Richard Lynn - IQ and the Wealth of Nations

In this chapter the major theories that have attempted to explain the causes of the inequalities in income and wealth between nations are reviewed. These comprise the following theories. First is the climate theory, which was originally advanced by Charles de Montesquieu, who proposed that temperate climates are more favorable to economic development than tropical and semi-tropical climates. Second are the geographical theories, which attempt to explain economic development in terms of geographical location. Third are the modernization theories, which regard economic development as a process of modernization through which all nations will eventually pass. Fourth are the psychological theories of M. Weber and D. C. McClelland, which propose that the psychological values and motivations of a population are the principal factors responsible for national differences in incomes and wealth. Fifth are the theories that posit culture as the crucial factor. Sixth are the dependency theories, which claim that the poverty of the Third World is caused by the international capitalist system. Seventh is the neoclassical or market economy theory, which holds that free markets are the key to economic development. And finally there are the multi-causal theories, which posit that a number of these and other factors are involved.

It has long been recognized that climate is related to economic development. This was observed in the mid-eighteenth century by Montesquieu (1748) who noted that affluent nations typically lie in temperate regions and poor nations typically lie in the tropics or sub-tropics. In addition, he

suggested that the climate of temperate regions is more favorable for economic development. In the twentieth century, many economists and social scientists have made the same observation and drawn the same conclusion. For instance, J. K. Galbraith (1951) has written that If one marks off a belt a couple of thousand miles in width encircling the earth at the equator one finds within it no developing countries (p. 693). P. Streeten (1971) has written that Perhaps the most striking fact is that most underdeveloped countries lie in the tropical and semi-tropical zones between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn (p. 78). In his book The Tropics and Economic Development,A. M. Kamarck (1976) argued that tropical environments are disadvantageous for economic development because a hot and humid climate reduces human work efficiency, tends to impair the lands productivity, and provides a favorable environment for debilitating or lethal tropical diseases. He also contends that these adverse climatic conditions provide some explanation for the poverty of tropical countries and in particular that of sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, he believes that research may help to overcome the obstacles to economic development posed by the tropics, and when eventually the tropical constraints are mastered, the same characteristics that now hinder the Tropics may then give them advantages over the Temperate Zones (p. xiii, 90; Streeten, 1976).

More recently, the climate theory of economic development has again been stated by D. S. Landes (1998). In his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, he writes that On a map of the world in terms of product or income per head, the rich countries lie in the temperate zones, particularly in the northern hemisphere; the poor countries, in the tropics and semi-tropics (p. 5). He attributes this difference to three factorsthe enervating effects of hot climates, the prevalence of diseases, especially malaria, bilharzias, and lymphatic filariasis, which spread more quickly in hot climates, and the irregular supplies of water caused by dry and wet seasons. However, although there is undoubtedly a broad association between temperate regions and affluence and tropical and semi-tropical regions and poverty, there are some notable exceptions such as rich Singapore and poor South Africa that call into question the conclusion that there is a direct causal connection.

A recent exponent of geography as the major determinant of economic development is J. Diamond (1998). In his book Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond begins by describing how when he was working in New Guinea a tribesman named Yali asked him, Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own? (p. 14). Cargo in the lingo of New Guinea means manufactured artifacts. Diamond says that he wrote his book to answer this question. The problem he seeks to explain is why over the last 10,000 years

or so civilizations developed in Europe and Asia (Eurasia) and, to some degree, in the Americas, but not in sub-Saharan Africa or Australia. He rejects biological explanations based on the assumption that there are significant differences in the innate abilities of the peoples of these different regions. He asserts that there are no significant differences in average mental abilities of peoples, although he says that his subjective impression is that New Guineans are on the average smarter than Eurasians (pp. 1920, 408).

Diamond does not propose that climatic factors have played any part in the different levels of civilization attained by different peoples. He argues that four geographical factors have been responsible. The first consists of the continental differences in the wild plant and animal species that are available as starting materials for domestication. He asserts that nearly all useful plants that could be grown as crops, particularly wheat and barley, and also nearly all potentially domesticable animals (cow, sheep, goats, pigs, and horses) happened to be in Eurasia. All these animals were easy to domesticate. They could be used to provide agricultural surpluses, which made it possible to maintain an increasing population, and for the support of towns and complex social systems, which supported scholars who developed writing, arithmetic, and other advances of the early civilizations. The second factor favoring Eurasia has been its east-west major axis and its relatively modest ecological and geographical barriers.... Diffusion was slower in Africa and especially in the Americas, because of those continents north-south major axes and geographic and ecological barriers (p. 407). The inventions that lead to technological, economic, and cultural growth, according to Diamond, are able to spread more rapidly along an east-west axis than along a north-south axis. So once again, Eurasia was lucky because it lies on an east-west axis.

The third geographic factor has been the ease of the diffusion of inventions between continents. Intercontinental diffusion was easiest between Europe and Asia. Diffusion was difficult between Eurasia and sub-Saharan Africa because of the barrier of the Sahara desert, and was impossible from Eurasia to the Americas, Australia, and the Pacific islands because of the oceans. The fourth factor involves continental differences in area and consequently in population size. These factors were again most favorable in Eurasia, whose large area and developed food production were able to support the largest populations. Diamond argues that a larger area and population means more potential inventors, more inventions and innovations, and more competing societies (pp. 406408). His final answer to Yalis question is, the striking differences between the long-term histories of peoples of the different continents have been due not to innate differences in the peoples themselves but to differences in their environments (p. 405).