Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
tamount to invading or violating the sovereignty of the country in question. It is a very
serious matter. Accordingly, in the days and weeks prior to the beginning of hostilities in
Afghanistan, U.S. government and military officials carefully courted their Pakistani coun-
terparts to join the coalition against Afghanistan. This assistance was to prove important
for several reasons, one of which was to permit important military missions that involved
Pakistani airspace.
Increasing the cost of trade
Even if all is well with respect to the previous two points, being land-locked means that your imports
and exports absorb extra transportation costs versus countries with a coast. That increases the cost of
its exports (and therefore makes them less competitive in global markets) and raises the cost of im-
ports, too. Neither is beneficial to an economy.
Questions of size and shape
I can hear the “tsk-tsking” already, but I'm going to say it anyway. Does size matter? How about
shape? That is, are some sizes and shapes better than others as far as the welfare of a country is con-
cerned? Clearly, countries come in all sizes and shapes.
Russia, the biggest country on Earth, contains nearly 6.6 million square miles. On the other
end of the spectrum lies Monaco, which barely covers 1 square mile. Lots of other sizes can
be found in between. Logically, we all probably assume that bigger is better. More territory
usually means greater prospects for mineral wealth, more agricultural land, and so forth. But
it may also mean remote regions, lots of boundary to defend, restless ethnic groups, large un-
inhabited areas, and umpteen challenges to cohesiveness. A small, compact country may face
none of these challenges.
And that leads to a consideration of shape. Political geographers tend to agree that shape clearly can
make some kind of difference in some cases. The following sections discuss the four types of country
shapes, which are shown in Figure 14-7.
