Economic Development and Growth Part 2 Flashcards
Name the paper and the year of the Diamond Hypothesis
Diamond, Jared (2002), “Evolution, consequences and the future of plant and Animal domestication”, Nature, Vol. 418
Diamond, Jared (2002), “Evolution, consequences and the future of plant and Animal domestication”, Nature, Vol. 418
Main research question
Why did domestication occur in a select few areas of the world? Why did people choose to domesticate? Why are some countries rich today and others are poor?
Diamond, Jared (2002), “Evolution, consequences and the future of plant and Animal domestication”
Hypothesis of Diamond:
Domesticated plant species and animals → mostly present in Eurasia → east west axes made it easier to spread across continent → food surplus → elite formation → earlier neolithic transition → larger population → better technologies → less hunter and gatherers → more used to diseases
Which paper tests the diamond hypothesis?
Hibbs and Olsson (2004). Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101
Hibbs and Olsson (2004). Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor.
Research question:
Why are some countries rich and others poor? Is the diamond hypothesis true?
Hibbs and Olsson (2004). Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor.
Hypothesis:
Testing of the Diamond Hypothesis: Differences in geography -> Differences in the number of wild plants and animals that could be domesticated (biogeography) -> Differences in the timing on the Neolithic transition -> Differences in current prosperity
Hibbs and Olsson (2004). Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor.
Identification strategy:
Model when the different regions reached the transition date, where they move from hunter-gathering to agriculture.
The model assumes: technological change -> emergence of agriculture (supply-push) rather than need for food from population growth (demand-pull)
Hibbs and Olsson (2004). Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor.
Data:
Geography - climate, latitude, East-West orientation
Biogeography - Number of wild plants suited for domestication (cereals), Number of wild animals suited for domestication (terrestrial
Quality of institutions (quality of bureaucracy, rule of law, corruption, risk of expropriation, risk of government repudiation of contracts)
Hibbs and Olsson (2004). Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor.
Main Regression:
Y: level of technology by hunter gatherers in region n at time t
X: potential maximum level of technology, which depends on biogeography
the level of technology reaches the threshold level A^A, which is where the level of technology is high enough for the emergence of agriculture.
Hibbs and Olsson (2004). Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor.
additional regression:
They also regress biogeography on current prosperity, controlling for geography and institutions
Hibbs and Olsson (2004). Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor
Main findings:
They find 98% of the geographic variation in the timing of the Neolithic transition explained by biogeography
The model implies that the two best endowed environments make the transition to agriculture comparatively early, as was the case in most Eurasia.
Even in the regions with less biogeography potential, technological progress occurred. Hunter gatherers gradually exploited their environment’s low productive potential. But progress is slow and endowments are so impoverished that settled agriculture might never have been initiated in isolation.
Communities facing these circumstances (which include Australia, New Zealand, and most western North America) essentially remained hunter-gatherers until they were absorbed, colonized or exterminated by other states.
Hibbs and Olsson (2004). Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor
Main findings of the additional regression:
The index of geography (climate, latitude, east-west orientation) accounts for 80% of the variation in biogeography.
Geography is an important indirect determinant of the transition score.
The time of the neolithic transition (a proxy for biogeographical endowment) explains more than 50% of the differences in per-capita income today
Still significant even when institutions are added in
Hibbs and Olsson (2004). Geography, biogeography, and why some countries are rich and others are poor.
Challenges:
6 data points for calculating transition
The authors do not disentangle the effects of geography and biogeography
Only cereals are considered for biogeography
No intermediate steps
Name the title of the Cereals-Paper
Mayshar, Moav, Neeman and Pascali (2015). Cereals, Appropriability and Hierarchy. CEPR Working Paper 10742.
Mayshar, Moav, Neeman and Pascali (2015). Cereals, Appropriability and Hierarchy.
Research Question:
Q1: How did farming trigger the change that following the Neolithic Revolution some regions of the world developed complex hierarchies, leading to city-states and the great civilization of antiquity?
Q2: Why did some regions remain with only simple hierarchy, in spite of adopting farming?
Mayshar, Moav, Neeman and Pascali (2015). Cereals, Appropriability and Hierarchy.
