Nice. Do want to note one thing though because it's kind of pet peeve. Economic theory predicts *conditional* convergence not absolute convergence which is believe is what you have in your graph. Absolute convergence may have come and gone and come and gone, but conditional convergence has more or less always been true, regardless of time period. It never went away.
Of course one can argue that at some point the "conditionals" are doing so much of the work that the distinction becomes meaningless, particularly when youre talking about abstract things like "quality of institutions". But even adding something fairly basic like investment rate gets you conditional convergence almost everywhere all the time
Very interesting article. I've recently been toying with an idea of path dependence when it comes to deliberation publics, and had an inkling that this could be applied to countries and institutions more broadly. It's nice to see that lots of that research seems to be well under way and seems to validate my thoughts!
I wrote an essay on an explanatory (as opposed to statistical) hypothesis/framework for how this path dependence might work if you are interested.
There definitely seems to be a Deep Roots reason that China is able to come roaring back after a century or two of humiliation. Have you looked at all at Thomas Sowell’s empirical work on “cultures”? it’s not race. It’s not historical contingencies or fixed paths exactly. Not institutions exactly. It definitely involved diaspora movements of peoples but also cultural commitments to things like education, business acumen, wealth seeking, etc.
The issue with Putterman is this. Under his method, if African American were their own country, they get white European score of 20. If a South African style country 20 percent full white and 80 percent full black, they still have the same score of 20. Mostly because of the Europe admixture in AA.
Just look at Latin American data. As people are aware, it is mostly mixed raced place. Yet, this data set does not reflect that. For Mexico, for example, the data point is basically saying that Mexico is x European
Hm, I'm not sure what you mean. The migration data reflect Latin American mixed ancestry with fractional ancestral shares, and yes, for Mexico, it's roughly 30% European ancestry?
But that European ancestry is not pure European, and it is spread out throughout the population. Some Mexican are 5 percent Europe, some are 80 percent , etc. We also don’t have good overall admixture data on Mexico and other places in Latin America. If you search online, it ranges from 30 to 50 percent.
But look at Argentina data point. Argentina leans Europoean, but is mostly a mixed raced country. The data does not reflect this well and cluster it with Russia.
Nice. Do want to note one thing though because it's kind of pet peeve. Economic theory predicts *conditional* convergence not absolute convergence which is believe is what you have in your graph. Absolute convergence may have come and gone and come and gone, but conditional convergence has more or less always been true, regardless of time period. It never went away.
Of course one can argue that at some point the "conditionals" are doing so much of the work that the distinction becomes meaningless, particularly when youre talking about abstract things like "quality of institutions". But even adding something fairly basic like investment rate gets you conditional convergence almost everywhere all the time
Very interesting article. I've recently been toying with an idea of path dependence when it comes to deliberation publics, and had an inkling that this could be applied to countries and institutions more broadly. It's nice to see that lots of that research seems to be well under way and seems to validate my thoughts!
I wrote an essay on an explanatory (as opposed to statistical) hypothesis/framework for how this path dependence might work if you are interested.
There definitely seems to be a Deep Roots reason that China is able to come roaring back after a century or two of humiliation. Have you looked at all at Thomas Sowell’s empirical work on “cultures”? it’s not race. It’s not historical contingencies or fixed paths exactly. Not institutions exactly. It definitely involved diaspora movements of peoples but also cultural commitments to things like education, business acumen, wealth seeking, etc.
The issue with Putterman is this. Under his method, if African American were their own country, they get white European score of 20. If a South African style country 20 percent full white and 80 percent full black, they still have the same score of 20. Mostly because of the Europe admixture in AA.
No Putterman here, buddy.
Migration data is from Putterman
It thought you were mistaking the paper for his (and Weil’s).
Just look at Latin American data. As people are aware, it is mostly mixed raced place. Yet, this data set does not reflect that. For Mexico, for example, the data point is basically saying that Mexico is x European
Hm, I'm not sure what you mean. The migration data reflect Latin American mixed ancestry with fractional ancestral shares, and yes, for Mexico, it's roughly 30% European ancestry?
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/02/puttermans_comm.html
But that European ancestry is not pure European, and it is spread out throughout the population. Some Mexican are 5 percent Europe, some are 80 percent , etc. We also don’t have good overall admixture data on Mexico and other places in Latin America. If you search online, it ranges from 30 to 50 percent.
But look at Argentina data point. Argentina leans Europoean, but is mostly a mixed raced country. The data does not reflect this well and cluster it with Russia.