International Trade, Redistribution and Institutional Change

In international trade theory, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem demonstrates how changes in relative goods prices affect the returns to factors of production.  The theorem predicts that a rise in the relative price of a good will lead to an increase in the real return of the factors used intensively in its production.  The resulting redistribution of domestic income has important political economy implications. Social groups who benefit from the redistribution through an increase in their own income may gain enough de facto political power to demand changes in institutions in order to preserve their gains.  The question of whether or not these institutional changes bring about increased political participation and/or long term economic growth is at the center of an intense intellectual debate.

One aspect of the debate focuses on how the expansion of international trade in medieval Europe led to major institutional reforms that were fundamental to the rise of Western Europe.  It is argued that these reforms were mainly led by commercial interests outside the royal circle and their demands supported long term economic growth.  These reforms included the expansion of property rights protections, constraints on the power of monarchs, the creation of a legal system, and the emergence of business corporations.  Another aspect of the debate emphasizes that eventually commercial interests may promote worse economic outcomes.  The reason is that once these interests achieve enough political power and become part of the establishment, they are able to manipulate economic policy and build institutions that exclude the rest of society from political participation and the gains from trade. As a result society becomes politically closed, unequal and stratified.

The intellectual challenge that emerges from this debate is to identify a critical juncture where growth promoting institutions are transformed into rent extracting ones.  Recent research has begun to try to do this.

 

Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson (2005) “The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change, and Economic Growth,” American Economic Review, 95 (3): 546–579.

Dippel, Christian, Avner Greif and Daniel Trefler (2015) “The Rents from Trade and Coercive Institutions: Removing the Sugar Coating,” NBER Working Paper 20958.

Engerman, Stanley and Kenneth Sokoloff, (1997) “Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Paths of Growth Among New World Economies: A View from Economic Historians of the United States,” in Stephen Harber, ed., How Latin America Fell Behind, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 260–304.

Gerchunoff, Pablo and Lucas Llach (2009) “Equality or Growth: A 20th Century Argentine Dilemma,” Revista de Historia Economica, Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History, 37(3):397-426.

Greif, Avner, Paul Milgrom, and Barry R. Weingast (1994) ‘‘Coordination, Commitment, and Enforcement: The Case of the Merchant Guild,’’ Journal of Political Economy, 102: 745–776.

Puga, Diego and Daniel Trefler (2014) “International Trade and Institutional Change: Medieval Venice’s Response to Globalization,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129 (2): 753–821.

Zissimos, Ben (2015); “Food Price Shocks, Income, and Democratization,” World Bank Economic Review: Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, “The Role of Theory in Development Economics, 29 (1): S145-S154. [Working Paper version]

Institutions and Emigration from Developing Countries

One of the issues raised by the current refugee and migration crisis in Europe concerns the question of why people take the decision to emigrate.  An emerging literature focuses specifically on institutional factors.  One strand examines the informal institutions of migration networks.  It attempts to evaluate how the strength of a social network in the receiving country, combined with the skill level of the potential migrant, influences her decision on emigration.  An interesting empirical result is that strong social networks tend to matter for low skilled emigration but not for that of the highly skilled.

Another strand of the literature examines how wealth and credit constraints influence decisions to emigrate.  The intuition is that although an increase in wealth may increase the migration possibilities of asset constrained individuals, it may simultaneously reduce the incentive to emigrate by increasing the opportunity cost of working abroad.  A natural empirical prediction from this reasoning is that since poverty is inversely correlated with skills, financial constraints are likely to prevent some low-skilled individuals from migrating.  A finding from this literature is that relaxing these constraints for some low-skilled individuals has increased their rate of emigration.

Although social networks, income distribution and credit constraints are good starting points to  understand the factors that motivate people to emigrate, other questions related to how the institutional settings of source countries influence the decision on migration also remain open.  One empirical study examines worker satisfaction with institutions that determine the provision of public services, security, or governance.  But a theory that provides a mechanism relating these types of institutions in source countries to emigration has yet to be developed.

