Table 1.

Estimates of impact of geography for different regions

Variable country/regionCountry or region
Difference between Africa and reference region
AfricaContiguous U.S.Industrial EuropeOther low latitudeRussiaAustraliaGreenland
Output density
Africa0.000.00
Contiguous U.S.−1.350.00−3.60
Industrial Europe−2.25−0.900.00−6.44
Other low latitude−0.660.701.600.00−1.06
Russia2.513.864.763.170.00−0.63
Australia−0.860.491.39−0.21−3.370.003.25
Greenland6.437.788.687.083.926.540.008.17
Per capital output
Africa0.000.00
Contiguous U.S.−0.680.00−3.13
Industrial Europe−0.660.020.00−3.00
Other low latitude−0.160.520.500.00−1.41
Russia−1.77−1.09−1.11−1.610.00−2.53
Australia−0.260.420.40−0.101.510.00−3.02
Greenland−1.52−0.84−0.86−1.360.25−0.500.00−3.05
Population density
Africa0.000.00
Contiguous U.S.−0.720.00−0.39
Industrial Europe−1.56−0.840.00−3.35
Other low latitude−0.130.591.430.000.12
Russia2.002.723.562.130.001.38
Australia−0.610.110.95−0.48−2.610.003.50
Greenland3.173.894.733.301.172.450.004.53
  • This table shows the estimated effect of geography on relative output or population. Figures in columns 2–8 are Δpm, or the difference in the logarithm of output or population densities between regions. A positive sign indicates that geography is relatively advantageous for the region shown on the top of each row. For example, geography is estimated to lower ln output density in tropical Africa by 2.25 relative to industrial Europe but to raise ln output density 2.51 relative to Russia. Omitted entries in the upper right are the symmetrical entry with sign changed. A difference of 0.69 is a factor of 2. The most disadvantaged region shown in Greenland. The last column shows the logarithm of the ratio of actual African value to value for region in the left-hand column. For example, the difference in the ln of per capita output between tropical Africa and Australia is −3.02, so Africa’s level is exp(−3.02) = 0.049 of Australian per capita output.