One of the great debates in economics concerns the determinants of economic development, investment and growth. Most recently, this literature has focused on whether geography or institutions play the more decisive role in determining economic development. A major issue in this debate concerns the appropriate treatment of the endogeneity of the economic institutions themselves. Much of the literature has been concerned with finding valid instruments to control for this endogeneity, or with finding natural experiments in which institutions changed exogenously such as the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is probably fair to say that explanations centring on key institutions that enforce contractual arrangements and protect property rights from expropriation by the state dominate the literature at the present time. But recent work has made a persuasive case that both institutions and geography matter by studying the interaction of colonial history and geography to identify the partial effects of institutions and geographical endowments. An early concern of the growth literature was on how resources move from agriculture to a ‘modern’ manufacturing sector, and another recent theme takes insights on the importance of geography and institutions to return to that earlier issue of how resources move between sectors. With the importance of ‘clusters’ of institutions now generally accepted, another strand of the literature seeks to identify in greater detail the precise mechanisms through which particular institutions enhance economic activity.
Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J. A. Robinson (2001); “The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation.” American Economic Review, 91(5): 1369-1401. [Working paper version]
Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J. A. Robinson (2002); “Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the Making of Modern World Income Distribution.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4): 1231-1294. [Working paper version]
Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J. A. Robinson (2005); “Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long Run Growth.” Published in P.M. Aghion and S.N. Durlauf (eds) Handbook of Economic Growth 1A, 385–472. Amsterdam: Elsevier [Working paper version]
Auer, R. (2013); “Geography, Institutions, and the Making of Comparative Development.” Journal of Economic Growth, 18(2), pages 179-215. [Working paper version]
Dort, T., P.-G. Méon and K. Sekkat (2013); “Does Investment Spur Growth Everywhere? Not Where Institutions Are Weak.” CEB Working Paper N° 13/030. [Working paper version]
Eicher, T., and T. Schreiber (2010); “Structural Policies and Growth: Time Series Evidence from a Natural Experiment” Journal of Development Economics, 91(1): 169-179. [Working paper version]
Gallup, J.L., J.D. Sachs, and A.D. Mellinger (1998); “Geography and Economic Development.” In Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1998 (April), The World Bank: Washington, DC. [Working paper version]
Hall, R.E., and C.I. Jones (1999); “Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output per Worker Than Others?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1): 83-116. [Working paper version]
Hibbs, D., and O. Olsson (2004); “Geography, Biogeography, and Why some Countries are Rich and Others are Poor.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101: 3715-3720. [Working paper version]
Lim, J., (2013) “Institutional and Structural Determinants of Investment Worldwide.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6591. [Working paper version]
Klenow, P.J., and A. Rodriguez-Clare (1997); “The Neoclassical Revival in Growth Economics: Has it Gone Too Far?” Published in B. Bernanke and J. J. Rotemberg (eds.), NBER Macroeconomics Annual. Cambridge and London: MIT Press, pp. 73–103.
We would like to welcome the following new members of the InsTED network
Prof Chad P. Bown (World Bank) His research interests are in the political economy of international trade laws and institutions, trade policy negotiations, and trade disputes.
Dr Qi Zhang (LSE & University of Oxford) His primary research fields are international trade, and industrial organization, with secondary fields in macroeconomics, and monetary economics.
We would like to welcome the following new members of the InsTED network
Ahmad Lashkaripour (Penn State University) His research interests are in international trade, and industrial organization.
Prof Andrei Levchenko (University of Michigan) His research to date studies the interplay between international trade and economic institutions, the impact of trade on macroeconomic fluctuations, and the consequences of financial integration for growth, volatility, and risk-sharing.
Prof Anna Maria Mayda (Georgetown University) Her research interests are in international trade, political economy, and international migration.
DFID, the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation (CAITEC) and the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MofCom) wish to explore the potential for working together to enhance the trade performance of African countries, and its development impact. They have agreed to jointly conduct a country-specific study on the potential and challenges of African trade relations with China and the UK. The first set of studies will focus on 4 countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa. The findings of the research will provide a basis for discussions about how the UK and China can most usefully collaborate on this issue.
As part of this joint assessment, DFID wishes to engage a service provider (SP) over a period of 1 year to conduct a research study to assess how trade, and trade-related cooperation with China and the UK can most effectively support growth, structural transformation and poverty reduction in Kenya and South Africa. In addition, the SP will be required to liaise closely with a Chinese research team under CAITEC carrying out equivalent work on Nigeria and Ethiopia, sharing information on methodologies and data sources as appropriate.
The SP will be responsible for: formulating and agreeing with CAITEC a methodology and workplan for the research; conducting the research in Kenya and South Africa; maintaining close contact with the CAITEC-led research on Nigeria and Ethiopia; and packaging and presenting the analysis and recommendations to key policy makers and practitioners representing the UK, China and the African countries.
For the purposes of this call, applicants can be an individual organisation or a consortium of organisations applying through 1 lead organisation. Applicants will need to demonstrate capability and experience in (i) delivering high quality analysis of trade and trade policy issues; (ii) managing and conducting stakeholder consultations including with the private sector as well as policymakers and government entities; (iii) getting research into use, i.e. delivering and effectively communicating well-grounded policy advice so as to achieve impact. They will also need to demonstrate how they will work with CAITEC in order to ensure coherence and quality across the overall research programme.
The contract will be issued for 1 year. The successful SP will be chosen based on technical and commercial proposals for implementation, as described in the terms of reference. (PDF, 48.5KB, 9 pages)
Potential applicants will be invited to fill in a pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ) which will include 4 technical questions covering experience, approach and process. Up to 5 applicants will be shortlisted and invited to submit full proposals at the invitation to tender (ITT).
Interested parties can register their interest on the DFID Supplier Portal
Please note the following envisaged dates and times for PQQ:
- PQQ intended for publication on 1 October 2013
- PQQ envisaged response deadline: 25 October 2013 at 2.00pm
Additional information and timelines will be provided within the PQQ documentation.
Click here to view the original post.
Kose, M.A., E. Prasad, K. Rogoff and S.-J. Wei (2009) “Financial Globalization: A Reappraisal” IMF Staff Papers 56(1): 8-62. [Working paper version]