>white homogenous population:
libertarian: good at producing wealth, but needs border control to control the influx of immigration from poor countries. Lack of strong welfare state helps in that aspect.
natsoc: economy does ok, but is not as rich as the libertarian. Overrall it's a safe, conservative country. Does not atract much tourists or immigration (heavy crackdown on 3rd world immigration).
Anarcho communism:
Impossible to reach, would more or less become a dictatorship like the URSS. No immigration because it's poor.
Representative Democracy:
Western Europe. Mostly social democracies, need to enforce strong borders in order to keep low iq immigrants that go for the gibs.
>Multiracial country
libertarian: Good to avoid the low iq population from having too many kids. High inequality, though. Somewhat violent in low-iq areas
natsoc: National identity is not define by race, but nationality. Upper class still benefits in politics. Law and order keeps it from being too violent.
Anarcho-communism
Same case with the white one. But substitute URSS for Cuba, or Venezuela. Very few rich people (mostly government officials), high emigration.
Representative democracy:
Latin America. Drugs, degeneracy, corruption and violence goes rampant. High emigration.
>Africa
libertarian: Good for attracting foreign investment, which will dominate economic growth in the country. A lot of the population still lives in poverty, with immigrants being the upper class.
natsoc: Several African countries with dictators fall here. All of them corrupt, in permanent crisis, and dependent of foreign aid. Government is anti-communist and very religious (be it islamic or christian). Fertility rates over 6 children/woman.
Anarcho-communism:
Will become a dictatorship in no time, otherwise will fall into a civil war. Worst countries in the word to live in.
Rep democracy:
Very corrupt, the government violates the rule of law frequently. At high risk of becoming dictatorship. Very poor.