Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development

Abstract

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.

Analysing training and education in ports

“…Notwithstanding these effects, that arise 'spontaneously' as a result of decisions of individuals, in most clusters, firms and governments actively invest to improve the quality of labour in the cluster. Clusters differ in the extent to which relevant stakeholders invest in improving the quality and availability of labour, and such differences can persist over long periods of time (see Storper, 1995 andRodrik et al 2004). Such investments have hardly been analysed, even though such initiatives may be very relevant for the competitiveness of the cluster (Wolfe and Gertler, 2004).…”

From physical to general spaces: A spatial econometric analysis of cross-country economic growth and institutions

“…New growth theorists emphasize the crucial role of technological change in economic growth. But accumulation of physical and human capital and technological change are at best proximate causes of economic growth (Rodrik et al 2002). If ''ultimate source of growth is ......, in fact, the knowledge and skills a society invest in'' (North 1993), North questions when and under what conditions economic actors will be motivated to invest in knowledge.…”

“…Scully's work has spurred a subsequent wave of cross-country analyses with the focus on examining the institutional dimensions of economic development. While this new wave of investigation does provide some positive evidence (see, for example, Ali 1997 ;Norton 1998;Grubel 1998;Farr et al 1998;Ayal and Georgios 1998;Dawson 1998;Hall andJones 1996, 1999;Leschke 2000;Rodrik et al 2002), the literature has been dominated by models in which spatial location is ignored and each individual country (or economy) is assumed to interact equally with all the others. Despite the fact that theoretical mechanisms of free trade, foreign direct investment and technological diffusion that are argued to drive the globalization phenomenon (Segerstrom 2000;Zweimu¨ller 2000;Keller 2002) have explicit geographical components, the role of spatial effects in the development studies has been virtually ignored.…”

Corruption and total factor productivity: level or growth effects?

“…2 Lambsdorff (2003) studies how corruption affects the productivity level of capital, finding support for corruption lowering productivity and suggesting that the negative impact of corruption on capital productivity manifests via its correlation with a poor quality of the bureaucracy. Hence, institutional variables seem to influence not only the growth rate of an economy but also its income or productivity levels (Rodrik et al 2004).…”