Two of my favourite economists – Daron Acemoglu and Ed Glaeser – debate whether democracy boosts growth. It’s worth reading not only because of the substance, but also because the duo do a nice job of arguing about their highly technical research in pretty intuitive terms.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
PJD on Turning Points PJD on Turning Points Clinton McMurray on Turning Points ChrisPer on Turning Points Daniel Waldenström on Turning Points Archives
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
Categories
- Australian issues
- Australian Politics
- Behavioural Economics
- Blogging
- Book launch stuff
- Books
- Coming Events
- Current Affairs
- Development Economics
- Eclectic Observations
- Econometrics
- Economics & Public Policy Course
- Economics for Government Course
- Economics Generally
- Economics of Education
- Economics of Elections
- Economics of National Security
- Economics of the Family
- Election
- Environmental Economics
- Film
- Finance
- Food and Drink
- From the Frontiers
- Games
- Global issues
- Health economics
- Indigenous Policy
- Inequality
- Interesting stuff
- Iraq
- Jobs
- Labour Economics
- Law
- Low Wage Work
- Macroeconomics
- Media
- Prediction Markets
- Randomisation
- Religion
- Social Capital
- Sport
- Sports
- Tax
- Television
- Thinktanks
- Trade & Development
- Travel
- Uncategorized
- Universities
- Urban Economics
- US Politics
- Web/Tech
- Weblogs
- What I'm Reading
Meta
Moving in these arguments can be a quagmire, when everything that seems to be causative and exogenous ends up indicative and endogenous. Democracy ends up being a product of the same things that foster growth rather than the cause, perhaps democracy being one of these things as Glaeser suggests. But what kind of society educates its people? A healthy one with elements of meritocracy and other factors that support growth!
Which is why I was so impressed with Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinsons relating of these factors to disease and the colonial experience. A concrete exogenous factor! Hurrah!
That said, I adore talking about this stuff, especially now that the field is moving beyond a triumph of the west/Common law is better than civil law/Britishisms are better than Spanishisms that were almost a resurrection of whig history.
I enjoyed this, but was struck by two of Acemoglu’s examples used in his argument that seemed to me to be extremely wide of the mark.
In discussing the relationship between education and democracy he states: “After all, former Socialist republics had very high levels of education during the Cold War, but did not show a strong tendency to become democratic.â€
Mmm – Hungary 1956; Czechoslovakia, 1968; Poland in the 1980s – all these look to me like a tendency to become democratic, in two cases requiring armed intervention from outside to stop it. Most of the former Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe also became democratic as soon as they could in the 1990s and the threat of Russian intervention was removed.
He also says: “… I believe that the educated have an important role in defending democracy. But they can also turn against democracy. Educated people have also been big supporters of anti-democratic movements, including the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and many revolutionary movements in Latin America.â€
Again, this seems to me to be a misreading of history. The Bolshevik revolution and many revolutionary movements in Latin America may have turned out badly, but at the start they were not in the business of overthrowing existing democracies, but overthrowing monarchies, oligarchies or dictatorships
I’m also inclined to think that education acts as a signaller for middle class status in many countries, and the middle classes tend to be the support and driver for much social change, including the calamitous type typified by revolutions, coups and uprisings.
In which case education may be causative or merely indicative of the people who would engage as such, for or against democracy.
Dear Andrew
Due to the recent spate of Ads intended to demonise & vilify MOTHERS, I have today posted your article regarding the recent Federal trend of wasting advertising funds on a couple of public forums.
I would be keen to hear your cost-benefits and social analysis of such Ads – amongst others!
See my posts at: –
http://www.rightsatwork.com.au:81/community/showthread.php?t=1542
http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/top-stories/600739/
Note that I did not start the latter thread & that I do not know the person who did.