We estimate the respective contributions of institutions, geography, and trade in determining income levels around the world, using recently developed instrumental variables for institutions and trade. Our results indicate that the quality of institutions "trumps" everything else. Once institutions are controlled for, conventional measures of geography have at best weak direct effects on incomes, although they have a strong indirect effect by influencing the quality of institutions. Similarly, once institutions are controlled for, trade is almost always insignificant, and often enters the income equation with the "wrong" (i.e., negative) sign. We relate our results to recent literature, and where differences exist, trace their origins to choices on samples, specification, and instrumentation.The views expressed in this paper are the authors' own and not of the institutions with which they are affiliated. We thank three referees, Chad Jones, James Robinson, Will Masters, and participants at the Harvard-MIT development seminar, joint IMF-World Bank Seminar, and the Harvard econometrics workshop for their comments, Daron Acemoglu for helpful conversations, and Simon Johnson for providing us with his data. Dani Rodrik gratefully acknowledges support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

We estimate the respective contributions of institutions, geography, and trade in determining income levels around the world, using recently developed instrumental variables for institutions and trade. Our results indicate that the quality of institutions "trumps" everything else. Once institutions are controlled for, conventional measures of geography have at best weak direct effects on incomes, although they have a strong indirect effect by influencing the quality of institutions. Similarly, once institutions are controlled for, trade is almost always insignificant, and often enters the income equation with the "wrong" (i.e., negative) sign. We relate our results to recent literature, and where differences exist, trace their origins to choices on samples, specification, and instrumentation.The views expressed in this paper are the authors' own and not of the institutions with which they are affiliated. We thank three referees, Chad Jones, James Robinson, Will Masters, and participants at the Harvard-MIT development seminar, joint IMF-World Bank Seminar, and the Harvard econometrics workshop for their comments, Daron Acemoglu for helpful conversations, and Simon Johnson for providing us with his data. Dani Rodrik gratefully acknowledges support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Tressel, and especially Aart Kraay and two anonymous referees for helpful comments. Manzoor Gill and Ioannis Tokatlidis provided superb research assistance. This paper reflects the authors' views and not necessarily those of the International Monetary Fund, its management, or its Executive Board. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peerreviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

This paper furnishes robust evidence that the WTO has had a strong positive impact on trade, amounting to about 120 percent of additional world trade (or US$ 8 trillion in 2000 alone). The impact has, however, been uneven. This, in many ways, is consistent with theoretical models of the GATT/WTO. The theory suggests that the impact of a country's membership in the GATT/WTO depends on what the country does with its membership, with whom it negotiates, and which products the negotiation covers. Using a properly specified gravity model, we find evidence broadly consistent with these predictions. First, industrial countries that participated more actively than developing countries in reciprocal trade negotiations witnessed a large increase in trade. Second, bilateral trade was greater when both partners undertook liberalization than when only one partner did. Third, sectors that did not witness liberalization did not see an increase in trade.

Contrary to the predictions of standard theoretical models, non-industrial countries that have relied more on foreign finance have not grown faster in the long run. By contrast, growth and the extent of foreign financing are positively correlated in industrial countries. We argue that the reason for this difference may lie in the limited ability of non-industrial countries to absorb foreign capital -especially because of the difficulty their financial systems have to allocate it to productive uses, and because of the proneness of these countries to exchange rate appreciation (and, often, overvaluation) when faced with such inflows. Our paper suggests that the current anomaly of poor countries financing rich countries may not really hurt the former's growth, at least conditional on their existing institutional and financial structures. Our results do not imply that there is no role for foreign finance in the process of economic development or that it is natural for all types of capital to flow "uphill". Indeed, the patterns of foreign direct investment flows have generally been more in line with the predictions of theory. However, there is no evidence that providing additional financing in excess of domestic savings is the channel through which financial integration delivers its benefits. 1 We are grateful to