Why is subsaharan Africa a lot poorer than other parts of Africa (e.g. Northern and southern parts)?

 

Is it because of historical reasons, laziness or are subsaharan Africans simply a biologically inferior race of humans?

 

What is the general consensus among the global scientific community?

Edited June 1, 20178 yr by mad_scientist

Subsaharan Africa is about the size of Europe and North America however it had less than a tenth of the population up until the 1950s. Also here we measure wealth by how much land you have therefore I consider subsaharan african as extremely wealthy.

Edited June 1, 20178 yr by fiveworlds

are subsaharan Africans simply a biologically inferior race of humans?

no

Seeking biological answers for historic events is at best lazy thinking. It is a bit silly to lump all sub-saharan countries together as there are marked geohistoric differences. A part why Northern Africa flourished is due to the the connection to the Islamic world and participation in large trade routes connecting to major trade routes, including the famous Silk road. While trans-Saharan trade existed, it waned over time and much of Sub-Saharan Africa did not have a connection to major trade routes. Due to economic isolation those kingdoms tended to be smaller as others commented.

 

Then, the rise of European empires (to a significant extent fueled by the riches of the New World) eventually led to the age of colonialism. First the trade with Western Africa eventually led to the decline of the Trans-Saharan trade routes, then in the late 19th century the rush for Africa resulted in full-on conquest

During that age African kingdoms were effectively transformed into delivery vehicles of raw materials to Europe. While some consider that a form of modernization, it is important to note that the infrastructure was designed to benefit the conquering powers and not the indigenous population. And thus, wealth was transported out of local economies little, if any industrialization was conducted in order to prevent competition with the European countries. Independence for the various countries was gained very recently, sometime after WWII until the 80s. The various aspects of the cold war, the instability and poverty as a result of colonization, the lack of industrial infrastructure led to the rise of many dictators (often backed by either Soviets or the US to fight against the influence of the respective other cold war power). This situation obviously resulted in further social and economic instability, including civil wars.

 

And there are of course many more, local aspects to look into. But sure, let's cover it all with "lazyness" because that explains so much, doesn't it?

One angle that resonates with me is the idea of corruption and how some areas have rules and institutions better suited to keeping it in check. Those doing worst tend to be those where corruption is unchecked.