Hypothesis
Q1) Neolithic Revolution → increased appropriability (more in regions suitable for cereals rather than roots/tubers) → cereals could be taxed → an elite that did not produce food could emerge (hierarchy) → emergence of the state.
Q2) Differences in land suitability for cereals/roots/tubers across regions → differences in appropriability → appropriability encouraged robbery → demand for protection → facilitated the finance of the elite and provision of protection→ hierarchical complexity
Mayshar, Moav, Neeman and Pascali (2015). Cereals, Appropriability and Hierarchy.
Identification strategy:
Y: jurisdictional hierarchy beyond the local community
X: Cereals present
IV: YieldCereals – YieldTubers
Mayshar, Moav, Neeman and Pascali (2015). Cereals, Appropriability and Hierarchy.
Challenges:
IV estimate of caloric yield might be correlated with geographic variables which would also affect the jurisdictional hierarchy.
For the panel estimate:
it happened 500 years ago but the productivity difference measure is from today.
For estimate of cereals and ancient civilizations:
They look at distance as a dependent variable: but distance might be correlated with latitude which affects the presence of cities
For panel data: the impact over time can be in the omitted variable
What is the paper on taxation in Congo called?
Sanchez de la Sierra (2015). On the Origins of States: Stationary Bandits and Taxation in Eastern Congo”, mimeo, Berkeley
Sanchez de la Sierra (2015). On the Origins of States: Stationary Bandits and Taxation in Eastern Congo”, mimeo, Berkeley
Research question:
Eastern Congo had a significant number of armed organizations along a continuum of organizational development, ranging from autonomous bandits, to large armed groups that resemble proto-states.
How does the transformation from banditry to rule under the monopoly of violence occur?
Why does it take place?
What are the implications for the population in terms of welfare?
Sanchez de la Sierra (2015). On the Origins of States: Stationary Bandits and Taxation in Eastern Congo”, mimeo, Berkeley
Identification strategy:
Diff-in-Diff
Price of Coltan and Price of Gold before and after shock in villages and in mines
Gold: easier to conceal and collected from rivers: harder to tax. Coltan: bulky and collected from mines: easier to tax.
Sanchez de la Sierra (2015). On the Origins of States: Stationary Bandits and Taxation in Eastern Congo”, mimeo, Berkeley
Main Findings:
Higher coltan price -> more attacks at villages and mines ->more state formation by bandits in villages. Higher gold price -> no effect by mines but more complex taxation systems in villages (e.g. taxing consumption)
What are the authors and the publication year of the “Out of Africa” paper?
Ashraf and Galor (2013), “The Out of Africa Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development, American Economic Review 103.
Ashraf and Galor (2013), “The Out of Africa Hypothesis
Research question:
Can genetic diversity explain comparative economic development today?
Ashraf and Galor (2013), “The Out of Africa Hypothesis
Theory 1: migratory distance had an adverse effect on the degree of genetic diversity
Theory 2: there exists an optimal level of diversity for economic development
With a good amount of diversity: the people can take advantage of skills of the different people
Too little: only a limited set of skills (societies far away from the origin of humanity)
Too high: too much variation so that people can not organize themselves well (societies close to the origin of humanity)
Ashraf and Galor (2013), “The Out of Africa Hypothesis
Data
for genetic diversity: HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel (53 ethnic groups)
for historical population density: McEvedy and Jones (1978)
Ashraf and Galor (2013), “The Out of Africa Hypothesis
Identification strategy and regression
simple regression:
Y Variable(s): population density in 1500CE, GDP per capita in recent years
Main X Variable: predicted genetic diversity
Ashraf and Galor (2013), “The Out of Africa Hypothesis
Main findings:
Variation in migratory distance from the cradle of humankind in East Africa affected genetic diversity leading to a long-lasting hump-shaped effect on economic development no matter geographical, institutional and cultural factors.
Ashraf and Galor (2013), “The Out of Africa Hypothesis
Challenges:
Many events throughout the century could also have affected the GDP/diversity etc.
Correlation with other factors: even though they control there will probably still be correlation
More observation in low homogeneity than in higher homogeneity (see graph)
Genetic diversity: the estimate is a bit questionable 🡪 what type of difference in genetics do they mean?
Only one regression to get such a strong conclusion
What is the name of the time preference paper?