Angelucci, M. (2015) “Migration and financial constraints: Evidence from Mexico.Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(1): 224-228. [Working paper version]

Borjas, G. (1987) “Self-Selection and the Earnings of Immigrants.American Economic Review, 77(4): 531–553. [Working paper version]

Borjas G. (1994) “The economics of immigration”.  Journal of Economic Literature, 32: 1667-1717

Chiquiar, D. and G. Hanson (2005) “International Migration, Self-Selection, and the Distribution of Wages: Evidence from Mexico and the United States.Journal of Political Economy 113(2): 239-281.

Djajica, S., M. G. Kirdarb and A. Vinogradovac (2016) “Source-country earnings and emigration”. Journal of International Economics, 99:46-67. [Working paper version]

Dustmann, C. and A. Okatenko (2014) “Out-migration, wealth constraints, and the quality of local amenities.Journal of Development Economics, 110: 52–63. [Working paper version]

Görlach, J. S. (2016) “Borrowing Constraints, Migrant Selection, and the Dynamics of Return and Repeat Migration.Working Paper.

McKenzie, D. and H. Rapoport (2010) “Self-Selection Patterns in Mexico-US Migration: The Role of Migration Networks.Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(4):811–821.

Long-term Institutional Development and Economic Performance

There is a heated ongoing debate in the field of long term economic development on whether it is geography or ‘institutions’ that has the more important direct effect on current economic performance.  However, one area of consensus in this debate is that geography has an indirect effect on economic performance through its influence on the origin of institutions.  This consensus provides the motivation for a branch of the literature that seeks the geographic origins of economic institutions in the very long run.

This literature concentrates on the geographic and biogeographic endowments conducive to the onset and diffusion of economic development over the past millennia.  Its starting point is the Neolithic revolution (approx. 10,000 B.C.), that is, the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture and domestication, which led in turn to higher population density, more complex social and economic systems, and the emergence of the state above the tribal level.  The conventional explanation for this deep technological and social change maintains that environmental advantages were instrumental in bringing about the increase of agricultural productivity relative to foraging.  This, combined with the ability to store food, facilitated population agglomeration and the emergence of a non-food producing elite as well as the creation of rudimentary states to oversee the provision of defense.  Although empirical research has found evidence that supports this theory, recent research presents interesting challenges to the received wisdom.  A competing theory argues, for example, that the origin of a non-food producing elite and the emergence of more complex social institutions did not depend on the availability of food surplus but was instead a result of the appropriability of cereal crops from farmers.

Bockstette, Valerie, Areendam Chanda and Louis Putterman (2002). “States and Markets: The Advantage of an Early Start.” Journal of Economic Growth, 7(4): 347-69. [Working paper version]

Borcan, Oana, Ola Olsson, Louis Putterman (2014) “State History and Economic Development: Evidence from Six Millennia.” Working Paper.

Boserup, Ester (1965) The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London.

Diamond, Jared (1999) Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W. W. Norton.

Gennaioli, Nicola and Ilia Rainer (2007) “The modern impact of precolonial centralization in Africa” Journal of Economic Growth, 12(3): 185-234. [Working paper version]

Mayshar, Joram, Omer Moav, Zvika Neeman and Luigi Pascali (2015) “Cereals, Appropriability and Hierarchy.” Working Paper.

Montesquieu, Charles, 1750. In: Anne M. Cohler, Basia C. Miller and Harold S. Stone (Eds.), 1989. The Spirit of Laws. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

North, Douglass (1982) Structure and Change in Economic History. W.W. Norton & Co., New York.

