Africa's Geographic Destiny

Common sense tells us that access to sea/river ports and generally flat terrain make for a better economy, thanks to better trading opportunities. According to this theory, Bolivia, Mali, and Kyrgyzstan all suffer from their landlocked status. Now a paper by Nathan Nunn & Diego Puga counts the mixed blessings of bad geography for Africa: coastal areas were devasted by the slave trade, while rugged inland areas, where Africans fled, have persisted as pockets of dire poverty.
A shorter version is available here:

For African people fleeing this slave trade over the centuries, rugged terrain was a positive advantage. Enslavement often took place through raids by one group on another, and hills and mountains provided plenty of lookout posts and hiding places (caves, for example) for those trying to escape. In general, countries with flatter, more passable terrain lost more of their population to the traders.

Today, however, that same geographical ruggedness is an economic handicap, making it expensive to transport goods to port; raising the cost of irrigating and farming the land; and simply making it more expensive to do business. This contemporary effect of geography applies across the world: in general, mountains are not good for growth.

Conclusion?

The impacts of geography on economic development are therefore complex and long-lasting. Some economists, such as Harvard’s Jeffrey Sachs, have suggested increased aid flows and investment could help to overcome the contemporary handicaps created by geography; but the existence of the longer-term, indirect effects revealed in this paper suggest this may not be enough to level the economic playing field.