FORMATIVE ESSAY:

GEOGRAPHY VS INSTITUTIONS:
DOES THE DEBATE MATTER IN TODAYS INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT POLICY MAKLING?

FRANCISCO ABAD

DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

DV441
DR. JOANA NARITOMI
DR. TASHA FAIRFIELD

LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

NOVEMBER 3, 2014

GEOGRAPHY VS INSTITUTIONS:
DOES THE DEBATE MATTER IN TODAYS INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT POLICY MAKLING?
If one observes the map location of developed and developing countries, one can
easily categorize and group regions in which there are several developing countries
together. The Geography of Poverty and Wealth from the Scientific American1 points out
at the relationships between being a developing country and being located between the two
tropics. We can also observe a relationship between continents and sub-continents. For
example, none of the countries in Latin America are considered developed. Similarly we
can look at Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia, among others. This leads people to
believe there is a direct co-relation between geography and development. Furthermore, we
can consider including colonialism and its effects on the colonized countries and their postcolonial development. However, recent studies have argued through empirical evidence
that there is not a direct and relevant correlation between geography and development. This
essay will address some of the arguments made in the different sides of the policy debate,
reviewing a small part of the literature that studies this debate. I will point out some aspects
that are continuously omitted in this debate and the subsequent research, drawing
conclusions for the relevance of the debate in modern day international development
policy-making.
On one hand, we have reasons and arguments to believe that geography matters
when it comes to development. Acemoglu, S. et al. argues that there is a difference between

Jeffrey Sachs, Andrew D. Mellinger, and John L. Gallup. "The Geography Of Poverty
And Wealth." Scientific American: 70-75. Print.
1

colonies and the way they were set up. Europeans adopted very different colonization
strategies, with different associated institutions. In one extreme, as in the case of the United
States, Australia, and New Zealand, they went and settled in the colonies and set up
institutions that enforced the rule of law and encouraged investment. In the other extreme,
as in the Congo or the Gold Coast, they set up extractive states with the intention of
transferring resources rapidly to the metropolis. These institutions were detrimental to
investment and economic progress. 2 His argument is shaped by the fact that settlers
behavior and decision to stay or not in a country was decided by the conditions of living,
which is empirically reflected in the mortality rate. In this case, geography affected the type
of colony established, which in the long run affected the type of institutions left in the
country post-colony and therefore, the development of such country.
In addition, Mahmood Mamdani argues that the focus should be put on the Legacy
of Colonialism.3 His main argument is that there should be less focus in the borders of
Africa because they make no significant difference, but we should focus on analyzing the
effects of the post-colonial Institutions (Legacy of Colonialism) and possibly the way in
which colonizers established ethnic discrimination. For example, Mamdani states that
some minorities were fabricated by dividing ethnic groups which created a lesser number
of common people, therefore, it made them a minority. He concludes that geography is not
a relevant factor in this debate and that the colonial legacy is what has made the difference

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A Robinson. "The Colonial Origins of Comparative
Development: An Empirical Investigation." American Economic Review: 1369-401. Print. Pg. 26 (1395).
3

Mahmood Mamdani, "Beyond Settler and Native as Political Identities: Overcoming the Political Legacy
of Colonialism." Comparative Studies in Society and History 43.4 (2001): 651-64. JSTOR. Cambridge
University Press. Web. 12 Oct. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696665>.

through time in the development of a country.

On the other hand, Lange M. et al. argues that colonialism mattered based on the
conditions of colonies and colonized places. For example, the Spaniards approach to
colonies was focused on Mercantilism which was bad for post-colonial development. When
Spain went to South America and their other colonies and extracted resources, promoted
mercantilism which made Spain wealthier, but after they left the continent, the system they
left behind was detrimental for development. This did not happen in English colonies like
the United States in which capitalist accumulation was the focus. This was good for postcolonial development.
Apart from these studies that carefully find empirical correlations between the
variables of geography, colonialism, and institutions, one can make some observations that
are not stated in these studies and may be interesting to study further. For example, some
aspects that are not taken into consideration is the type of people that colonized places like
the Americas. On one hand, we have convicted criminals from Spain coming with
Columbus because they Royal Family did not want to risk actual knights and soldiers in
the crusade. One can argue that the fact that these people were criminals led to the rape of
indigenous women in the New World, which created what today is called in Latin
America as Mestizaje. This mix of races affects the dynamic in the colonial and postcolonial world and therefore, the development the region with issues like racism, classism,
and cultural division that destabilized the order and progress of many countries.
Regarding geography, there are various points that still matter in the development
argument. Countries like the United States have less mountains obstructing the way
3

between major cities, which makes the development of transportation infrastructure easier
and helps economic development. Countries like Ecuador are divided by Cordillera de los
Andes which make it more difficult to create infrastructure and even make routs longer and
with more turns, which leads to slower transportation of good, affecting development
negatively. Of course this is a purely geographical issue that has nothing to do with the
colonies. The argument regarding African borders is also not to be left out of the debate.
Africas randomly assigned borders do create conflict within countries, and even though
Mamdani argues that its not relevant, Inter-Governmental Organizations like the UN
would be able to act more efficiently if the conflict was happening between two countries
instead of within the country.
The Geography vs Institutions debate matters in the study/analysis of International
Development because colonialism is part of history and it affected the development of
countries. However, I believe that to current International Development policy making, this
debate is not relevant anymore. Developing countries cannot continue blaming the colonial
period to their misfortune. While many people in developing countries are still resentful
and hoping they wouldnt had had to be on the wrong side of the colonial period, corruption
in government and bad management of resources has led them to underdevelopment.

Word Count (excluding cover page, title, and bibliography): 994 words

Bibliography (AP Style)

Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A Robinson. "The Colonial Origins of
Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation." American Economic
Review: 1369-401. Print.
Hemmer, Hans-Rimbert, and Andreas Lorenz. "The Economic Growth Debate Geography versus Institutions Is There Anything Really New?" Discussion
Papers in Development Economics 6.34. Web.
Lange, Matthew, James Mahoney, and Matthias Vom Hau. "Colonialism And
Development: A Comparative Analysis Of Spanish And British Colonies."
American Journal of Sociology: 1412-462. Print.
Mamdani, Mahmood. "Beyond Settler and Native as Political Identities: Overcoming the
Political Legacy of Colonialism." Comparative Studies in Society and History
43.4 (2001): 651-64. JSTOR. Cambridge University Press. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696665>.
Nunn, Nathan. "The Importance of History for Economic Development." Annual Review
of Economics: 65-92. Print.
Sachs, Jeffrey D., Andrew D. Mellinger, and John L. Gallup. "The Geography Of Poverty
And Wealth." Scientific American: 70-75. Print.