Nunn, Nathan and Diego Puga (2012) “Ruggedness: The Blessing of Bad Geography in Africa.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(1): 20-36. [Working paper version]

Olsson, Ola and Douglas A. Hibbs (2005) “Biogeography and long-run economic development.” European Economic Review 49: 909 – 938. [Working paper version]

Spolaore, Enrico and Romain Wacziarg (2013) How Deep Are the Roots of Economic Development? Journal of Economic Literature, 51(2): 325–369 . [Working paper version]

Contracting Institutions and International Trade

The quality of contracting institutions is among the most important determinants of the relationship between buyers and sellers engaged in international trade.  Contractual frictions are magnified in international trade by the fact that if one of the parties reneges on a written contract the dispute has to be resolved in local courts (as opposed to international courts) even though the parties are residents of different countries.  This imbalance causes the risk for opportunistic behavior in an international transaction to be greater than in a domestic one and helps to explain why international trade flows are generally significantly lower than domestic trade flows.  Moreover, the fact that contracting institutions are generally worse in developing countries than they are in developed ones means that potential gains from trade are being lost, as is technology transfer from developed to developing countries.   At the same time, recent research has shown that variation in the quality of contracting institutions is actually a source of comparative advantage, which in turn determines trade patterns.

While problems with formal contract enforcement in developing countries tend to exacerbate opportunistic behavior, in some settings informal mechanisms have been put in place to try to improve enforcement.  Informal mechanisms require either repeated interaction leading to reputation and trust or other side constraints to try to improve enforcement.  This is particularly important in the trade of perishable goods where the short life of a product makes it impractical to write and enforce a contract on a supplier’s reliability.  Other mechanisms rely on the financing terms used in the transactions.  An exporter can require the importer to pay for goods before they are shipped, can allow the importer to pay after the goods have arrived at their destination, or can use some form of bank intermediation such as a letter of credit.  The chosen financing terms depend on the countries’ institutional settings of the parties participating in the transaction.  Transactions are more likely to require cash in advance or a letter of credit when the importer is located in a country with weak contractual enforcement.  As an importer develops a relationship with the exporter, transactions are less likely to occur on terms that require prepayment.

The theoretical literature has developed a variety of models that capture institutional features such as enforcement problems, insurance considerations or uncertainty over the parties’ commitment to the relationship.  More recently the availability of microdata has allowed researchers to test the predictions of these models and discover which features are the most relevant for international trade.  Some results suggest that exporters tend to sell larger volumes to countries with good contracting institutions than to countries with weak institutions; experience built via repeated interaction helps exporters to select reliable importers; and banks are more effective than the exporter in pursuing financial claims against importers.

 

Araujo Luis, Giordano Mion and Emanuel Ornelas (2015) “Institutions and Export Dynamic ” Journal of International Economics, forthcoming.

Antràs, Pol, and Fritz C Foley (Forthcoming) “Poultry in Motion: A Study of International Trade Finance PracticesJournal of Political Economy. [Working paper version]

Greif, Avner (2005) “Commitment, Coercion, and Markets: The Nature and Dynamics of Institutions Supporting  Exchange” In: Handbook of New Institutional Economics, ed. C. Menard and M. M. Shirley. New York: Springer

Levchenko, Andrei A. (2007) “Institutional quality and international trade.” The Review of Economic Studies74(3): 791-819. [Working paper version]

Macchiavello, Rocco, and Ameet Morjaria (2015) “The Value of Relationships: Evidence from a Supply Shock to Kenyan Rose Exports.” American Economic Review, 105(9): 2911-45. [Working paper version]

Nunn, Nathan (2007) “Relationship-Specificity, Incomplete Contracts and the Pattern of Trade.Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (2), pp. 569-600.

Rodrik, Dani (2000) “How Far Will International Economic Integration Go?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1): 177-186

Williamson, Oliver (1985) “The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting.”  The Free Press.

Global Inequality, Investment, and Trade Frictions in Capital Goods

Since 1950 the global Gini coefficient for between-country income inequality has stood at about 55, reflecting a twenty five-fold difference in wealth between the richest and poorest countries. A well-known stylized fact underpinning this feature of the world economy is that the real investment rate of wealthy countries such as Norway and the United States is roughly two to three times that of poor countries such as Mali and Kenya.  Based on this evidence, the literature seeking to understand international inequality has attributed a key role to differences in physical capital intensity.

