He also said the physical geography of a region can influence its economic performance. He said the economies of coastal regions, with easy access to sea trade, usually outperform the economies of inland areas. It seems that most economists today follow Smith in the first but ignore the second and neglect the role of geography, assuming that all parts of the world have the same prospects for economic growth and believe the differences in performance are the result of differences in institutions. If you look at the world map you see that, as Smith predicted, coastal regions and those with navigable waterways are indeed richer and more densely settled than interior regions. Moreover, climate can affect economic development.
Similar burdens apply to desert zones.
So, lets look at the basic geographic lessons. The best single indicator of a state's prosperity is GNP per capita. The world map of GNP shows a clear geographic delineation of rich and poor states. IN contrast, most of the richest countries lie in the temperate zones. A more precise picture can be seen by defining tropical regions by climate rather than by latitude.