Economic Growth: Lecture 1, Questions and Evidence

14.452 Economic Growth: Lecture 1, Questions and Evidence Daron Acemoglu MIT October 21, 2014 Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 1 / 39

Cross-Country Income Differences Cross-Country Income Differences Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 2 / 39

0.00005.0001.00015.0002.00025 Density of coutries Growth and Development: The Questions and Evidence Cross-Country Income Differences Cross-Country Income Differences (continued) There are very large differences in income per capita and output per worker across countries today. 1960 1980 2000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 gdp per capita Figure: Distribution of PPP-adjusted GDP per capita. Courtesy of Princeton University Press. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 3 / 39

Cross-Country Income Differences Cross-Country Income Differences (continued) Part of the spreading out of the distribution in the Figure is because of the increase in average incomes. More natural to look at the log of income per capita when growth is approximately proportional: when x (t) grows at a proportional rate, log x (t) grows linearly, if x 1 (t) and x 2 (t) both grow by 10%, x 1 (t) x 2 (t) will also grow, while log x 1 (t) log x 2 (t) will remain constant. The next Figure shows a similar pattern, but now the spreading-out is more limited. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 4 / 39

0.1.2.3.4 Density of coutries Growth and Development: The Questions and Evidence Cross-Country Income Differences Cross-Country Income Differences (continued) 1960 1980 2000 6 7 8 9 10 11 log gdp per capita Figure: Estimates of the distribution of countries according to log GDP per capita (PPP-adjusted) in 1960, 1980 and 2000. Courtesy of Princeton University Press. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 5 / 39

Cross-Country Income Differences Cross-Country Income Differences (continued) Theory is easier to map to data when we look at output (GDP) per worker. Moreover, key sources of difference in economic performance across countries are national policies and institutions. The next Figure looks at the unweighted distribution of countries according to (PPP-adjusted) GDP per worker workers : total economically active population according to the definition of the International Labour Organization. Overall, two important facts: 1 Large amount of inequality in income per capita and income per worker across countries. 2 Slight but noticeable increase in inequality across nations (though not necessarily across individuals in the entire world). Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 6 / 39

0.1.2.3.4 Density of coutries Growth and Development: The Questions and Evidence Cross-Country Income Differences Cross-Country Income Differences (continued) 1960 1980 2000 6 8 10 12 log gdp per worker Figure: Distribution of log GDP per worker (PPP-adjusted). Courtesy of Princeton University Press. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 7 / 39

6 7 8 9 10 log gdp per capita Economic Growth and Income Differences Economic Growth and Income Differences USA UK Spain Brazil South Korea Singapore Guatemala Botswana India Nigeria 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 year Figure: The evolution of income per capita 1960-2000. Courtesy of Princeton University Press. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 8 / 39

Economic Growth and Income Differences Economic Growth and Income Differences Why is the United States richer in 1960 than other nations and able to grow at a steady pace thereafter? How did Singapore, South Korea and Botswana manage to grow at a relatively rapid pace for 40 years? Why did Spain grow relatively rapidly for about 20 years, but then slow down? Why did Brazil and Guatemala stagnate during the 1980s? What is responsible for the disastrous growth performance of Nigeria? Central questions for understanding how the capitalist system works and the origins of economic growth. Central questions also for policy and welfare, since differences in income related to living standards, consumption and health. Our first task is to develop a coherent framework to investigate these questions and as a byproduct we will introduce the workhorse models of dynamic economic analysis and macroeconomics. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 9 / 39

.6.7.8.9 1 1.1 log GDP per worker relative to the US in 2000 Growth and Development: The Questions and Evidence Persistence of Prosperity Origins of Income Differences and World Economic Growth LUX AUT BEL NOR USA SGP IRL FRA NLD HKG ITAISR AUS CHE GBR DNKCAN JPN ESP FIN ISL SWE NZL PRT MUS GRC TTO KOR CHLBRB MYS ARG GAB URY CRI PAN MEX ZAF IRN VEN GNQ BRA DZA DOM PRY COL EGY CPV TUR JOR THA ROM ECU GTM SLV PER LKA MAR PHL JAM NIC IDN ZWE CHN PAK BOL IND SYR CMR HND CIV GIN LSO SEN COG GHA NPL BEN NGA COM KEN MLI B FA MOZ UGA GMB TCD E MWI RWA TGO ZMB THGNB NER MDG TZA BDI.6.7.8.9 1 log GDP per worker relative to the US in 1960 Figure: Log GDP per worker in 1960 and 2000. Courtesy of Princeton University Press. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 10 / 39

6 7 8 9 10 log gdp per capita Growth and Development: The Questions and Evidence Origins of Income Differences and World Economic Growth Over Longer Periods Persistence and Divergence Western Offshoots Western Europe Asia Latin America Africa 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 year Figure: Evolution of GDP per capita 1820-2000. Courtesy of Princeton University Press. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 11 / 39

6 7 8 9 10 log gdp per capita Growth and Development: The Questions and Evidence Growth in the Last 200 Years Origins of Income Differences and World Economic Growth USA Spain Britain China Brazil India Ghana 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 year Figure: Evolution of income per capita in various countries. Courtesy of Princeton University Press. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 12 / 39