The early literature attributes low capital intensity to low savings rates, combined with limited international capital mobility.  Low savings rates have been attributed in turn to poor institutions, and policies that result in high effective tax rates on capital income such as high explicit tax rates, high discount rates, and high dependency ratios.  Alternatively, low-saving traps have been attributed to subsistence consumption needs.  This line of reasoning formed the intellectual foundations for the lending work of institutions such as the World Bank.

A more recent strand of the literature assigns a central role to factors that directly determine the cost of capital.  From this perspective, poor countries have low real investment rates because they tax capital goods, erect or endure barriers to trade in capital goods, or grant monopoly rights to domestic capital goods producers.  Recent contributions to this literature have been organized around an Eaton Kortum (EK) model wherein capital can grow both through domestic and imported capital formation.  Within this framework, trade frictions have been identified as quantitatively important in understanding why standards of living and measured total factor productivity between the richest and poorest countries differ by so much.

Carroll, C.D., B.-K. Rhee, and C. Rhee (1994); “Are here Cultural Effects on Saving? Some Cross-Sectional Evidence.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(3): 685–99.

Caselli, F., and J. Feyrer, (2007); “The Marginal Product of Capital.Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (2): 535–568. [Working paper version]

Easterly, W., and S. Rebelo. 1993. “Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(3): 417–58.

Eaton, J., and S. Kortum, (2001); “Trade in Capital Goods.European Economic Review 45:1195–1235. [Working paper version]

Higgins, M., and J.G. Williamson, (1997); “Age Structure Dynamics in Asia and Dependence on Foreign Capital.Population and Development Review, 23(2): 261–93.

Hsieh, C.-T., (2001); “Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Cross-National Evidence: Comment.” In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000, Volume 15, NBER Chapters. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, 325–330.

Hsieh, C.-T. and P.J. Klenow, (2007); “Relative Prices and Relative Prosperity.American Economic Review 97 (3):562–585. [Working paper version]

Rodriguez, Francisco and Dani Rodrik. 2001. “Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Cross-National Evidence.” In NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000, Volume 15, NBER Chapters. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, 261–325.

Waugh, M.E., (2010); “International Trade and Income Differences.American Economic Review 100 (5):2093–2124.

Institutions, Firm Growth, and Economic Development

The macroeconomic institutions literature has demonstrated the importance of institutions in promoting economic development and growth.  Economists are now digging deeper to understand the microfoundations of this growth at the level of individual firms.  A feature of developing economies is that fledgling firms find it more difficult to grow than their counterparts in developed countries and remain small throughout their lives.  Seeking to explain this feature, a popular hypothesis is that small firms find it difficult to grow because capital markets do not function efficiently and so firms are credit constrained.  But if this were true then small developing country firms should exhibit high productivity at the margin.  Recent detailed econometric work at the firm level has found that firm level productivity in developing countries is in fact quite low.

A new literature proposes that firms in developing countries are unproductive due to poor management, an idea first introduced by Penrose (1959) but only tested recently through the emergence of appropriate data.  This new literature argues that firms in developing countries remain small because, in the presence of weak contract enforcement institutions, it is difficult for them to incentivize managers appropriately.  As a result managerial decisions are restricted to the families who own the firms, limiting the potential for firm growth.  A striking predictor of firm size in developing countries is the number of male members in the family that owns the firm.  Although progress has been made recently in understanding the importance of institutions for managerial effectiveness, many questions remain open.  For example, what is the external validity of the findings for management effectiveness in the sectors where this research has been undertaken?  What are the links to established theories of management?  Can field experiments be used to discover the most effective management practices?

Akcigit, Ufuk, Harun Alp, and Michael Peters (2014) “Lack of Selection and Limits to Delegation: Firm Dynamics in Developing Countries”, Working Paper.

Beck, Thorsten, Asli Demirgüç-Kunt, and Vojislav Maksimovic (2005) “Financial and Legal Constraints to Firm Growth: Does Firm Size Matter?”, Journal of Finance, 60: 137-177. [Working paper version]

Bloom, Nicholas., and John Van Reenen (2007): “Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (4): 1351-1408 [Working paper version]

Bloom, Nicholas., and John Van Reenen  (2010): “Why Do Management Practices Differ across Firms and Countries?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(1): 203–224.

