Introduction

One of the earliest theories of geopolitics is the statement that geography is destiny. Not only this phase is a deterministic idea towards politics but also states that some particular geographical areas consist of strategic, political and economic benefits. These areas or regions are normally coveted by nations. The limitation of any nation actually serves as the limitation of the economic development present within that nation. However growth and product development may thwart by natural disasters and heal related issues. Even multinational corporations may seek to exploits the countries that have natural resources and raw material on abundance (Margulis 2014). When this is entered into a financial lucrative arrangement by their head of state, this can also benefit them along with a severe cost from the populace. An economic condition does determine the geographical location of a country. This is so due to the fact the surroundings are belligerent nations of channels that are affected. Countries that are in a politically stable are can improve in terms of economy than other nations. This is more so when the country gets surrounded by belligerent nations, this affects the channels of business involved. A developed geography preoccupies itself with various concerns (Sempa 2017). It involved the study of relationship between human beings along with the physical environment where they live, the socio and economic development involved there is the most famous geographical pattern available in the North-South divide.

History has stated defining roles of different institutions in order to shape the factors of prosperity and poverty. One of the most widely accepted theories of world inequality is the geographical hypothesis that states the explanations of rich and poor countries (Haverluk, Beauchemin and Mueller 2014). This is due to the fact of geographical differences. The countries that are economically striving such as Africa, Central America and South Asia are the ones situated between the tropics of Caner and Capricorn. In contrast the economically stable nations tend to be in temperate according to latitudes. This concentration of geographical prosperity and poverty provides a superficial appeal to the hypothesis that is the starting point of the theories and views of many people. As per the French philosopher Montesquieu, the people those who live in the tropical climate normally lack the inquisitiveness to work. This does not work hard and is not innovative to be reasoned why they were poor in the first place. Montesquieu also foretold that despots always rule over the lazy people, this mean that a tropical location not just implies the factors of poverty but also the effects of political phenomena that is related to economic failure including the method of dictatorship.

The counties with high and humid temperature are generally economically unstable than the others despite they are contradicted through the new advancement in economic changes on countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Botswana. These are advocated by economics and the modern standpoint emphasizes the work effort or the thought process instead of the direct effects of the climate (Ikenberr 2014). There are two factors that include tropical diseases such as malaria that causes adverse health consequences and effects labor productivity. Another aspect is the effects of the tropical soil that does not allow the growth of agriculture. This is due the temperate climates have a significant advantage over that of the tropical and the semitropical regions of the world (Dwyer 2014). However it cannot be said that the world does not explain the climate or disease alone, even with the addition of geographical hypothesis. In terms of the United States and Mexico, what actually separates the two is not the climate, the geographical region or the issues related to politics. The hypothesis does not have a clear explanation for the northern and the southern regions. This can be said for the North and South Korea or even the East and West Germany (Mead 2014). According to history, there is no simple or complex connection in between the climate and the geography that relates to economic success. The American tropics were much richer than the temperate zones that provide an obvious fact that poverty is not an obvious fact. The greater riches in these countries actually show a reversal of fortune to what it was like before. However this is not related to geography and the way the entire country was colonized (Cohen 2014). The inhabitants of South Asia those who are located in the Indian subcontinent are prosperous than the people in other parts of Asia. This is more than the people those who inhabit the Australian subcontinents. Tropical climate does cause problems and high rate of infant mortality however they are not the reason who a country is economically poor. Disease can be the result of poverty and the government being unable to undertake the public health measures to reduce these problems. In the early 19^th century, the European countries were very unhealthy however the government worked on the investment and portfolio to improve the sewage system to make better and functional clean water. In turn improved the health overall and reduced the count of diseases in the country. However it should be noted that the economic success for countries like England were not due to the improved health and life expectancy but due to the fact that it was one of the main factors of the previous economic and political change.

Due to intrinsically unproductive agriculture in the tropics, the soils are so thin that they are unable to balance the nutrients and emphasis the fact that how the torrential rains erodes the soil (Smith and Pain 2016). However this does include some merits in the argument, it is a consequence of the ownership structure of the land and its incentives credited for farmers by the government and the institution they live. Having many species that are capable enough to be domestically attractive for societies make the transition from a gather to a farmer. As the population grows dens in many countries worldwide, this allows the option to labor, trade and urbanize and make significant political development. In areas where farming is the main source of income technology actually overtook its position as the major development. Therefore it can be said that geography alone does not determine the density of any nation or state.

References

1. Cohen, S.B., 2014. Geopolitics: the geography of international relations. Rowman & Littlefield.
2. Dwyer, M.B., 2014. Micro-geopolitics: Capitalising security in Laos’s golden quadrangle. Geopolitics, 19(2), pp.377-405.
3. Haverluk, T.W., Beauchemin, K.M. and Mueller, B.A., 2014. The three critical flaws of critical geopolitics: Towards a neo-classical geopolitics. Geopolitics, 19(1), pp.19-39.
4. Ikenberr, G.J., 2014. The illusion of geopolitics: The enduring power of the liberal order. Foreign Aff., 93, p.80.
5. Margulis, M.E., 2014. Trading out of the global food crisis? The World Trade Management and Organization and the geopolitics of food security. Geopolitics, 19(2), pp.322-350.
6. Mead, W.R., 2014. The return of geopolitics: The revenge of the revisionist powers. Foreign Aff., 93, p.69.
7. Sempa, F., 2017. Geopolitics: from the Cold War to the 21st Century. Routledge.
8. Smith, S.J. and Pain, R., 2016. Fear: Critical geopolitics and everyday life. In Fear: Critical geopolitics and everyday life (pp. 19-40). Routledge