For the former, we have tons of evidence:
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/12/11/...
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28979/w289...
I recall something also about the persistence of Roman settlement patterns in France vs Britain proving to be a disadvantage in the early modern era when ocean-based commerce became so important.
Whether it's "equal opportunity vs equal outcome", liberalism assumes that the system will converge and the two will be brought into alignment mertiocratically. When there's an emphasis on rules-based systems, it assumes there is some sort of quorum of those playing by the rules and others will have to join the fold. When there's a belief that competition could sustain itself, we're simply requirements the needs of equilibrium theory back into our assumptions.
Rather than being elastic and in balance, the world is much more plastic and constantly rebalancing, with the former masking the latter. There is still much of liberalism to be admired, but it should be saved for the "victory lap". Perhaps liberalism works for worlds that are fixed, it does not work for worlds that need fixing.