Ozak and Galor (2017) “The agricultural origins of time preference”, American Economic Review.
Ozak and Galor (2017) “The agricultural origins of time preference”
Research question:
This paper attempts to explore the origins of this time preference parameter across countries. They argue that geography is a key determinant. Specifically, the natural return to agricultural investment had a persistent effect on the distribution of time preference across societies.
Ozak and Galor (2017) “The agricultural origins of time preference”
Hypothesis
Regions with high agricultural productivity experienced gradually increasing long-term orientations – this was passed on through generations through traits.
Ozak and Galor (2017) “The agricultural origins of time preference”
Identification strategy
Natural experiment: an exogenous shock to agricultural productivity through the Columbian exchange. Why? Columbian exchange randomly assigned superior crops to different regions of the world. Therefore, countries which were assigned higher yield crops should have higher time preference today than countries which didn’t get high yield crops. This corrects for sorting, and time invariant geographical characteristics (which could cause higher land productivity and higher time preference.
Ozak and Galor (2017) “The agricultural origins of time preference”
Data:
LTO measure varies from 0 to 100.
Potential crop yield and Potential crop growth (Food and Agri Agency + Global Agro-Ecological Zones (GAEZ) project)
Ozak and Galor (2017) “The agricultural origins of time preference”
Challenges:
Reverse causality between higher long-term orientation and the choice of agricultural technologies which are correlated with agricultural returns.
Sorting of individuals with long-term planning horizon into higher agricultural productivity regions.
Crop yield generates a higher level of urbanization/pop. density which causes greater time preference
Ozak and Galor (2017) “The agricultural origins of time preference”
Main Findings
Statically significant and positive effect of higher crop yields on higher long-term orientation at the individual, regional, and country level
Sachs, Jeffrey, “Institutions Matter, But Not for Everything” (2003)
Hypothesis:
Tropics have high incidence of infectious diseases, including ones that kills off plants and animals (frost can kill parasites and bacteria)
Good health -> high productivity -> high income -> expect
to live long -> high savings -> high investment -> high productivity and better health!
Poor health -> low life expectancy -> lower investment in education/saving and higher fertility
Sachs, Jeffrey, “Institutions Matter, But Not for Everything” (2003)
Research question:
Geography or institutions? Institutions are not the only determinant of development. Being a tropical vs temperate and landlocked country also matters for development
Sachs, Jeffrey, “Institutions Matter, But Not for Everything” (2003)
Main findings:
Countries can have:
Favorable institutions and geographies - high growth and wealth (Singapore, Korea, Malaysia)
Poor institutions but good geography (Eastern Europe) - here, institutional reform is important
Poor institutions and geography (Africa) - institutional changes are needed, but also investments and infrastructure to fight disease and break isolation
Which paper tests the hypothesis of Sachs 2003?
Melissa Dell, Ben Jones and Ben Olken (2009), “Temperature and Income”. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings
Melissa Dell, Ben Jones and Ben Olken (2009), “Temperature and Income”
Research question:
Does historical fluctuations in temperature within countries have an effect on aggregate economic outcomes?
Melissa Dell, Ben Jones and Ben Olken (2009), “Temperature and Income”
Hypothesis:
warmer countries have lower economic development
Melissa Dell, Ben Jones and Ben Olken (2009), “Temperature and Income”
Data:
Construct temperature and precipitation data for each country and year in the world from 1950 to 2003 and combine this dataset with aggregate output
Melissa Dell, Ben Jones and Ben Olken (2009), “Temperature and Income”
Regression equation:
Y: log labor income
X: mean temperature, mean precipitation levels
Melissa Dell, Ben Jones and Ben Olken (2009), “Temperature and Income”
Main findings:
Large negative effects of higher temperatures on growth, but only in poor countries (rich countries can counteract the effects of climate change)
They estimate that a 1C rise in temperature in a given year reduced economic growth in that year by about 1.3-1.9 percentage points
This is a gigantic effect!
No effects in rich countries
Potential large impacts of global warming
What are the others and the year of the “Reversal of Fortunes” paper?
Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2002), “The Reversal of Fortune”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117
Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2002), “The Reversal of Fortune”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117
Research question:
If geography is the key determinant of development then why are regions which were poor in 1500 rich today? And why are regions which were rich in 1500 poor today?
Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2002), “The Reversal of Fortune”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117
Hypothesis:
Countries which were rich in 1500 had larger population densities and higher urbanisation rates. After contact with Europeans, these areas were more likely to be under extractive institutions because (1) Tax systems were likely already in place which could be easily adapted for extraction (2) There was abundance of labor which could be forced to work and an elite take the surplus (3) They were more difficult to settle because of lack of land (4) There were more diseases which stopped settlers. Therefore, these areas missed out on industrialisation and remained comparatively underdeveloped.
Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2002), “The Reversal of Fortune”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117
Data:
Data from Bairoch (1988) urbanisation rates data. Very strong correlation between urbanisation rates and income per capita.
McEvedy and Jones (1978) - population density of countries.
Maddison (1995) Income per capita
Polity IV data set for constraint on executive.
Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2002), “The Reversal of Fortune”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117
Identification strategy
2SLS
IV: Mortality of early settlers
Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2002), “The Reversal of Fortune”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117
Main findings:
Reversal of fortunes. Countries with worse institutions didn’t industrialize because manufacturing requires better property rights enforcing institutions.
Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2002), “The Reversal of Fortune”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117
Challenges:
Disease environment correlated with mortality of early settlers and the disease environment can clearly impact GDP through the geography hypothesis. Thus, the instrument fails the exogeneity assumption.
Problem with IV: European that settled in colonies might have brought with them not just their institutions, but also their human capital.
A farewell to Alms - Clark (2007)
Main message:
World is Malthusian until 1800 → historically European rich people were having more kids than poor people: survival of richest → genetic and cultural transformation: genes and values of the rich were passed down to the entire population →people became more patient, less violent, more hard-working, more literate → when the technology was ready for the IR: countries with the effective workers were able to take better advantage → reduction in within-society inequalities → great divergence btw countries
Why divergence:
1. End of Malthusian allowed existing diffs in labor productivity across societies to translate into much larger diffs in income.
2. Modern medicine has lowered the floor established through subsistence wage.
3. Tech developed since IR has made quality of labor more important.
Which paper tests the “A Farewell to Alms”
Ashraf and Galor (2011). Dynamics and Stagnation in the Malthusian Epoch. The American Economic Review 101.
Ashraf and Galor (2011). Dynamics and Stagnation in the Malthusian Epoch. The American Economic Review 101.
Data:
Income per capita, population density, technology (atlas of cultural evolution) in year 1 CE, 1000, 1500
A farewell to Alms - Clark (2007)
Research question:
Why did the industrial revolution happen in western Europe?
Ashraf and Galor (2011). Dynamics and Stagnation in the Malthusian Epoch. The American Economic Review 101.
Main findings:
Consistent with Malthusian predictions: positive effects of land productivity and tech level on population density in 1500 CE, 1000 CE and 1 CE
In contrast: the effects of land productivity and tech on income per capita in these periods are not significantly diff from 0
Ashraf and Galor (2011). Dynamics and Stagnation in the Malthusian Epoch. The American Economic Review 101.
Regression:
Y: population density as an indicator for economic devt
X: technology
Regressor: number of years since neolithic transition + set of covariates
Time of neolithic transition is a good proxy for tech development (Diamond)
Instrument: domesticable specifies
Ashraf and Galor (2011). Dynamics and Stagnation in the Malthusian Epoch. The American Economic Review 101.
Challenges:
Whenever you have a geographic instrument is hard to defend bc there might be omitted variables: domesticable species can have an impact on GDP not through technology (example disease environment) classic omitted variable problem
Small number of observations, so you have high likelihood of strong correlation. Big measurement error for per capita income, smaller measurement error for population density -> this could be driving results
Ashraf and Galor (2011). Dynamics and Stagnation in the Malthusian Epoch. The American Economic Review 101.
Main message:
The Neolithic Revolution triggered a cumulative process of economic development, conferring a developmental head start to societies that experienced the transition earlier.
The level of technological advancement does not matter for standard of living until 1500, it only affects population density
Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson and James Robinson (2001). “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Economic Development: An Empirical Investigation”
Research question?
