Editing Environmental determinism (section)

== Ecological and geographic impacts on early state formation ==
{{Main|State formation}}

=== Effects of species endowments, climate, and continental axes prior to 1500 ===
{{Main|Guns, Germs, and Steel}}
In the [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning ''[[Guns, Germs, and Steel]]'' (1999), author [[Jared Diamond]] points to geography as the answer to why certain states were able to grow and develop faster and stronger than others. His theory cited the natural environment and raw materials a civilization had as factors for success, instead of popular century-old claims of racial and cultural superiority. Diamond says that these natural endowments began with the dawn of man, and favored Eurasian civilizations due to their location along similar latitudes, suitable farming climate, and early animal domestication.<ref name="Guns, Germs, and Steel">{{cite book | last1=Diamond | first1=Jared | title=Guns, germs, and steel | url=https://archive.org/details/gunsgermssteelfa00diam_1 | url-access=registration | date=1997 | pages=[https://archive.org/details/gunsgermssteelfa00diam_1/page/n38 1] | publisher=Jonathan Cape | isbn=978-0-224-03809-6}}</ref>

Diamond argues that early states located along the same latitude lines were uniquely suited to take advantage of similar climates, making it easier for crops, livestock, and farming techniques to spread. Crops such as [[wheat]] and [[barley]] were simple to grow and easy to harvest, and regions suitable for their cultivation saw high population densities and the growth of early cities. The ability to domesticate herd animals, which had no natural fear of humans, high birth rates, and an innate hierarchy, gave some civilizations the advantages of free labor, fertilizers, and war animals. The east–west orientation of Eurasia allowed for knowledge capital to spread quickly, and writing systems to keep track of advanced farming techniques gave people the ability to store and build upon a knowledge base across generations. Craftsmanship flourished as a surplus of food from farming allowed some groups the freedom to explore and create, which led to the development of [[metallurgy]] and advances in technology. While the advantageous geography helped to develop early societies, the close proximity in which humans and their animals lived led to the spread of disease across Eurasia. Over several centuries, rampant disease decimated populations, but ultimately led to disease resistant communities. Diamond suggests that these chains of causation led to European and Asian civilizations holding a dominant place in the world today.<ref name="Guns, Germs, and Steel" />

Diamond uses the Spanish [[conquistador]]s' conquering of the Americas as a case study for his theory. He argues that the Europeans took advantage of their environment to build large and complex states complete with advanced technology and weapons. The [[Incans]] and other native groups were not as fortunate, suffering from a north–south orientation that prevented the flow of goods and knowledge across the continent. The Americas also lacked the animals, metals, and complex writing systems of Eurasia which prevented them from achieving the military or biological protections needed to fight off the European threat.<ref name="Guns, Germs, and Steel" />

Diamond's theory has not gone without criticism.
* It was notably attacked for not providing enough detail regarding causation of environmental variables, and for leaving logical gaps in reasoning. Geographer Andrew Sluyter argued that Diamond was just as ignorant as the racists of the 19th century. Sluyter challenged Diamond's theory since it seemed to suggest that environmental conditions lead to gene selection, which then lead to wealth and power for certain civilizations. Sluyter also attacks environmental determinism by condemning it as a highly studied and popular field based entirely on Diamond's "quick and dirty" combination of natural and social sciences.<ref name="Sluyter 2003" />
* [[Daron Acemoglu]] and [[James A. Robinson (Harvard University)|James A. Robinson]] similarly criticized Diamond's work in their book ''[[Why Nations Fail]]''. They contend that the theory is outdated and can not effectively explain differences in economic growth after 1500 or the reasons why states that are geographically close can exhibit vast differences in wealth. They instead favored an institutional approach in which a society's success or failure is based on the underlying strength of its institutions.<ref name="Crown Business" /> Writing in response to institutional arguments, Diamond agreed that institutions are an important cause, but argued that their development is often heavily influenced by geography, such as the clear regional pattern in Africa where the northern and southern countries are wealthier than those in the tropical regions.<ref name="GGS-afterword">{{cite book | last1=Diamond | first1=Jared | title=Guns, germs, and steel | edition=2017 | date=1997 | pages= | chapter=Afterword | publisher=Jonathan Cape | isbn=978-0-224-03809-6}}</ref>

=== Geography and pre-colonial African state-building ===

==== The effects of climate and land abundance on the development of state systems ====
{{Main|States and Power in Africa}}

In his book ''[[States and Power in Africa]]'', political scientist [[Jeffrey Herbst]] argues that environmental conditions help explain why, in contrast to other parts of the world such as Europe, many pre-colonial societies in Africa did not develop into dense, settled, hierarchical societies with strong state control that competed with neighboring states for people and territory.<ref name="cul.columbia.edu">{{cite journal | last1=Robinson | first1=James | title=States and power in Africa: By Jeffrey I. Herbst: A review essay | journal=Journal of Economic Literature | date=June 2002 | volume=40 | issue=2 | pages=510–19 | doi=10.1257/002205102320161357}}</ref>

Herbst argues that the European state-building experience was highly idiosyncratic because it occurred under systemic geographic pressures that favored wars of conquest – namely, passable [[terrain]], land [[scarcity]], and [[population densities|high-population densities]].<ref name="auto">{{cite book | last1=Tilly | first1=Charles | title=Coercion, capital, and European states, A.D. 990–1992 | date=1990 | publisher=Blackwell | location=Cambridge, MA | page=63}}</ref> Faced with the constant threat of war, political elites sent administrators and armed forces from the urban centers into rural hinterlands to raise taxes, recruit soldiers, and fortify buffer zones. European states consequently developed strong institutions and capital-periphery linkages.<ref name="auto" />

