Question

Passage A
The debate over the origins of global economic inequality often pits institutional theories against geographical determinism. A rigorous analysis of long-term economic data, however, reveals that geography and climate are the fundamental, underlying determinants of a nation's economic trajectory. Tropical climates inherently reduce agricultural productivity through soil degradation and erratic rainfall, while simultaneously increasing the burden of endemic infectious diseases. These geographic realities historically hindered the accumulation of human and physical capital, establishing deep-seated structural disadvantages.

It is undeniably true that human-created institutions—such as secure property rights, impartial legal frameworks, and competitive markets—are critical mechanisms for sustaining economic growth in the modern era. However, these institutions did not emerge in a vacuum, nor are they the primary drivers of prosperity. Rather, they are secondary phenomena whose initial formation and subsequent evolution were heavily constrained by the geographic and ecological realities of a given region. For instance, in tropical areas with high disease burdens that precluded widespread European settlement, colonial powers predictably established extractive institutions designed solely to siphon resources to the metropole, rather than inclusive institutions that foster broad-based, long-term growth. Thus, while institutional frameworks undeniably mediate current economic outcomes, geography remains the ultimate root cause of the structural disparities observed across the globe today. Ignoring these deep geographic roots leads to misguided policy interventions that assume institutional reform alone can overcome fundamental ecological barriers.

Passage B
Many development scholars mistakenly look to climate, topography, and natural resource endowments to explain the stark differences in global wealth, but this reliance on geographical determinism is deeply flawed. The true engines of economic prosperity or stagnation are, unequivocally, a nation's institutional structures. Extractive economic and political institutions, which concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a narrow elite, systematically stifle technological innovation and deter broad-based investment, regardless of a country's latitude or climate. Conversely, inclusive institutions that protect property rights, enforce contracts fairly, and encourage widespread economic participation consistently foster prosperity, even in the most geographically challenged or resource-poor environments.

The notion that climate directly dictates modern economic potential is simply unsupported by the comparative historical record of nations with similar geographies but divergent institutional paths. Nevertheless, to understand why certain nations have inclusive institutions while others suffer under extractive ones, one cannot entirely dismiss the role of the physical environment. During the critical juncture of European colonization, local geographical factors—specifically, the local disease environment and its impact on settler mortality rates—played a decisive role in determining which types of institutions colonizers initially chose to establish. Where geography and climate permitted safe settlement, inclusive institutions took root; where the environment proved hostile, brutally extractive regimes were imposed. Once established, however, these institutions persisted long after the colonial era ended, becoming the primary determinants of subsequent economic success or failure independent of their geographic origins.

The authors of the passages share which one of the following perspectives?