Does the risk of expropriation (better or worse institutions) help account for differences in incomes of countries that were colonized by Europeans?
Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson and James Robinson (2001). “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Economic Development: An Empirical Investigation”
Hypothesis?
European colonies were either extractive colonies, where there was less protection for private property and higher risk of government expropriation, or ‘Neo-Europes’, where colonizers settled in areas and tried to replicate European institutions with private property and checks on government power.
If the disease environment was not favorable -> less chance of Europeans settling and setting up ‘Neo-europe colonies’, more chance of extractive colonies.
These colonial states have persisted and can explain some of the differences in income today
potential settler mortality -> settlements -> early institutions -> current institutions -> current performance
Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson and James Robinson (2001). “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Economic Development: An Empirical Investigation”
Identification strategy?
2SLS
Main regression: per capita income on expropriation risk
IV: Mortality of early settlers
Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson and James Robinson (2001). “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Economic Development: An Empirical Investigation”
Main findings?
Very large causal effects of institutions on long-run growth:
Differences in institutions account for over ¾ of the variation in income per capita today (long-run effect)
The estimate implies the 2.24 differences in expropriation risk between Nigeria and Chile translates into 8 fold difference in income. . . In practice, Chile is over 11 times as rich as Nigeria
Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson and James Robinson (2001). “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Economic Development: An Empirical Investigation”
Challenges?
As usual, is settler mortality really exogenous to current GDP?
Direct effect: settler mortality -> more savings -> more investment and capital -> higher GDP today
Disease could also affect GDP today.
No formal test of how institutions persist
Melissa Dell (2010). “The persistent effects of Peru’s mining Mita” Research question?
What is the impact of institutional differences at the local level?
Melissa Dell (2010). “The persistent effects of Peru’s mining Mita” Hypothesis?
The paper examines the long-run impacts of the Mita mining system, which was a forced labour institution that persisted between 1573 and 1812 in Peru and Bolivia.
Idea: areas with the Mita would have lower development from worse institutions developing than areas without Mita
Melissa Dell (2010). “The persistent effects of Peru’s mining Mita” Identification strategy?
Regression discontinuity design which exploits a quasi-natural experiment in the boundary of the Mita mining institutions. Mita boundary was exogenously decided by Spanish based on altitude. Dell finds area where altitude is equal, but Mita was imposed on one side of the boundary and not imposed on the other.
One side of the boundary, there are villages that are “treated” and on the other side of the boundary there are “non-treated” villages. If these villages are similar in all other characteristics apart from the treatment then the difference in outcomes between the villages can be explained by the treatment. There can also be no selective sorting!
Melissa Dell (2010). “The persistent effects of Peru’s mining Mita” Main findings?
Treatment of the Mita has a large negative and statistically significant impact on household consumption today (25% lower) and positive significant impact on stunted growth of children (6%)
Melissa Dell (2010). “The persistent effects of Peru’s mining Mita” Challenges?
Self-selection - richer people could afford to move across to the villages outside the border (BUT you would expect rich residents to not be affected by Mita anyway)
Other spill-over effects between town
Melissa Dell (2010). “The persistent effects of Peru’s mining Mita” Channels of main findings?
Land tenure: Mita effect leads to lower number of haciendas → land reform gives hacienda land to farmers in non-Mita area -> more land inequality today in Mita area
Public Goods: No elite landowners to push for access to education or better roads → less integrated into road networks + lower human capital
Sectoral composition: less human capital → in Mita districts more likely to be subsistence farmers
Which paper looked at the effect of the Mita in Peru?
Dell (2010) “The persistent effects of Peru’s mining Mita”
Acemoglu and Johnson (2005). Unbundling Institutions.
Research question?
What is the importance of property rights enforcing institutions vs contracting institutions in determining long-run economic outcomes?
Acemoglu and Johnson (2005). Unbundling Institutions.
Hypothesis?
States can both facilitate transactions and act as an instrument for transferring resources. By unbundling the state institutions into “contract” and “private property” institutions, we can see which type is more conducive to economic development. (North (1990))
In theory private property institutions should be more important since poor contract institutions can be circumvented. In the case of no checks and balances on the state there isn’t much citizens can do if the state decides to renegade on debt