I'm trying to better understand the relationship between geography and economic success. I know authors such as Gallup and Sachs (1998) argue that has strong influences on population and thus economic development, but I'm curious if someone can make the argument that poor geography can be overcome. Can a developing nation overcome the disadvantage of poor geography, short of some "black swan event"?
This is largely a question better suited for /r/AskSocialScience, but I'm going to take a crack at it anyway.
This is a contested question right now in the social sciences, and there are some fairly powerful voices arguing that institutions and culture is equally important in determining economic and social development than topography and climate. Probably the best "natural experiment" in the role of social systems in economic development in recent times is the Korean Peninsula. North Korea is a perpetual basket case mired in Stalinist ideas of centralized political and economic decision making, while South Korea is considered an "Asian tiger" that is rapidly catching up with Japan in both HDI and value-added economic output.
A more subtle argument can be made that once urban areas achieve a certain critical mass, they can become self-sustaining economic engines, especially if they have good transport links both internally and externally. This line of reasoning and the evidence to support (and refute) it is discussed in the Is Geography Destiny: Lessons from Latin America (2003). Interestingly, Gallup also co-authored this book as well, but his views seem to have changed somewhat over the past few decades, and the models he advocates are not as strongly deterministic as in his earlier work.