La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes , Andrei Shleifer, and Robert W. Vishny, (1997) “Legal Determinants of External Finance”, Journal of Finance 52: 1131- 1150.

Laeven Luc and Christopher Woodruff (2007) “The Quality of the Legal System, Firm Ownership, and Firm Size”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(4): 601-614. [Working paper version]

Hsieh, Chang-Tai and Benjamin A. Olken (2014) “The Missing ‘Missing Middle’”,  Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3): 89–108.

Penrose, Edith T. (1959) Theory of the Growth of Firms. J. Wiley & Sons, New York

Social Networks and Development Outcomes

In countries where property rights and the rule of law are poorly enforced, and markets fail or are missing, social networks play a fundamental role.  Social connections solve information and commitment problems, which enable individuals to have access to credit and insurance or employers to find employees better suited for the jobs that become available.

But showing that the social networks improve the economic outcomes of their members is a challenge.  Recently, richer datasets and new models started to provide greater precision in distinguishing social forces, such as diffusion of information, norms, and peer pressure and different ways that they affect economic decisions.  These social forces all depend in different ways on the network structure.

Regarding the analysis of the network structures themselves, a promising research area is the study of small communities in developing countries.  They tend to be relatively closed, thus yielding a holistic view of the patterns of interaction and an unusual degree of control in field experiments.  The diffusion of microfinance, education, and vaccination are examples of research topics that have been explored recently in field experiments. But many questions are still unanswered. For example, the mechanism through which the network structure affects decisions on migration, social mobility, income inequality, and job allocation are not fully understood and could benefit from further investigation.

Alatas, Vivi, Abhijit Banerjee, Arun G. Chandrasekhar, Rema Hanna, and Benjamin A. Olken (2012) “Network Structure and the Aggregation of Information: Theory and Evidence from Indonesia.NBER Working Paper 18351[Working paper version]

Banerjee, Abhijit, Arun G. Chandrasekhar, Esther Duflo, and Matthew O. Jackson (2013) “The Diffusion of Microfinance.” Science 341(6144).

Beaman, Lori (2012) “Social Networks and the Dynamics of Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence from Refugees Resettled in the U.S.” Review of Economic Studies, 79(1): 128–61.[Working paper version]

Bloch, Francis, Garance Genicot, and Debraj Ray (2008) “Informal Insurance in Social Networks.” Journal of Economic Theory, 143(1): 36–58.[Working paper version]

Dhillon, Amrita, Vegard Iversen, and Gaute Torsvik (2013) “Employee referral, social proximity and worker discipline: Theory and evidence from India.” CESifo Working Paper 4309.

Fafchamps, Marcel, and Susan Lund (2003) “Risk Sharing Networks in Rural Philippines.” Journal of Development Economics 71(2): 261–87.[Working paper version]

Jackson, Matthew O. (2014) “Networks in the Understanding of Economic Behaviors.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(4): 3-22.

Karlan, Dean, Markus Mobius, Tanya Rosenblat, and Adam Szeidl (2009) “Trust and Social Collateral.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3): 1307–61.[Working paper version]

McKenzie, David, and Hillel Rapoport (2007) “Network Effects and the Dynamics of Migration and Inequality: Theory and Evidence from Mexico.” Journal of Development Economics, 84(1): 1–24.[Working paper version]

McKenzie, David, and Hillel Rapoport (2010) “Self-Selection Patterns in Mexico–U.S. Migration:The Role of Migration Networks.Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(4): 811–21.

McMillan, John, and Christopher Woodruff (1999) “Interfirm Relationships and Informal Credit in Vietnam.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4): 1285–1320.[Working paper version]

Munshi, Kaivan. 2003. “Networks in the Modern Economy: Mexican Migrants in the U.S. Labor Market.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(2): 549–97.[Working paper version]

Munshi, Kaivan. 2014. “Community Networks and the Process of Development.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(4): 49-76.

Do Ethnic Divisions Matter for Civil Conflict?

Over the second half of the 20th century, civil conflicts (i.e. intra-state conflict) have become increasingly dominant and now account for a greater share of deaths and hardship than any other form of conflict (the main comparator being inter-state conflict).  Empirical research shows that economic variables, particularly poverty and income inequality, are important determinants of civil conflict and there are a variety of channels through which they take effect.  For example, in poor countries young men choose to join the conflict because their expected income from fighting is greater than the income that they would obtain from the labor market, especially if natural resources are under dispute.  On the other hand, low national income leads to weaker repressive capabilities of the state, making it unable to control insurgencies.

Although the earlier empirical evidence often highlights the association between economic conditions and civil conflict, there is limited understanding of how armed groups form and cohere.  A promising starting point is the analysis of ethnic ties and divisions, which are popularly viewed as the leading sources of group cohesion and inter-group civil conflict.  The two broad approaches on ethnic divisions are “primordialist” and “instrumental”.  The primordialist view takes the position that ethnic differences are deeply cultural, biological or psychological, and irreconcilable. The instrumental view treats ethnicity as a strategic basis for coalitions that seek a larger share of economic or political power.  Under either of these approaches, ethnicity can facilitate communication and cooperation within the group but at the same time it increases tensions between groups through asymmetric information and commitment problems.  But why ethnic groups themselves form and cohere in order to engage in violence is still an open question.

Blattman, Christopher and Edward Miguel (2010) “Civil War”, Journal of Economic Literature, 48:1, 3–57. [Working paper version]

Collier, Paul, and Anke Hoeffler (2004) “Greed and Grievance in Civil War”, Oxford Economic Papers, 56:563-595. [Working paper version]

Esteban, Joan,  Laura Mayora, and Debraj Ray (2012) “Ethnicity and Conflict: Theory and Facts”, Science 336: 858-865.

Esteban, Joan, and Debraj Ray (2011) “Linking Conflict to Inequality and Polarization”, American Economic Review, 101 (4):1345–74. [Working paper version]

Fearon, James, and David D. Laitin  (2003) “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.” American Political Science Review, 97 (March): 75–90. [Working paper version]

Horowitz, Donald L. (2001) Ethnic Groups in Conflict, University of California Press.

Miguel, Edward, Shanker Satyanath, and Ernest Sergenti (2004) “Economic Shocks and Civil Conflict:  An Instrumental Variables  Approach”,  Journal of Political Economy, 112(4):725-753. [Working paper version]

Natural Resources and Political Stability

There is increasing interest in how natural resources influence political stability. Under a dictatorial regime, political stability is determined by the ability of a ruling group to stay in power. If political power is the route to personal riches by the appropriation of natural resource income, remaining in power is that much more attractive. As well as facilitating personal enrichment, a dictator can use part of the income from natural resources to suppress opposition through various mechanisms. These include direct repression and undermining the formation of rival groups (“divide and rule”). In democracies, incumbent politicians can use natural resources to finance popular projects in order to increase their chances of remaining in power via reelection.

On the other hand, natural resources can also be a source of political instability. They create an incentive for the opposition to take over power, yielding access to natural resource rents.  Another possibility is for the opposition to seize a natural resource and use it to fund rebel activity. In both cases the survival of the political incumbent is less likely in the presence of natural resources. These sources of instability tend to be pervasive in non-democratic regimes.

Acemoglu, D., J.A. Robinson, and T. Verdier (2004); “Kleptocracy And Divide And Rule: A Theory of Personal Rule”, Journal of the European Economic Association, 2 (2-3): 162-192. [Working paper version]

Alexeev, M., and R. Conrad (2009); “The Elusive Curse of OilReview of Economics and Statistics, 91(3): 586-598.

