I agree that Guns, Germs, and Steel is an excellent book, but it does not explain modern economical disparities. It basically explains why Europeans were the ones to conquer the African and American continents in the 15th and 16th centuries, and not the other way around (and the arguments are solid). But it clearly does not explain why modern countries have large economical disparities today, or why some countries colonized by Europeans are highly developed economically (e.g. the US, Australia) while others are not (e.g. Brazil, South Africa).

As for the article, I believe there is more to economical success than political institutions as well, it is such a complex process that it cannot be reduced to any single factor.

The biggest power in the world at this time was the Ottoman Empire, and they controlled all land access to their markets, and had no urgent need to explore further than the outreach of their empire, unlike the Europeans, who were struggling to get access to India and China. Even though the Ottomans did poses a naval fleet, there was no real economical incentive. Ie. the Suez canal was a very old idea that the Ottomans considered but did not carry through etc.

I agree with your observation that reduction to single 'causal factor' is delusional. You may want to check chapter 1 of Lisa Lowe's _The Intimacies of Four Continents_ where a possible answer to why US and Australia v African colonies differ is presented -- that you cannot understand colonialism and imperialism as atomic parts scattered around the world. They are all intimate, organized around ideologies of hierachies.

I'd add Why the West Rules for Now by Ian Morris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_West_Rules%E2%80%94For...

It makes the (to me) convincing argument that geographic determinism, while important, doesn't really explain why the western core given that the eastern core surpassed the west on many measures after the fall of Rome. (Though it does explain why one of those two cores were probably ordained to win out.)

But the western core was in a better situation to exploit the Industrial Revolution which basically made everything before it almost irrelevant.

Neither book does much to explain why well-positioned modern states, e.g. Argentina, weren't able to better take advantage of their position and natural resources however.

In Argentina's case, decades of failing statism and economy intervention mixed with military dictatorships. Inflation rampant since the 40s with around only one decade (1990-1999) with 1 digit inflation.

Enterprising in Argentina is an absolute nightmare.

Argentina and Mexico were almost at parity with the US near the turn of the XX cent. Russia (Federation, Empire, Soviet Union) had and have massive natural resources and yet they lag behind many countries that have vastly fewer resources than they do (Japan, SKorea).

Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States.

It didn't help Mexico that they were being heavily exploited by American business interests, to the point where the American ambassador helped having President Madero killed, because he was a little too left-leaning for US business interests. Though, President Taft was quite upset, as Ambassador Wilson had orchestrated it on his own accord.

Mostly it’s lack of investment in industrialization and at fist finding a niche and growing from there.

The US was heavily regulated and oppressed by the British and we endured wars against world powers and fought an internal civil war, yet we still came ahead. Russia could have, China could have (and now are catching up).

You can be an empire and colonize and extract and do all kinds of bad things to your enemies but it doesn’t guarantee success (Portugal, Spain). It’s a complicated thing. Some countries get it right and some countries always find excuses.

Ya but that doesn't explain why the US was able to perform this exploitation and Mexico wasn't.

So you have an individual deed, but still no explanation.

Russia has to balance control over commerce, because the US has a tendency of inciting rebellion in other countries. Divide and Conquer and all thag

I’m sorry but seeing discontent and rebellion with the backdrop of the Soviets and modern Russia doesn’t earn much in terms of “imbalance”.

I think the actual article hit it right by stating secure private property but we need to expand that property to include not only the land and goods you own but the that you are secure in the monetary wealth you create and secure in your right of yourself.

GGS lays out well reasoned arguments for historical disparities, though in the 21st century geographical burdens all but disappear.

Singapore and Hong Kong are two examples where they have few natural resources, but have developed massive economies, mostly by just allowing trade to happen without much red tape. Their location as ports plays a major role in this, but it's no coincidence that these two countries are consistently at the top of the economic freedom index. Why do these ports stand out above say; Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, Ho Chi Minh, Jakarta or Manila?

They were both significant British ports chosen for their favorable location, benefited from economic network of the greater Empire while being protected politically and militarily by structures far beyond their local ability. Part of it was also geopolitics of the time that dictated which colonies were better development prospects due to competing spheres to influence, i.e. why HK was chosen over Weihaiwei. Schrewd governance and intersecting geopolitical interests allowed them to maintain the inertia after decolonization.