kindly explain as why always north is rich and south is poor ???

Question

you see ..northern hemisphere (north America-Europe-Russia-China) is rich...while southern (Africa-Latin America-India) is poorer.

even in one continent...Scandinavian countries are better than south Europe...

the same in one country...southern states...south of Mexico...south of India...south of ......etc.

would you please give some rational explanation ??

Answer 1

While this generalisation is fairly true there are exceptions. Australia and New Zealand in the South Pacific are rich nations. Singapore at the Southern tip of Malaysia is a lot richer than most of SE Asia to it's North. Argentina is one of the richer countries in Latin America (I would also question the assertion that China is "rich" - the economy is large sure - but so is the population - hence per capita China remains quite a poor nation.
Historically also there been exceptions. Egypt, Rome and Greece were the esablishers of civilisation in the Mediterranean and most of Europe. The Incas of Peru were more developed as a "nation" than any North American native tribes.
The Northern Hemisphere created much of today's development at least partially due to a far more dense populations. This established trade and the sharing of learning. Australian aboriginals or Pacific Islanders had no such opportunities. Necessity created by these populations also led to development. Much of the South remained undeveloped while overpopulation in the North led to improved farming.
More recently the reasons why the North has prospered more than the South range around proximity to certain key developments (such as the printing press meaning all learning from Europe could be easily share amongst Europe) and the desire of colonial nations to keep both populations and resources close to home. This resulted in mass migration to the US but not to SE Asia and hence better support from the colonial nations for thier large populations in the North rather than the South (again exceptions such as Sth Africa and Australia exist).
Lastly with early industrialisation climate played a large role. Europe and North America's cold winters necessitated the building of permanent shelter, while thier relatively mild climates (absent of hurricanes and typhoons, but also earthquakes) allowed the building of permanent infrastructures not feasible in the rougher South. Climate also determines disease. Malaria, not present above the Tropic of Cancer is a major threat to development wherever it does exist due to it's prevalence, adaptability, seasonal nature and ability to debilitate even the healthiest of people.

Answer 2

It's way more complex than anyone could explain here. There is an excellent book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond that covers all of the factors. The main thing is that Europe and North America are oriented east to west so that they have basically similar climate zones -- therefore, agriculture technologies in ancient times were able to expand more readily and cities could prosper. Africa and South America have north-south axis so it was more difficult for tehcnologies to expand across climate zones.

Also, the native plants and animals of the various continents were more usable for food and transportation in northern regions than in southern ones. And the diseases that afflict the tropical zones of the world have been very hard on the populations there and have affected development overall.

It is more due to accidents of geography than anything else.

Answer 3

I don't think that the location is a factor on why, however, many countries that are poor have been in constant states of war. African countries probably spent more money on wars than any other thing. Southern states tend to be poorer because there is less work available and there is more agriculture.
Sometimes, south isn't poorer than the north. California probably has people with higher salaries than Vermont. Also, some reasons of being poorer could be the amount of resources a place might have. I'm sure Kenya has less area available for agriculture than the US.

Answer 4

the northern Hemisphere, I don't think that's necessarily true...
The Majority of that is that Industrialization happened in the Northern Hemisphere first, So Europe developed rapidly and colonized rapadily, then wealth started rapidly developing in other parts of the world.
But Australia is definatly better off then russia and Canada,
And the US is better off then Canada, India's economy is booming compared to Russia. I think really it's just Africa which has a hard history and scarse resources, and a ton of corruption. And South America isn't doing so bad either besides a ton of Corruption, and that's the Middle East as well.

Answer 5

This is not true really. Sure in some cases it is true, but for the most part the Southern countries are just as affluent as the northern countries, but the perception is they are not because the distribution of the wealth in those countries is not the same as it is in many northern countries.

In many southern countries, it is usually only the few who are in absolute power that have the wealth of the country, and everyone else is essentially a serf paying fiefdom to their king.

Many of these individuals are MORE wealthy than entire nations in the north!

With a disparity like that, you can also see why civil unrest is also very high in many southern nations as well.

Answer 6

Sorry 'rule' that doesn't apply in Nigeria or Romania (where I'm from & live, respectively).
In Africa, both north & south have equally rich countries. If you think South Europe is poor, try East Europe.

Answer 7

It works backwards in the Southern Hemisphere.

Answer 8

Well, it's not true of the UK - the South is usually more affluent than the North.