By contrast, geographic and climatic factors in pre-colonial Africa made establishing absolute control over particular pieces of land prohibitively costly.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Herbst | first1=Jeffry | title=States and power in Africa | date=2000 | publisher=Princeton University Press | location=Princeton, NJ | isbn=978-0-691-01027-4 | page=41}}</ref> For example, because African farmers relied on rain-fed agriculture and consequently invested little in particular pieces of land, they could easily flee rulers rather than fight.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Herbst | first1=Jeffry | title=States and power in Africa | date=2000 | publisher=Princeton University Press | location=Princeton, NJ | isbn=978-0-691-01027-4 | page=38}}</ref>

Some early African empires, like the [[Ashanti Empire]], successfully projected power over large distances by building roads. The largest pre-colonial polities arose in the [[Sudanian Savanna]] belt of West Africa because the horses and camels could transport armies over the terrain. In other areas, no centralized political organizations existed above the village level.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Herbst | first1=Jeffry | title=States and power in Africa | date=2000 | publisher=Princeton University Press | location=Princeton, NJ | isbn=978-0-691-01027-4 | page=49}}</ref>

African states did not develop more responsive institutions under [[Colonisation of Africa|colonial rule]] or [[Decolonisation of Africa|post-independence]]. Colonial powers had little incentive to develop state institutions to protect their colonies against invasion, having divided up Africa at the [[Berlin Conference]]. The colonizers instead focused on exploiting natural resources and [[exploitation colonialism]].<ref name="cul.columbia.edu" />

==== The effect of disease environments ====
{{further|Tsetse fly#Societal impact}}

[[Marcella Alsan|Dr. Marcella Alsan]] argues the prevalence of the [[tsetse fly]] hampered early state formation in [[Africa]].<ref name="Alsan">{{cite journal | last=Alsan | first=Marcella | date=January 2015 | title=The effect of the Tsetse fly on African development | url=https://fsi.stanford.edu/publications/the_effect_of_the_tsetse_fly_on_african_development | journal=American Economic Review | volume=105 | pages=382–410 | doi=10.1257/aer.20130604}}</ref> Because the tsetse virus was lethal to cows and horses, communities afflicted by the insect could not rely on the agricultural benefits provided by [[livestock]]. African communities were prevented from stockpiling agricultural surplus, working the land, or eating meat. Because the disease environment hindered the formation of farming communities, early African societies resembled small [[hunter-gatherer]] groups and not centralized states.<ref name="Alsan" />

The relative availability of livestock animals enabled European societies to form centralized institutions, develop advanced technologies, and create an agricultural network.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Overton | first1=Mark | title=Agricultural revolution in England: The transformation of the agrarian economy 1500–1850 | url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780521568593 | url-access=registration | date=18 April 1996 | publisher=Cambridge University Press | pages=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780521568593/page/1 1]}}</ref> They could rely on their livestock to reduce the need for manual labor. Livestock also diminished the [[comparative advantage]] of owning [[slaves]]. African societies relied on the use of rival tribesman as slave labor where the fly was prevalent, which impeded long-term societal cooperation.<ref name="Alsan" />

Alsan argues that her findings support the view of [[Kenneth Sokoloff]] and [[Stanley Engerman]] that factor endowments shape state institutions.<ref name="Alsan" />

=== Llamas, chuño and the Inca Empire ===
{{See also|Vertical archipelago}}
[[Carl Troll]] has argued that the development of the [[Inca Empire|Inca state]] in the central [[Andes]] was aided by conditions that allow for the elaboration of the [[staple food]] [[chuño]]. Chuño, which can be stored for long times, is made of [[potato]] dried at [[Freezing#Food preservation|freezing]] temperatures that are common at nighttime in the southern [[Peru]]vian highlands. Contradicting the link between the Inca state and dried potato is that other crops such as [[maize]] can also be preserved with only sun.<ref name=Gade2016 /> Troll also argued that [[llama]]s, the Incas' [[pack animal]], can be found in their largest numbers in this very same region.<ref name=Gade2016>{{cite book | last=Gade | first=Daniel W. | date=2016 | title=Spell of the Urubamba: Anthropogeographical essays on an Andean valley in space and time | chapter=Urubamba verticality: Reflections on crops and diseases | doi=10.1007/978-3-319-20849-7_3 | pages=83–129, at p. 86 | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hgG0CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA86 | publisher=Springer | isbn=978-3-319-20848-0}}</ref> It is worth considering that the maximum extent of the Inca Empire coincided with the greatest distribution of [[alpaca]]s and llamas.<ref>{{cite book | last=Hardoy | first=Jorge Henríque | date=1973 | title=Pre-Columbian cities | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fbQJBAAAQBAJ&q=llama+inca+expansion+colombia+limi&pg=PA24 | page=24 | publisher=Routledge | isbn=978-0-8027-0380-4}}</ref> As a third point Troll pointed out [[Irrigation in Peru|irrigation]] technology as advantageous to the Inca state-building.<ref name=Gade1996>{{cite journal | last1=Gade | first1=Daniel W. | date=1996 | title=Carl Troll on nature and culture in the Andes | language=en | journal=[[Erdkunde]] | volume=50 | issue=4 | pages=301–316 | doi=10.3112/erdkunde.1996.04.02}}</ref> While Troll theorized environmental influences on the Inca Empire, he opposed environmental determinism, arguing that culture lay at the core of the Inca civilization.<ref name=Gade1996 />