Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Levels of economic development vary widely within countries in the Americas. This paper argues that part of this variation has its roots in the colonial era. Colonizers engaged in different economic activities in different regions of a country, depending on local conditions. Some activities were "bad" in the sense that they depended heavily on the exploitation of labor and created extractive institutions, while "good" activities created inclusive institutions. The authors show that areas with bad colonial activities have lower gross domestic product per capita today than areas with good colonial activities. Areas with high pre-colonial population density also do worse today. In particular, the positive effect of "good" activities goes away in areas with high pre-colonial population density. The analysis attributes this to the "ugly" fact that colonizers used the pre-colonial population as an exploitable resource. The intermediating factor between history and current development appears to be institutional differences across regions and not income inequality or the current ethnic composition of the population.

Country Population Profiles --- Demographics --- Economic Theory & Research --- Gross domestic product --- Health, Nutrition and Population --- Human capital --- Income inequality --- Labor force --- Native population --- Policy Research --- Policy Research Working Paper --- Population density --- Population Policies --- Progress --- Social sciences

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In this paper we revisit the relationship between institutions, human capital and development. We argue that empirical models that treat institutions and human capital as exogenous are misspecified both because of the usual omitted variable bias problems and because of differential measurement error in these variables, and that this misspecification is at the root of the very large returns of human capital, about 4 to 5 times greater than that implied by micro (Mincerian) estimates, found in some of the previous literature. Using cross-country and cross-regional regressions, we show that when we focus on historically-determined differences in human capital and control for the effect of institutions, the impact of institutions on long-run development is robust, while the estimates of the effect of human capital are much diminished and become consistent with micro estimates. Using historical and cross-country regression evidence, we also show that there is no support for the view that differences in the human capital endowments of early European colonists have been a major factor in the subsequent institutional development of these polities.

Zonder onderwerpscode: economie