Economic Development and Growth Part 2 Flashcards
(187 cards)
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?