Jared Diamond's Pulitzer-winning book, “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies,” is an indisputable contribution to the debates which attempt to explain globalization. economic inequality through detailed historical accounts. A heavy collection of seemingly dense but important details, the book offers the reader an extremely in-depth foray into the economic history of the world, with the aim of identifying the root causes of progress and innovation in certain societies. More than race, religion and culture, the author argues that the main reason for the advanced development of certain civilizations on the "Eurasian" continent is geographical opportunity. This article will analyze the strength of Diamond's argument by first situating the book within a multidisciplinary field, then providing an analytical summary of the book's main argument, and then delving into a critical discussion highlighting the main gaps in his thesis , before considering it to be a founding interdisciplinary text in the field of international political economy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayJared Diamond, an evolutionary biologist, makes a laudable attempt to answer important questions about global inequality, combining a wide range of disciplines - geography, anthropology, economics, linguistics and history - apparently outside his field of research. It advances arguments regarding the feasibility of exchanges of goods, knowledge, diseases and technologies, in order to explain unbalanced economic developments globally. To do this, he often uses archeology and linguistics to trace these historical theories, which denotes an interdisciplinary approach focused on geography and the history of the economy, or more particularly of commerce. Diamond could be seen as a geographic determinist, a potentially generalist often frowned upon in a world where academics spend entire careers answering obscure questions, easier to rely on indisputable evidence, which often don't attract as much of interest than the author's fundamental questions. tries to attack. Therefore, Diamond takes a leap of fate and does the opposite of the mainstream: he offers a broad and sophisticated argument that attempts to offer a comprehensive explanation of global inequality. Written in 1997, the book is an expertly crafted historical reference set across a multitude of disciplines, with revealing but different perspectives, depending on the reader's disciplinary approach. Professor Diamond aims to dispel rudimentary explanations of economic and social development rooted in race or appearance. cultural differences. To do this, the book focuses on a central question: why did Europeans come to dominate the world? It rules out the idea that Europe's global dominance was the result of superior biological insight. Diamond provides arguments that aim to encompass his general thesis – they include biogeographic effects, food production, the abundance or absence of domestic animals, and the strong historical effects of disease. His thesis covers more than 40,000 years of human history, with the aim of explaining the geographic expediency of the Eurasian continent as the best place for food production. Featuring a variety of domesticated animals, these aspects provided a perfect environment for civilizational development. He thus developsa strong thesis on the causal relationships between the environment, or more broadly geography, and civilizational success. He traces the path to inequality from the moment humans stopped being hunter-gatherers to becoming farmers, a pivotal point in his thesis. Looking at the history of the agricultural revolution, the more societies were able to produce more food, the more developed their civilizations would be and therefore able to innovate and develop technologically. Additionally, proximity to animals exposed humans to diseases that allowed Eurasia, the continent with the most domestic animals, to develop resistance to these animals. Through animal domestication, agricultural development, and resulting disease resistance, populations prospered, allowing societies to introduce hierarchical power relationships within newly created states that eventually by transforming into empires. “Goods in excess of an individual's needs must be transferred from the individual to a centralized authority, which then redistributes the goods to individuals in deficit. (p. 287) Such arguments, touching on political economy, focus on redistributions and transfers as government prerogatives, tending toward a socialist understanding of the social contract. The Eurasian continent was also more conducive to trade because of its West-East axis. Unlike all other continents, this allowed its inhabitants to cultivate a greater variety of plants and animals that could be domesticated and traded. Such a phenomenon was not possible, on a scale large enough or fast enough for development to materialize, in other continents extending along a North-South axis. This geographical phenomenon has therefore facilitated the exchange of technologies, agricultural products and diseases more than on a north-south continent. Finally, to differentiate between the Asian and European continents, he argues that competition in Europe was also present due to the geographical configuration that led the continent towards more independent development. This was accompanied by a fear of being conquered which ensured competition between European states and therefore faster growth and development in each state. Diamond's book offers relevant, well-researched and insightful introspections on the economics of trade and political economy in general, revered in an abundance of detail, which sometimes tends to distract the reader's attention from his main argument. Professor Diamond uses a model of economic history dominated by geographic opportunity to shape and add texture to his argument. So, as mentioned earlier, one of the key lessons from economics concerns how geographic configurations facilitated gains from trade. It thus highlights a sensitive point in favor of relative advantages in the exchange of goods, knowledge and services, anchored even in current Ricardian trade models and schemes. On the other hand, his argument on the incapacity of civilizations dispersed on a longitudinal axis to be less capable of trade completes this one. Furthermore, his consideration that climatic conditions interfered with trade and prevented the economies of scale that enabled technological developments, adds another economic dimension to his argument. However, although Professor Diamond's personal knowledge from his research trips to New Guinea sharpens and focuses his arguments, he appears to be embarking on an ambitious project, basing his analysis on a series of broad brushstrokes that complete his argument., 2005.