Explaining growth and (under)development: institutional hypotheses:
Reading and fully understanding is required to answer the 3 questions:
NO OUTSIDE OR SECONDARY SOURCE READING IS ALLOWED, ALL THE ANSWERS AND COMMENTS HAS TO STRICTLY BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 4 ASSIGNED READINGS.
IF THE TEACHER HAS A QUESTION OR A CONCERN ABOUT YOUR ANSWER/COMMENT, HE WILL SENT BACK A REPLY AND YOU HAVE TO REPLY BACK TO HIS COMMENT.
14. W June 30 [panel 5] Explaining growth and (under)development: institutional hypotheses
Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson (2003) “Understanding Prosperity and Poverty: Geography, Institutions and the Reversal of Fortune”
Jeffrey Sachs “Government, geography and growth: the true drivers of economic development” Foreign Affairs Sept.Oct 2012
Ajai Sreevatsan and Utsa Patnaik (2018) “British Raj siphoned out $45 trillion from India: Utsa Patnaik
Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo (2020) “How poverty ends” Foreign Affairs 1 January 2020
Note: Acemoglu, Sachs, Banerjee and Duflo are all prominent development economists, who are interested in the history of growth mainly with an eye to reducing poverty today. Acemoglu et al are interested in how different kinds of colonialism gave rise to different kinds of institutions, more or less conducive to economic growth.
Please answer or have some unformal comments/paragraphs (you can say I understood that.. I think that.. I did not understand this specific thing in the reading etc. ) regarding each of the 3 following questions.
question #1:
Of the various authors we have read so far (i.e., units 8-14), which author has given the most convincing argument for why the western Europe (specifically England) industrialized first? How does their conclusion compare with that of an author from a previous or subsequent week (for example Acemoglu vs Broadberry on “reversal” versus “divergence”). What, if anything, is the relation between the English revolution of 1688 and the industrial revolution?
Your answer #1:
question #2:
What do you think the lesson of the Banerjee and Duflo article, and what do you think about it? What light does it shed (if any) on the debate between Acemoglu and Sachs?
Your answer #2:
question #3:
this is a thread to discuss issues related to discussion questions 1 and 3, assessing the institutionalist growth theory of Acemoglu et al, in comparison with cultural and geographical theories and light of criticisms by Sachs and Patnaik’s analysis of British colonialism in India This is also a place to post comments and queries about aspects or passages you found unclear, confusing, etc.
Your answer #3:
IN THE LAST question, it is asking about providing comments and questions arising from discussion questions 1 and 3. So you have to look for answers in the readings for those discussion questions in order for you to answer the above question # 3 or have comments on.
Discussion questions 1 and 3:
1) Explain Acemoglu’s institutionalist theory for economic growth and the logic of his argument for it, and compare it to geographical, cultural theories. Assess the strength of the theory, taking into account criticisms and debates between Acemoglu and Sachs.
3) To what extent would Patnaik agree with Acemoglu’s account? What points might they differ on?