Suchergebnisse

This paper investigates the claim that colonial history has left an enduring imprint on Africa's institutional and economic development. The literature following Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2001) and Sokoloff and Engerman (2000) maintains that different types of colonialism affected the institutional environment differently, and that path-dependence subsequently ensures that these institutional differences and their impact on economic performance are persistent over time. By tracing the impact of colonial institutions on contemporary institutions over time, I show that – in contrast to claims in this literature – the relevance of colonial legacies to institutional quality and to per capita income is rapidly disappearing in Africa. Differences in institutional quality or income are explained less and less by colonial legacy, while there is some evidence that precolonial social and geographical circumstances are becoming more important. I conclude that while colonialism has affected African institutional and economic development significantly, this impact is not persistent. Rather, the evidence suggests that colonialism has created a large but very temporary institutional shock, after which a long-run equilibrium is being restored.

AbstractThis paper investigates the claim that colonial history has left an enduring imprint on Africa's institutional and economic development. The literature following Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2001) and Sokoloff and Engerman (2000) maintains that different types of colonialism affected the institutional environment differently, and that path-dependence subsequently ensures that these institutional differences and their impact on economic performance are persistent over time. By tracing the impact of colonial institutions on contemporary institutions over time, I show that – in contrast to claims in this literature – the relevance of colonial legacies to institutional quality and to per capita income is rapidly disappearing in Africa. Differences in institutional quality or income are explained less and less by colonial legacy, while there is some evidence that precolonial social and geographical circumstances are becoming more important. I conclude that while colonialism has affected African institutional and economic development significantly, this impact is not persistent. Rather, the evidence suggests that colonialism has created a large but very temporary institutional shock, after which a long-run equilibrium is being restored.

Abstract:This comment criticizes Ha-Joon Chang's assessment of contemporary institutionalism, in his article entitled 'Institutions and Economic Development: Theory, Policy and History', for failing to show fundamental problems in the discourse. I argue that the current discourse's insights are structurally biased because it fails to satisfactorily address methodological problems of doing meaningful comparative research. The discourse is characterized by a limited focus on differences of degree, a neglect of interaction, and a tendency to represent societies from a partial perspective. The result is an unbalanced debate that tends towards equating developed country institutions with economic success.

This paper explains the observed combination of relatively low levels of democracy and positive attitudes towards it in the Muslim world. It argues that this democracy paradox is understandable from the perspective of the principle of diminishing marginal utility: people value highly that of which they have little. This reasoning implies, however, that surveys like the World Values Surveys (WVS) elicit circumstance-driven marginal preferences rather than culturally determined attitudinal traits. Empirical evidence showing that individuals living in undemocratic societies have much more favorable inclinations towards democracy supports our argument. Adapted from the source document.

Extant institutional research has failed to make a distinction between the effects of institutional profile and institutional distance on MNEs. The problem stems from the fact that, due to the use of a single reference country, variation in institutional distance between the reference country and partner countries is essentially equal to variation in the institutional profiles of these partner countries, making institutional distance and institutional profile effects indistinguishable. This research begins by demonstrating that the problem of profile - distance conflation is relevant for virtually all possible countries as reference points, and then showing how this problem is mitigated by using more than one country as reference points from which to calculate institutional distance. We conclude that current institutional research in international business is unable to explain how institutions matter for MNEs and that a more careful theoretical and empirical distinction between the effects of institutions and institutional distance on cross-border business activities is essential for pushing the institutional perspective in international business studies forward. Multiple reference point research designs are required to achieve this.