State Shapes
State Shapes
1. One distinct shape is not better than another, as it depends on the state’s situation. Politically, compact states are by far the best. The government is close to all portions of the state, rather than any other state shapes. For example, Brussels in Belgium is more politically stable, mainly because of its ability to interact with the other portions of the state. In other state shapes, there is an area where it is more difficult to communicate with. For example, in a prorupt state is protruded portion, in an elongated state it is the longer part, in a fragmented state it is the separate area from the capital, and in a perforated state it is the area around the perforated state, as it causes a barrier. Therefore, politically, compact states are the best shape, yet, in other situations, such as the amount of resources, compact would not be the best. Compact states are naturally small in size, and therefore may not have as many natural resources as larger states have.
2. A state’s shape is not the only factor leading it to success. Their relative location, whether it is on a border or landlocked is a key factor, as it is a sometimes a key in determining trade. For example, if an elongated state was next to a sea, then they would be at an advantage to other states, as the elongated states could have numerous ports lined along their border, increasing trade. Although, if the elongated state is landlocked, their shape isn’t at much of an advantage. The location may also determine the amount of resources, a key factor, as it is difficult for states to move along without these resources. Another factor is the population and what it is composed of. Too large or too small of a population may hurt a country. As if there are too many people, there are less resources, or if there aren’t enough people culture would not spread. Also, if the population is full of numerous different ethnic groups, that may cause
1. One distinct shape is not better than another, as it depends on the state’s situation. Politically, compact states are by far the best. The government is close to all portions of the state, rather than any other state shapes. For example, Brussels in Belgium is more politically stable, mainly because of its ability to interact with the other portions of the state. In other state shapes, there is an area where it is more difficult to communicate with. For example, in a prorupt state is protruded portion, in an elongated state it is the longer part, in a fragmented state it is the separate area from the capital, and in a perforated state it is the area around the perforated state, as it causes a barrier. Therefore, politically, compact states are the best shape, yet, in other situations, such as the amount of resources, compact would not be the best. Compact states are naturally small in size, and therefore may not have as many natural resources as larger states have.
2. A state’s shape is not the only factor leading it to success. Their relative location, whether it is on a border or landlocked is a key factor, as it is a sometimes a key in determining trade. For example, if an elongated state was next to a sea, then they would be at an advantage to other states, as the elongated states could have numerous ports lined along their border, increasing trade. Although, if the elongated state is landlocked, their shape isn’t at much of an advantage. The location may also determine the amount of resources, a key factor, as it is difficult for states to move along without these resources. Another factor is the population and what it is composed of. Too large or too small of a population may hurt a country. As if there are too many people, there are less resources, or if there aren’t enough people culture would not spread. Also, if the population is full of numerous different ethnic groups, that may cause