4 ms·

It's never one cause. In complex systems like life, you should expect a lot of variance. But one interesting observation I was reading about was the lack of na

It's never one cause. In complex systems like life, you should expect a lot of variance. But one interesting observation I was reading about was the lack of navigable waterways. Waterways make travel and trade (especially in large quantities) much easier. That then leads to a lot of cultural mixing, learning, and shared prosperity. Africa lacks these navigable waterways compared with Northern and Western Europe or many parts of Asia. The invention of air travel helps, but the second- and third-order effects will linger. I should also point out that it's not an unqualified bad thing. More separation leads to a different culture and, in some ways, more diversity. But it's not great for prosperity.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
But does it? A quick Google says that the Nile River, Niger, Benue, Congo and Zambezi are navigable. And European rivers are in many cases only navigable because they were canal'd and dredged. One thing that really struck me on my first trip to Europe was how small some of its historically famous rivers really were. In my mind a navigable river was the size of the St. Lawrence or the Mississippi.
- chmod600 6y ago
  I'm just repeating what I read. I assume it has to do with a combination of rivers and coastline compared to total land area. Africa is huge compared to the coastline, for instance.
- levi-turner 6y ago
  My memory from some introductory classes in African Studies from the mid-aughts has any relevancy here. The standard narrative at the time was that the Colonial investments in Africa, as a rule, involved building infrastructure to connect the interiors to the cost in the colony. The consequence of this is that post-colonial economies do not get to leverage this investment for inter-country trade. Imagine trade from Chicago to New York _requiring_ routing through the Mississippi up the coast to the port of New York. From a cursory look over the waterways of Africa, I am seeing similar features (interior > coast without much cross country coverage). At the end of the day we're all outsiders to this field, but I do wonder whether focusing on the presence / length without the connectivity overlay is missing a key component.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

But does it? A quick Google says that the Nile River, Niger, Benue, Congo and Zambezi are navigable. And European rivers are in many cases only navigable because they were canal'd and dredged. One thing that really struck me on my first trip to Europe was how small some of its historically famous rivers really were. In my mind a navigable river was the size of the St. Lawrence or the Mississippi.

chmod600 6y ago
I'm just repeating what I read. I assume it has to do with a combination of rivers and coastline compared to total land area. Africa is huge compared to the coastline, for instance.
levi-turner 6y ago
My memory from some introductory classes in African Studies from the mid-aughts has any relevancy here. The standard narrative at the time was that the Colonial investments in Africa, as a rule, involved building infrastructure to connect the interiors to the cost in the colony. The consequence of this is that post-colonial economies do not get to leverage this investment for inter-country trade. Imagine trade from Chicago to New York _requiring_ routing through the Mississippi up the coast to the port of New York. From a cursory look over the waterways of Africa, I am seeing similar features (interior > coast without much cross country coverage). At the end of the day we're all outsiders to this field, but I do wonder whether focusing on the presence / length without the connectivity overlay is missing a key component.