Institutions, what institutions?

There are many explanations for why some nations are rich while others are poor. The dominant view, in mainstream (neoclassical) economic circles is that institutions are the central cause of the divide between developed (center) and underdeveloped (periphery). I discussed before (here and here) the role of institutions vis-à-vis geography and culture. I have also noted how the New Institutionalist argument concentrates on the institutions (fundamentally property rights) that act on the supply side of the economy. That is growth arises because property rights provide incentives for productive investment. I also noted (here) that the historical evidence for patents, copyright and other forms of property protection for explaining growth is limited at best. Note that mainstream authors and heterodox authors, at least the majority, tend to agree that institutions rather than geography or culture are central for development.

Also, the table above suggests that cultural and geographical explanations tend to put an emphasis on the supply side, but that is not necessarily the case, and it would be difficult to speculate about what Jared Diamond, for example, thinks about the relative role of supply and demand. Also, it’s worth noticing that while in his early work economic historian David Landes favored a demand-led view (which I tentatively put in the institutional box) he clearly moved to a cultural supply-side interpretation in his later work.

So if you believe most heterodox economists institutions are relevant, but not primarily those associated to the supply side; the ones linked to the demand side, in Keynesian fashion are more important than the mainstream admits. Poor countries that arrive late to the process of capitalist development cannot expand demand without limits since the imports of intermediary and capital goods cause recurrent balance of payments crises. The institutions that allow for the expansion of demand, including those that allow for higher wages to expand consumption and to avoid the external constraints, are and have been central to growth and development. The role of the State in creating and promoting the expansion of domestic markets, in the funding of research and development, and in reducing the barriers to balance of payments constraints, both by guarantying access to external markets (sometimes militarily, like in the Opium Wars) and reducing foreign access to domestic ones was crucial in the process of capitalist development.

In this view, for example, what China did not have that England did, was not lack of secure property rights and the rule of law, but a rising bourgeoisie (capitalists) that had to compete to provide for a growing domestic market that had acquired a new taste (and hence explained expanding demand) for a set of new goods, like cotton goods from India, or china (porcelain) from… well China, as emphasized by economic historian Maxine Berg among others (for the role of consumption in the Industrial Revolution go here). Or simply put, China did not have a capitalist mode of production (for the concept of mode of production and capitalism go here). Again, I argued that Robert Allen’s view according to which high wages and cheap energy forced British producers to innovate to save labor, leading to technological innovation and growth, and the absence of those conditions in China led to stagnation is limited since it presupposes that firms adopt more productive technologies even without growing demand.

The same is true of Latin American economies, which several authors like Engerman Sokoloff suggest fell behind as a result of absence of secure property rights. Latin American economies entered the world economy to produce silver (mining-economy/Amerindian population), sugar (plantation-economy/African-American population) and other commodities, for external markets. They were exploitation colonies, less reliant on the development of domestic markets, typical of settlement colonies in the Northeast United States or of the central countries in Western Europe.

The economies that depend on the production of commodities for world markets and import everything else are more vulnerable to the fluctuations of the price of commodities. Booms in commodity prices lead to growth, albeit very concentrated in the hands of the owners of capital, but they leave very little in terms of infrastructure for future growth. Further, since the economy must import everything to satisfy domestic demand, the economy is dependent on external sources of production, and when the export of commodities does not allow for enough imports, then either demand must be curtailed or the economy must become indebted to be able to continue to consume. A thriving domestic market is central for economic development, and the ability to diversify production to provide for the market is the key to catching up.

Finally, since the economy was based on the mono-production of commodities (and the size of the domestic markets is relatively limited) there were little if any incentives for technological innovation and higher productivity. Note also, that once a country falls behind, and almost all countries were essentially at the same level of income per capita around 1800 (or at least differences were considerably smaller than now), it is very hard to catch up, since the distance to the technological frontier is increasingly steep. It is not the same to copy a textile mill that uses a steam engine than to emulate the development of the Silicon Valley. In this sense, the institutions associated to the colonization period are central, rather than property rights, to explain underdevelopment in Latin America. Capitalism and its institutions both caused growth in the center, and stagnation in the periphery.*

* I discussed here how the industrialization of Britain meant the deindustrialization of India and China.

Reversal of fortune and settlement colonies

Acemoglu and others have discussed the concept of reversal of fortune, the idea that the areas with high income per capita around the 1500s (basically the areas colonized by Europeans in the Americas and Asia) became relatively poor, and vice versa. The idea is that there is a negative relationship between economic prosperity in 1500 and income per capita today. They suggest that the type of settlement and the institutions built by colonizers explain the apparent paradox.

The idea is that in settlement colonies, were more equalitarian societies were built, institutions protected property rights and led to higher investment and growth (à la North). They use the mortality rates associated to a particular region as an instrument for the type of settlement and institutions built by European colonizers. High mortality rates imply low European population density, more indigenous or African slaves, and more unequal institutions, with less protection of property rights.

It is a clever argument, no doubt (put forward by Engerman and Sokoloff, in fact), and more importantly a creative use of the notion of settlement colonies.* I have several problems with it, nonetheless. It is far from clear that equality is really connected to growth, and that causality runs from Western type property rights to growth, rather than vice-versa. I tend to spend quite a bit of time on this in my Latin American History classes. There are also significant problems with Engerman and Sokoloff's notion that institutions responded to factor endowments [fundamentally the idea that in capital-abundant/labor-scarce societies, wages were high leading to technological development; yes the capital debates again, but I'll leave this for another time].

Recently I found the graph below in Angus Maddison's Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD: Essays in Macro-Economic History.

The graph shows that Southern Europe, North Africa, and the Eastern Mediterranean were the high income regions, while Northern Europe was relatively poor. In this case, in fact, disease is not a good guide for the type of institutions built in the different regions. Other than the Italian Peninsula, it is the Nile Valley, i.e. Egypt, that had the highest income per capita during the Roman Empire. The Reversal of Fortune is also evident in this case, with France having a significantly higher income per capita than Egypt, for example. It is hard, however, to think that mortality rates associated to tropical diseases (with Southern Europe and North Africa closer to the Tropics) would have something to do with this particular reversal of fortune.

It was the region of older agricultural settlement, more urbanized, more directly connected with Eastern trade, the Eastern Mediterranean part of the of the Empire that was more developed, and that survived for a longer period (until the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453). The reasons for the reversal of fortune in this case, are connected to the rise of the Atlantic economy, related to the Great Discoveries, and the expansion of the African route to Asia. If you ask me, more relevant than the incentives provided by property rights in explaining the Portuguese (and then Dutch and British) search for the alternative routes to Asia, is the rising and changing patterns of demand in Western Europe (and success is based on the naval-military advantage, Guns and Sails, Cipolla would say). But for our purposes here it is only relevant to note that mortality rates no longer seem a relevant instrument for the types of institutions.

* Moses Finley suggests that the idea of settlement versus exploitation colonies (note that Acemoglu et al., avoid the use of the term colonies of exploitation referring only to the settlement ones) was originally developed by Wilhelm Roscher of the German Historical School and later by Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, a liberal (in the European sense of the word) French economist.