« Holocaust denial, and social breakdown | Main | What the £20 note doesn't say »

April 19, 2007

Comments

Alex

Or is that because South Africa and Kenya are both rich and mountainous, and are dragging the average about?

dearieme

Hard to say which is sillier, the proposition they are scrutinising or their argument agin it.

pseudonymous

Presumably the same hilly terrain also protects people from modern day predators, such as rebels or, in Africa, the legitimate goverment.

I trust Nunn allowed for this effect.

Sam H

Wouldn't hillier areas also get more rain due to relief rainfall? Thus reducing likelihood of drought/famine?

Praguetory

Was about to post the same as Sam. What a numbskulled piece of work.

chris

Sam H - your theory only works if hilly areas in Africa get (significantly) more rain than hilly ones outside Africa.
Why else would there be a negative link between hilliness and prosperity outside Africa, but a positive one in Africa?

Marcin Tustin

Chris, your comparison is flawed. The key difference is whether African hilly regions get significantly more rainfall than regions where more rainfall would increase wealth. Africa has many such regions. Most regions have little land in such a state.

Sam H

Well, I think the terrain, would ensure regularity of rainfall, so even if it isn't a ot more rainfall, at least they are sure of some rain every year. In other words, average rainfall isn't important but the potential for drought to occur, which is low in a hilly area, the rest of the world doesn't really have this problem.

Sam H

Something else, didn't the slave trade concentrate on West Africa because that was the shortest route both to Britain and America (not including the French northern territories) Couldn't it just be a conincidence that these areas aren't very hilly?

BA Dissertation

Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad