Sub-Saharan Africa has been one of the world's poorest and slowest-growing regions since the industrial revolution. According to Angus Maddison, Africa's per capita income in 1992 was roughly equivalent to that of Western Europe in 1820. Despite various reform efforts, Africa's economic growth has remained slow, with average per capita growth rates of 1.5% in the 1960s, 0.8% in the 1970s, and -1.2% in the 1980s. While some countries have experienced positive growth, the overall trend has been negative, with per capita income declining from 1990 to 1996. The World Bank estimates that in 1996, Africa's per capita GDP was 1,259 in 1987 PPP-adjusted prices, and 47% of Africa's population lived in extreme poverty in 1990. Africa also ranks among the world's poorest in terms of the United Nations Development Programme's human development index. Six factors have been frequently cited to explain Africa's poor economic performance: external conditions, heavy dependence on primary exports, internal politics, economic policies, demographic change, and social conditions. However, the authors argue that these factors miss a more fundamental truth: Africa's poverty is largely due to its disadvantageous geography. Sub-Saharan Africa is the most tropical region of the world, and tropical regions generally lag behind temperate regions in economic development. Africa's climate, soils, topography, and disease ecology create significant obstacles to growth, including low agricultural productivity, high disease burdens, and low international trade. Africa's demographic situation also contributes to its slow growth. The region has the world's highest youth dependency ratios, which reduce its productive capacity per capita. Low life expectancies and high youth dependency ratios are associated with lower rates of saving and investment, leading to slower economic growth. Africa's population structure and slow transition to lower fertility rates mean that the region will continue to face rapid population growth for several decades. The authors argue that economic policy matters, and their formal econometric results show that to be true. However, they focus on geography for three reasons: first, there is little to be gained from another recitation of the damage caused by statism, protectionism, and corruption; second, most economists neglect the role of natural forces in shaping economic performance; and third, good policies must be tailored to geographical realities. The authors conclude that Africa's economic development is shaped by a complex interplay of geography, demography, and policy.Sub-Saharan Africa has been one of the world's poorest and slowest-growing regions since the industrial revolution. According to Angus Maddison, Africa's per capita income in 1992 was roughly equivalent to that of Western Europe in 1820. Despite various reform efforts, Africa's economic growth has remained slow, with average per capita growth rates of 1.5% in the 1960s, 0.8% in the 1970s, and -1.2% in the 1980s. While some countries have experienced positive growth, the overall trend has been negative, with per capita income declining from 1990 to 1996. The World Bank estimates that in 1996, Africa's per capita GDP was 1,259 in 1987 PPP-adjusted prices, and 47% of Africa's population lived in extreme poverty in 1990. Africa also ranks among the world's poorest in terms of the United Nations Development Programme's human development index. Six factors have been frequently cited to explain Africa's poor economic performance: external conditions, heavy dependence on primary exports, internal politics, economic policies, demographic change, and social conditions. However, the authors argue that these factors miss a more fundamental truth: Africa's poverty is largely due to its disadvantageous geography. Sub-Saharan Africa is the most tropical region of the world, and tropical regions generally lag behind temperate regions in economic development. Africa's climate, soils, topography, and disease ecology create significant obstacles to growth, including low agricultural productivity, high disease burdens, and low international trade. Africa's demographic situation also contributes to its slow growth. The region has the world's highest youth dependency ratios, which reduce its productive capacity per capita. Low life expectancies and high youth dependency ratios are associated with lower rates of saving and investment, leading to slower economic growth. Africa's population structure and slow transition to lower fertility rates mean that the region will continue to face rapid population growth for several decades. The authors argue that economic policy matters, and their formal econometric results show that to be true. However, they focus on geography for three reasons: first, there is little to be gained from another recitation of the damage caused by statism, protectionism, and corruption; second, most economists neglect the role of natural forces in shaping economic performance; and third, good policies must be tailored to geographical realities. The authors conclude that Africa's economic development is shaped by a complex interplay of geography, demography, and policy.