The economic and other disadvantages experienced by such countries makes the majority of landlocked countries Least Developed Countries (LDC), with inhabitants of these countries occupying the bottom billion tier of the world's population in terms of poverty. Apart from Europe, there is not a single successful highly developed landlocked country when measured with the Human Development Index (HDI) and nine of the twelve countries with the lowest HDI scores are landlocked. Landlocked countries that rely on transoceanic trade usually suffer a cost of trade that is double of their maritime neighbours. Landlocked countries experience economic growth 6% less of their non-landlocked countries, holding other variables constant.

The United Nation holds the view that high transport costs due to distance and terrain result in the erosion of competitive edge for exports from landlocked countries. In addition, it recognizes the constraints on landlocked countries to be mainly physical, as in lack of direct access to the sea, isolation from world markets and high transit costs due to physical distance. It also attributes geographic remoteness as one of the most significant reasons as why developing landlocked nations are unable to alleviate themselves while European landlocked cases are mostly developed because of short distances to the sea through well-developed transient countries. One other commonly cited factor is the administrative burdens associated with border crossings as there is a heavy load of bureaucratic procedures, paperwork, custom charges, and most importantly, traffic delay due to border wait times, which affect delivery contracts. Delays and inefficiency compound geographically, where a 2 to 3 week wait due to border customs between Uganda and Kenya results in the impossibility of booking ships ahead of time in Mombasa, furthering delivery contract delays. Despite these explanations, it is also important to consider the transit countries that neighbour LLDCs, in which goods of LLDCs are exported via the maritime ports of these countries.

Thanks so much Kwamina for the wonderful  explanation and proposition. Your point is well noted and very much appreciated. 

You are welcome

I guess that refereing to LLDC the important issues is that the landlocked economies have much worse access to fixed ICT infrastructure, like for instance , fixed-broadband. Bearing in mind that the latter allows for accessing timly information and creates possibilities for market exchange, accessibility of such infastructure is seminal. Best, Ewa.

Let me tackle the topic from observation first; a number of the richest countries (GDP/person) in Europe are land-locked (Switzerland, Luxemburg, Lichtenstein, Austria, Andorra and San Marino) and some of the poorest are at the coast (Albania, Romania, Montenegro, Ukraine, Moldova). The land-locked may have currently reasonable, although long, road distances to harbours, but only since mid-19th century. Several although have ocean access through navigable rivers (Rhine; Danube). A first hypothesis would seem: small is beautiful; a second: mountains are good for GDP. 

Also in sub-Saharan Africa, the sea-board states versus land-locked countries dichotomy does not seem unambiguous at first glance; among the rich are land-locked Botswana and Swaziland and among the poorest are coastal countries (Somalia, Eritrea, Tanzania, DRC).

Interesting! Am so grateful  Hein and Ewa for the wonderful responses (with such great twist of examples.) I really do like your respective comments (especially the two hypotheses from Hein). Your comments are well noted and very much appreciated

Being a citizen of Landlocked country (Nepal). I haven't found any advantages of landlockedness. We have experienced disadvantages rather than advantages with reference to trade and growth. Most of the trades depend on the relation of the country which surrounds it. It is believed that the treaty done with WTO is obligatory for all the countries but first be a citizen of landlocked country. I think it is a great curse for the development of trade and its growth. 

Hmmmmmm!!!....Am saddened by what your country is going through Durga because of the country's landlockedness....Let's keep hope alive and pray for a better tomorrow...Who knows? There may be some positive sides of landlockedness afterall....Let's keep our heads high...Cheers and thanks for the opinion shared...Best regards

Also in Asia, land-locked seems not universally negative for GDP/person; Nepal scores much higher than its neighbours, Mongolia is another case. Both are also relatively small and mountainous in their immediate environment. Maybe these two don't need sea or navigable rivers for trade with huge markets next door. And small may be beautiful in Asia as well, even among seaboard states: Singapore, Brunei, Timor-Leste, Hong Kong, all seaboard states.

Thanks a lot once again Hein for this interesting opinion shared. Your point is well noted and much appreciated. 

