Reconciling Acemoglu and Sachs: geography, institutions and technology

Veiseh, Nima (2010): Reconciling Acemoglu and Sachs: geography, institutions and technology. Published in: Journal of International Affairs , Vol. 64, No. 2010, Fall/Winter (1 December 2010): pp. 205-220.

Abstract

This paper attempts to reconcile two models for sustainable economic growth in developing countries. I develop an empirical and theoretical case for how the geographic landscape of a country determines the ease with which it can assimilate foreign technologies and establish institutions favorable to economic growth. I explore the threshold between the seemingly conflicting geographic (Sachs et al.) and institutional (Acemoglu et al.) theories, and economic growth. I do this by developing a technologically determinant, intermediate bifurcation where growth shifts from being geographically to institutionally driven after enough technology has been assimilated. My analysis finds that the rate of technological assimilation is determined by the landscape of a country. As the technology level increases, income level converges toward the level of developed countries. After reaching a certain threshold, however, the primary driver of economic growth appears to shift from geography to institutions.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Economic Growth, Technology, Geography, Institutions, Bifurcation, Development
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences ; Diffusion Processes; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q0 - General > Q01 - Sustainable Development

References

Robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin, “Technological Diffusion, Convergence, and Growth,” Journal of Economic Growth 2, no. 1 (March 1997), 12.

Robert M. Solow, “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 70, no. 1 (February 1956), 71.

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson, “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation,” American Economic Review 91, no. 5 (December 2001),1370.

John W. McArthur and Jeffrey D. Sachs, “Institutions and Geography: Comment on Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2000)” (National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper 8114, February 2001), 1.

Douglass North, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 3.

Dani Rodrik, Arvind Subramanian and Trebbi Francesco, “Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development” (NBER Working Paper 9305, October 2002), 2.

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson, “Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth,” in Philippe Aghion and Steven N. Durlauf, Handbook of Economic Growth. Volume /A, ed. (Amsterdam: Elsevier 2005), 389.

William Baker, Stanton Korista and Laurence Novak, “Engineering the Worlds Tallest-Burj Dubai” (paper presented at Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat 8th World Congress, 2008, Dubai, United Arab Emirates: 3–5 March 2008); Elsheshtawy.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Andrew Warner, Anders Åslund and Stanley Fischer, “Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1995, no. 1 (1995), 7.

William Easterly and Ross Levine, “Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, no. 4 (November 1997), 8.

Esther Duflo and Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, “Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India,” Econometrica 72, no. 5 (2004), 1431.

Irna van der Molen and Antoinette Hildering, “Water: Cause for Conflict or Co-operation?” ISYP Journal on Science and World Affairs 1, no. 2 (2005), 133–43.