better soil and more regular weather and conditions conducive to growing crops probably has a lot to do with it. you cant really diversify into more profitable stuff until food supply is handled
People interested in the subject should take a look at http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules.../dp/0312611692
The modern globe is no different than any other large metropolitan area. Pick a big city and look at a map. The poorer (hand-to-mouth) people live near the center while the wealthier migrate to the outer edges. Much of the city's wealth is generated by business and working in the middle of the map, but at the end of the day, the wealthier people recede. It's the same idea for the current geographic distribution of wealth. The peoples that moved away from the Equator had a better grasp on managing and meeting the needs for survival; such as agriculture and building. Those that were content to hunt and gather stayed close to home. As result, the center remains stagnated while rich in wealth-generating resources and the outer ("suburban" or non-equatorial) areas are developed by those with the ability to import what cannot be found locally.
The reason its like that in the US (and why "inner city" is a slur) is because the industrial revolution and the invention of the car.
Cities were much smaller then but poor people still couldn't afford cars and had to live within walking distance of work while the richer people would have the luxury of expanding outward because they could drive.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_germs_and_steel
Diamond's theory I find to be an extremely plausible one, listing the ultimate base reasons for Western hegemony, which combined with a certain number of historical factors make it quite simple to see why the world is the way it is.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Climate, which shapes culture.
Mediteranian/equatorial countries want to have a good life, colder regions work harder.
This is a gross generalization btw