Seaboard versus landlocked is a category of geography as explanation of the wealth of nations globally. At first sight it seems to apply within some countries as well (USA, China, Netherlands). Now, that we could reject the landlocked-is-economically-bad hypothesis, we may explore other theories. The more powerful explanatory geographic variable appears to be latitude. From the equator to the poles, from the tropics to the arctic, current national GDP/person increases in all three landmasses, the Americas, Africa and Eurasia; admittedly the picture is somewhat fuzzy in West-Asia. This explanation may even apply within in some countries that reach from tropical (e.g. Namibia) or Mediterranean (e.g. Italy, Spain) to more temperate latitudes. At the subnational level another theory in geography deserves to be considered; the centre-periphery dichotomy, although it contradicts the seaboard-landlocked paradigm in many countries.

The "current" and "national" are conditions entered explicitly, as beyond geography, also history (or time) and scale (or resolution) should enter the equation.

My guess would be that a global historical-geographical theory of the wealth of nations has been proposed already; a link reference would be appreciated.

Thanks so much Hein for your continuous sharing of great and very interesting opinions. Your point is well noted and very much appreciated. I also think links to interesting articles would as well be of much help

If you are landlocked you are probably not a British colony.

heheheheheh.....Interesting! Thanks a lot Perju for the interesting twist...Your point is well note and much appreciated

I think there are useful reports available online from the http://unohrlls.org/ which you might like to consult. rgds Mia

Thanks a lot Mia for the link. I will surely visit it for some reading. Best regards, David 

Nepal is a typical land-locked nations and less developed economy. It's part of the SAARC  deal involving emerging economies like India. However, the underdevelopment of Nepal is not due to its land-locked position per se, but 'behind the border factors'. Those are not necessarily directly linked to geography. Trade facilitation with regional neighbors could overcome the problems of underdevelopment depending on several socio-institutional factors. Thus, the question could not be answered generally, but case-specific. Hope it helps.

Interesting. Thanks so much Das for the opinion shared. Your point is well noted and very much appreciated

Trade is base on possessing a comparative advantage not an absolute advantage, and comparative advantage is defined as being able to use resource inputs to produce output with the smallest opportunity cost.

Thanks a lot Paul for the opinion shared. Can you however elaborate further on what you want to pass across with the linkage between landlockness and comparative advantage? Thanks

Contrary to the comment of Perju, several former British colonies are landlocked, specifically in southern Africa (Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho,  Zimbabwe, Zambia). However, these landlocked countries where not primarily targets of British economic colonialism and had protectorate status initially.

I want to mention one of the most important points.  Excepting air transportation, land locked countries are obliged to use land before arriving to the sea coast. Land  transportation costs many times higher than sea transport. This raises the transaction cost of almost all imports and exports. Then, a land locked country is less advantageous when it wants to appeal to a development strategy based on foreign trade (for example, export oriented strategy like that of Republic of Korea ).

However, in a free trade world, too free foreign trade increases the pressure of global competition and sometimes impede nurturing new  industries. A land locked country may use its disadvantage as a natural protection for its domestic industries. In order to profit this condition, however,  the country must be relatively large in order to get scale merits and so on. 

Hi Yoshinon

The first part of your statement has been falsified already in my earlier comments. Could you supply empirical counter-examples to make your case?

On your second paragraph, I doubt the relevance from my observations while working in landlocked countries. In the regionally economically successful landlocked countries, e.g. Botswana, Mongolia, Switzerland, Austria, almost all goods are imported. Specialisation could be the name of winning the game, besides my earlier small-is-beautiful observation for both landlocked and seaborne nations.

Dear Hein,

What is the statement that you claim is falsified. The only empirical statement in the first paragraph is this:

• Land transportation costs many times higher than sea transport.

Do you have any data which refute this statement?

As for the second paragraph, citing Botswana, Mongolia, Switzerland, Austria does not imply that land locked countries have some disadvantage and advantage. We can say that these land locked countries have succeeded despite the fact that they are landlocked. 

Landlocked countries faces relatively higher transportation and transaction costs in terms of time and money for cross-border and international trade.