"Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:

> Sachs has popularized a strong finding: Distance from the equator
> explains a great deal of the variation in income *levels* between
> countries.  The further from the equator, the richer countries are. 
> There are also some parallel findings for growth - controlling for other
> factors, growth is slower in the tropics than in temperate zones.
> 
> Question: What would controlling for racial composition do to these
> results?  

Check out this map from the World Bank with countries color-coded by 
per capita GNP (1995):

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/economic/gnp/map1.htm

It seems like Caucasians dominate, with some admixture from Japan and 
Korea.  The former Communist bloc (USSR, satellite states) are the only 
predominantly Caucasian states to have a relatively poor showing.

My humble opinion as to what's going on:  The regions which first shed 
subsistence farming as their economic base have grown to dominate the 
world scene in the last few hundred years.  The Soviet bloc regressed 
from that somewhat in the 20th century.  Trade, and efficient division 
of labor through industrialization, wins.

Why did these cultures/states/locales move to industry first?  Well, 
the colder the climate, the more brutal the subsistence farming 
lifestyle.


Regards,

Sourav Mandal


------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/

"... and he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of
looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates,
but from that uplift of one's head."
                   
                       ---- Fountainhead, Rand





Reply via email to