Andersen, J. J., and S. Aslaksen (2013); “Oil and Political Survival.” Journal of Development Economics, 100(1): 89-106. [Working paper version]

Arezki, R., and T. Gylfason, (2013); “Resource rents, democracy and corruption: evidence from Sub-Saharan AfricaJournal of African Economies,  ejs036. [Working paper version]

Bhattacharyya, S., and R. Hodler, (2010); “Natural Resources, Democracy and CorruptionEuropean Economic Review, 54 (4): 608-621. [Working paper version]

Bjorvatn, K., and M. R. Farzanegan, (2014); “Resource Rents, Power, and Political StabilityCESIFO Working Paper No. 4727.

Collier, P., and A. Hoeffler, (2004); “Greed and Grievance in Civil WarOxford Economic Papers, 56: 563-95. [Working paper version]

Frankel, J. A., (2010); “The Natural Resource Curse: A Survey”, NBER Working Paper No.15836. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Gallego, M., and P. Pitchik, (2004); “An Economic Theory of Leadership Turnover.Journal of Public Economics, 88 (12): 2361-2382.

Lipset, S.M., (1960); Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Anchor Books, New York.

Mahdavy, H., (1970); “The Patterns and Problems of Economic Development.” Published in in M. A. Cook, (ed.); Rentier States: The Case of Iran, Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, Oxford University Press, London, pp. 428-67.

Robinson, J.A., and R. Torvik, (2005); “White Elephants.” Journal of Public Economics, 89 (2-3): 197-210. [Working paper version]

Robinson, J.A., and R. Torvik, (2008); “Endogenous Presidentialism.” NBER Working Paper No. 14603, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Robinson, J.A., R. Torvik and T. Verdier, (2006); “Political Foundations of the Resource Curse.” Journal of Development Economics, 79 (2): 447-468.

Sachs, J.D., and A. M. Warner, (1995); “Natural Resource Abundance and Economic Growth.” NBER Working Paper No. 5398. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

The Interaction between Economic Institutions and International Trade

The main focus of the recent literature on the economics of institutions has been on the role of institutions that define and enforce contracts and property rights in enhancing economic performance. A key finding of this literature is that countries with better rule of law and more private property rights protection have on average grown faster, where faster growth is associated with better allocative efficiency.  Yet a criticism of this literature is that there is a great deal of heterogeneity in institutions as well as in outcomes associated with a given institutional metric.

The literature on the interaction between economic institutions and international trade provides some insight into how such heterogeneity can arise. It does so by arguing that poor institutions can be a source of rent for some groups while institutions can also be a source of comparative advantage.  Consequently, the welfare consequences arising from the interaction between economic institutions and international trade are shown to be ambiguous.  For example, recent research shows that if (Ricardian) productivity is greater by a sufficiently large margin in the sector where the country has a comparative advantage, then comparative advantage is assured and opening to trade increases rent seeking, thereby reducing efficiency. But if productivity differences between countries are small then under trade they compete for the sector by improving institutional quality, and so trade liberalization increases efficiency.

Acemoglu, D., and J.A. Robinson, (2006); “Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy., Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Costinot, A., (2009); “On the Origins of Comparative Advantage.” Journal of International Economics, 77: 255-264. [Working paper version]

Dal Bó, E. and P. Dal Bó (2011); “Workers, Warriors and Criminals: Social Conflict in General Equilibrium.” Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(4): 646–677. [Working paper version]

Engerman, S.L., and K.L. Sokoloff, (1997); “Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Paths of Growth Among New World Economies: A View from Economic Historians of the United States.” Published in S. Harber (ed) How Latin America Fell Behind, Stanford University Press, Stanford. [Working paper version]

Garfinkel, M.R., S. Skaperdas, and C. Syropoulos, (2008); “Globalization and Domestic Conflict.” Journal of International Economics, 76(2): 296-308. [Working paper version]

Levchenko, A., (2007); “Institutional Quality and International Trade.” Review of Economic Studies, 74:3 (July 2007), 791-819. [Working paper version]

Levchenko, A.A., (2013); “International Trade and Institutional Change.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(5): 1145-1181. [Working paper version]

Nunn, N., (2007); “Relationship-Specificity, Incomplete Contracts, and the Pattern of Trade.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2): 569-600.