As we observed in our previous publications, one of the trends observed in recent years is the relatively strong economic growth performance of some of the landlocked regions and developing economies. In Eurasia, these regions are positioned around the continental pole of inaccessibility, with the RICs economies (Russia, India, China) becoming increasingly active in driving greater connectivity and economic linkages in this part of the continent. Such poles of inaccessibility are present in each of the continents of the developing world and may be seen not only as symbols of the challenge of building South-South economic ties in the inland regions, but also as focal points of building new networks of economic cooperation. And while the challenges of directly addressing the continent’s inland underdevelopment may appear overbearing, the benefits may be sizeable in terms of introducing new cooperative trajectories across the continent and building sustained momentum for regional integration.
The uniqueness of Eurasia’s pole of inaccessibility is well-known – it is the point on the map that is farthest from the coast not only within Eurasia itself, but also compared to any other point on the globe. It lies close to the intersections of the borders of four countries – China, Russia, Kazakhstan and Mongolia – and demonstrates the enormity of the Eurasian landmass as well as the gravity power of distance in Eurasia’s heartland. The region of Eurasia that harbors this pole of inaccessibility has arguably one of the highest concentrations of land-locked economies – with Kazakhstan being the largest landlocked economy by territory in the world, Uzbekistan (with the highest population in Central Asia) being the only large economy by territory that is doubly landlocked and countries such as Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan among the landlocked economies with some of the highest elevation levels (a factor that further may complicate logistics).
But this uniqueness of the inaccessibility pole in Eurasia is associated with even more meanings and symbols on the Eurasian map. Another perspective on Eurasia’s pole of inaccessibility is that it is close to the point of equal distance between the main economic centers of RICs as measured by the size of their GDP. The largest urban centers of RICs are represented by Moscow in Russia, Shanghai in China and Mumbai in India – these are the economic centers of gravity in their respective countries with the highest regional GDP. It turns out that the equidistant point on the Eurasia map for these three RICs urban centers lies within 150-180 km from the pole of inaccessibility[1] – in close proximity, if judged by the enormity of the Eurasian territorial scale. The Eurasian pole of inaccessibility also turns out to be close (less than 300 km) to the central point of the Northeastern Hemisphere – the point that is represented by coordinates 45N, 90E.
The challenge of surmounting the continental poles of inaccessibility in building economic activity in inland regions is present in all the three regions of the Global South – in Eurasia, in South America and Africa. And the greater the concentration of economic activity in a narrow array of regions in the continent (more often than not these tend to be coastal regions), the greater are the benefits from diversifying economic activity towards inland regions that in turn may act increasingly as connectors of regional economic linkages. Such a paradigm of overcoming inaccessibility poles through economic diversification is relevant at all levels of economic activity – whether within national economies or regions/continents. The experience of China in rebalancing its growth from coastal to inland regions illustrates how a more balanced regional development may in itself deliver new growth drivers at the national or regional level.
In this respect, researchers of Global South economics could perhaps explore the optimization patterns of the economic geography across all the three regions of the developing world. As we observed before, at this stage most of the economic activity in the three continents of the Global South is concentrated around the coastal zones, while the inland regions largely remain relatively underdeveloped. This pattern may account at least in part for the significant degree of intra-continental under-trading, the weakness in regional integration impulses and the lingering gaps in intra-continental connectivity. A more balanced distribution of economic weight between the coastal and inland areas of the three continents would deliver stronger impulses towards regional integration and higher multiplier effects within and across countries via cross-continental infrastructure. Of crucial importance then is the polycentric/multipolar coastal-hinterland connectivity, with strategic nodes within each continent linked via high-quality corridors.
In the end, there may be many more ways of illustrating how the Eurasian pole of inaccessibility lies at the intersection of routes connecting some of the farthest centers of the continent. For example, the equidistant point between the key centers of Western Europe (Berlin), the Mediterranean (Athens) and Southeast Asia (Singapore) is only within 80 km from the pole of inaccessibility. The symbolism and the meaning of these intersections is that connectivity in Eurasia is a challenge that may be perceived as being close to “inaccessible”/out of reach, but that needs to be addressed via a concerted modernization of the Eurasian heartland largely represented by Central Asian economies. The RICs platform provides the most powerful driver (both in terms of economic size and distance) for satiating the Eurasian heartland with greater trade and investment flows. A similar pattern of continental heavyweight troikas coming together to develop their respective continental heartlands in South America and Africa[2] may be one of the ways for the Global South to address the core/”heartland” barriers to continental integration and South-South economic cooperation.
[1] Simulations and prompts performed with Grok, Deepseek and LLM developed by Google
[2] https://brics-plus-analytics.org/the-rics-realm-from-regionalism-to-globalism/
Yaroslav Lissovolik, Founder, BRICS+ Analytics
Image by samirsmier via Pixabay