It seems clear that there is a connection—in Latin America at least—between geography and poverty, and Bolivia has epitomized the global gap between rich and poor nations. In 1995, Bolivia’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ranked among the lowest quarter of all countries; however, there have been improvements in the standard of living of Bolivia’s people in the last decade. The United Nations Development Programme reported the average GDP per capita of $1,380 in 1989 rose to $2,617 by 1995 and to $3,989 in purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars in 2006. The estimate for 2008 according to the CIA World Factbook was $4,700 (PPP US$).
Economic instability and endemic poverty mean that income can fluctuate widely; thus, GDP per capita for 1998 fell again to $1,036 and was estimated to be up at $3,000 for 1999. Income also remains very unequally distributed. The richest 20 percent of the population average 10 times the GDP per capita compared to the poorest 20 percent, and their income share averages 63 percent compared to only 2 percent for the poorest 20 percent in 1994-2007 (World Development Indicators, World Bank). The use of averages itself disguises an even greater income disparity, and an estimated 63 percent of Bolivians live below the poverty line, according to recent data.
Many Bolivians are forced to migrate in order to find work and survive. There have been significant population movements to more tropical regions within Bolivia since 1985, and about 20 percent of Bolivians live in neighboring countries. Bolivia’s human development index (HDI), which measures quality of life through such indicators as education, life expectancy, housing, sanitation, and health care, remains low compared to the Latin American-Caribbean averages and the averages for industrialized nations. More than 40 percent of Bolivia’s population lacks access to proper sanitation, and 15-30 percent lacks drinkable water.
Can be laid at the door of political instability and bad government. Rather, Bolivians have suffered also the tyranny of geography
Bolivia’s distant inland location magnifies the transportation costs of exports and imports. Shipping goods over land is many times more costly than maritime shipping. Yet bulky, low-value-added goods, such as tin and other mineral exports, depend on maritime shipping. Recent development studies have concluded that the average landlocked country pays 50 percent more in transportation costs than a coastal nation.
An aerial view of the Andes Mountains of Bolivia (UN/DPI photo by Milton Grant)
Without cheap access to maritime routes and a well-developed physical infrastructure (roads, railways, and ports), many Bolivian goods never reach potential regional and global markets.
The landlocked geography of Bolivia has also had cultural and intellectual consequences. As a result, the country’s population has developed an inward-looking orientation. Until well into the 20th century, the country remained largely isolated from global intellectual currents, technological innovations, and major population migrations. There were consequences for the national psyche as well. The defeat in the War of the Pacific and the seemingly irreversible loss of the seacoast nurtured a collective national guilt and obsession with territorial and historical vindication. At times, recovery of the seacoast consumed the national energy and embittered Bolivia’s relations with its neighbors. The revenge-oriented policies drew four Bolivian generations into wars and misguided attempts to salvage the national patrimony and historical reputation.
On the positive side, the struggle for la salida al mar (an outlet to the sea) has served to inspire patriotism and national unity in difficult times. One way or the other, a reversal of Bolivia’s continental containment will be a fundamental Bolivian goal in the century ahead. And perhaps one day Bolivians will be able to include a seacoast among their most valued resources.
World History
