Colonialism Flashcards
Feyrer and Sacerdote 2007
Find correlation between length of colonial experience and positive modern outcomes (higher growth). Use wind patterns to instrument for time of discovery and so length of colonisation.
Longer involvement led to stabler or better structured governments (extractive vs settler?). Later colonisation associated with better outcomes too (only post 1700 years have association) - good EU institutions to transfer, more emphasis on representative govt, less slavery. Extra 100y of colonial history associated with 42% higher GDPpc (somewhat driven by the rich and early-discovered Atlantics). Little variation by identity (rip G+S), except for the Spanish who are very bad.
Emphasis on working through institutions.
Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson 2001
THE paper.
Different kinds of colonisation influences the institutions of former colonies persistently. Settlement colonies (explicit Neo-Europes) and extractive ones. Instrument for settler status or degree with settler mortality (and exogenous determinant of settlement or not). Difference in attitudes towards colonies manifest clearly.
Argues for institutional persistence - colonial elites had incentive for extractive, expropriating institutions, which persisted at handover (same native elites in power). This politically entrenched class then maintain the system. High correlation between outcomes and institutions - almost 50% of income pc explained. Settlement patterns seen to explain ~50% of variation in modern institutions (expropriation risk). Institutional persistence as the mechanism. This prevents our assessment of outcomes and institutions being purely ex-post. Settlement then goes on to explain outcomes, implying institutional mechanism.
Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson 2002
Reversal of Fortune. Similar idea, except that the rich, urban areas were chosen for extractive institutions since there was more to extract and less to settle on (high pop density), and vice versa. In the long-run, persistent institutional difference explain the reversal and divergence.
Negative correlation between 1500 and modern prosperity. Alternative hypothesis: temperate drift - characteristics of the tropics had an early advantage, but temperate better able to utilise technology in LR.
But data of the reversal is driven by settlement colonies, and the prosperity of central America pre-extraction. Reversal timed by industrialisation, and not correlated with resource endowments (eg coal for technology). Institutional differences created modern outcomes. May be that geog determined differences in 1500, and so institutions (eg, suitability to sugar incentives plantations and extractive institutions). With settler mortality as an instrument for institutions, the effects of the reversal disappear
Michalopoulos and Papaioannou 2016
Effects of colonialism persist in border construction. Lead to conflict, due to ethnic partitionings etc. This greater degree of conflict inhibits state and institution development, explaining persistently lower incomes.
Partitioning results in mistreatments in minorities, or desires to “reclaim” land. No other systemic differences correlated with the presence of ethnic partitioning, which is itself highly correlated with conflict, war, civil conflict. Creates weak states and propensity for autocracy.
Austin 2008
Argues against AJR and Nunn 2008. Criticises AJR data and particular date selection.
Criticises arguments that the slave trade was a determinant of worse outcomes (and of EU cause). Slavery was an entrenched social practice, and political fragmentation already high. Europeans couldn’t force sale of slaves, and Arabs were also very involved. It was already the case that Africa operate largely on forced labour (outside the family) due to scarcity. Later colonial periods emphasised good institutions - but elite empowerment is inherently negative.
Botswana - high growth explained by institutions? Statistically explained by diamond deposits - though good institutions kept it from civil war and the resource curse. Ethiopia only saw 6 years of colonial rule, yet had terrible outcomes. There is no panacea explanation, but Africa was never on the same growth paths as WEU or Yanzhi due to its environmental constraints: after all, slaves were taken out of Africa since they were more productive elsewhere. Furthermore, rent-seeking and growth are not fully incompatible - “extractive” institutions are not final
Nunn 2008
Slavery correlates with worse modern outcomes in Africa via the fragmentation of society and prevention of the formation of effective states
Iron-slave cycle - tribes need weapons to fight others, so sell slaves. To get slaves they need to fight, which entrenches their need for weapons.
At mean income, 1sd less slave exports correlate with 50% greater income pc
Correlation between pre-colonial slavery (which then correlates with outcomes) and selection into the trade is dismissed, but Austin 2008 disputes this. Fenske 2013 too
