
-
and what you can see,
again, Africa is big.
-
You can fit the entire United States,
excluding Alaska, into Africa.
-
You can put China as well into Africa.
India can go into Africa.
-
Eastern Europe, most of Europe;
-
here's Italy, Germany, France,
and Spain, and so forth.
-
Now, remember that chunk
in the United States,
-
which is inland,
which had low GDP,
-
well, just map that into Africa.
-
You can see what is going on.
-
Here's another way of looking at this.
-
Let's go back to our projection.
-
Take a look at the coastline of Africa.
-
Here's the coastline of Africa.
-
Now compare with the coastline of Europe.
-
Well, in Europe you've got
all these nooks and crannies
-
and inlets and seas.
-
Here's the Black Sea
over here and so forth.
-
In fact, what you'll find if you do this,
if you measure the coastline,
-
is that the coastline of Europe,
is 2-3 times longer
-
than the coastline of Africa.
-
2-3 times, by the way,
-
because it can actually differ
depending upon
-
how you measure those fjords
and so forth in Europe.
-
The fractal nature of coastline makes it
a little bit arbitrary to measure.
-
Basic point however is,
-
Europe is much smaller than Africa,
-
and, yet, the coastline of Europe,
-
the access to the ocean,
access to the seas,
-
to navigable rivers,
much much larger.
-
So Europe has much more access to trade
-
than does Africa.
-
So let's review briefly.
-
From Adam Smith, we have that
sea coast and navigable rivers,
-
that leads to trade to larger markets.
-
Larger markets that means
more specialization
-
and improvements in knowledge,
-
and improvements in
knowledge lead to growth.
-
In contrast with this,
if you are landlocked,
-
you don't get those trade,
you don't get trade,
-
you don't get larger markets
you don't get that specialization,
-
you don't get
that improvement in knowledge,
-
and, instead, you get stagnation.
-
Now, again, let's apply this to Africa.
-
Adam Smith in fact had the theory
and application done in 1776.
-
He says, "There are in Africa
none of those great inlets,
-
such as the Baltic
and Adriatic seas in Europe,
-
the Mediterranean and the Black Sea
in both Europe and Asia [...]
-
to carry maritime commerce into
the interior parts of that great continent:
-
and the great rivers of Africa
are at too great a distance from one another
-
to give occasion to
any considerable inland navigation."
-
So Adam Smith nailed in 1776
one of the key connections
-
between geography,
-
between access to the coast,
access to navigable rivers,
-
and development.
-
Amazingly, it wasn't until
some 200 or so years later
-
that Jeff Sachs and others
really began to pick this up
-
and bring it back into the growth story.
-
One reason to remember
our history of economic thought.
-
Okay, we'll be looking more
at development and geography,
-
in particular malaria and other parasites
and things like that,
-
and their influences in the next lecture.
-
Thanks.