From Proximate to Fundamental Causes From Correlates to Fundamental Causes Correlates of economic growth, such as physical capital, human capital and technology, will be our first topic of study. But these are only proximate causes of economic growth and economic success: why do certain societies fail to improve their technologies, invest more in physical capital, and accumulate more human capital? Return to Figure above to illustrate this point further: how did South Korea and Singapore manage to grow, while Nigeria failed to take advantage of the growth opportunities? If physical capital accumulation is so important, why did Nigeria not invest more in physical capital? If education is so important, why our education levels in Nigeria still so low and why is existing human capital not being used more effectively? The answer to these questions is related to the fundamental causes of economic growth. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 13 / 39

Persistence, Reversal and Geography Persistence and Reversal But is there persistence even if we go further? If yes, this might suggest there are important unchanging factors affecting growth at the country level (such as geography). If, on the other hand, this persistence breaks down during periods of fundamental institutional change, this would put the spotlight on institutions. How to approximate prosperity/gdp before national accounts? Some proxies: Urbanization: before industrial times only more prosperous places (and those with agricultural surplus) could support large urban areas. Population density: similar justification. Focusing on the sample of former colonies, we do in fact see a sharp reversal from before colonization to today. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 14 / 39

Reversal of Fortune in Urbanization Persistence, Reversal and Geography. 10 USA CAN AUS SGP HKG NZL GDP per capita, PPP, in 1995 9 8 7 CHL ARG URY VEN BRA PRY GUY DOM JAM PHL HTI MYS COL PAN CRI BLZ GTM IDN SLV LKA HND NIC PAK VNM IND LAO BGD ECU PER BOL TUN DZA MEX EGY MAR 0 5 10 15 20 Urbanization in 1500 The Quarterly Journal of Economics. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 15 / 39

Persistence, Reversal and Geography Reversal of Fortune in Population Density. 10 CAN AUS SGP USA HKG NZL GDP per capita, PPP, in 1995 9 8 7 6 ARG URY BWA BRA NAM SUR GUY CHL BHS BRB VEN ZAF MYS KNA GAB MEX COL PAN TTO CRI LCA DOM GRD ECU TUN DMA PER BLZ DZA VCT GTM PRY JAM SWZ PHL IDN CPV MAR BOL SLV AGO ZWE HND LKA CMR NIC GIN COG MRTCOM CIV LSO GHA SEN GMB SDN PAK IND HTI CAF TGO VNM LAO KEN BEN UGA NPL ZMB TCD MDG ZAR NGA BFA BGD NER MLI ERI BDI MWI MOZ RWA -5 0 5 Log Population Density in 1500 TZA SLE EGY The Quarterly Journal of Economics. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 16 / 39

Reversal of Fortune: Timing Persistence, Reversal and Geography The Quarterly Journal of Economics. All rights reserved.this content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 17 / 39

Persistence, Reversal and Geography Reversal of Fortune: Role of Industrialization Industrial Production Per Capita, UK in 1900 = 100 (from Bairoch) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1750 1800 1830 1860 1880 1900 1913 1928 1953 US Australia Canada New Zealand Brazil Mexico India The Quarterly Journal of Economics. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see https://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 18 / 39

What about direct evidence of the effect of institutions of growth? Three types of evidence have been presented in the literature: 1 2 3 Country-level evidence on the long-run effects of institutions, exploiting potentially exogenous sources of variation (e.g., Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson, 2001). Within-country evidence on the long-run effects of institutional features that three across localities within a country (e.g., Dell, 2010). Growth regressions, focusing on shorter periods (such as decades or even shorter periods). Even though growth regressions are the most problematic from a variety of viewpoints (as we will discuss later), since they connect to some of the issues we will discuss in this course, I now provide evidence using a modified version of growth regressions. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 19 / 39

The Effects of Democracy on Growth Democracy is a key aspect of political institutions of a society. Much controversy on its merits, and many popular writings and some economists emphasize its weaknesses and distortions (which are indeed many). Relatedly, the conventional wisdom appears to be That democracy is not good for economic growth and main fact be bad. Is this true? Let me share results from Acemoglu, Naidu, Restrepo and Robinson (2014) attempting to answer these questions. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 20 / 39

Challenges of Estimating the Effect of Democracy Measuring democracy create a dichotomous measure of democracy, minimizing measurement error. Not comparing apples and oranges models that country fixed effects. Dynamics allow for mean reversion in income per capita exploiting our annual data. Sources of exogenous variation. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 21 / 39

Importance of Dynamics Democratizations are more likely to happen when nondemocracies are having economic diffi culties: Courtesy of Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 22 / 39

Method I: Panel Data Consider the following linear panel data model at annual frequency: p y ct = βd ct + γ j y ct j + α c + δ t + ε ct. j=1 Here y ct is the log of GDP per capita in country c at time t, and D ct is the dichotomous measure of democracy in country c in year t. In addition α c denote a full set of country fixed effects, the δ t denote a full set of year fixed effects, and ε ct is the error term. Note that this specification has level on the RHS rather than growth (does that matter?) It also imposes that democracy does not have a permanent effect on growth (does this matter?). Crucially, none of the intermediating variables like education or investment are controlled for on the right-hand side. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 23 / 39

Results: Importance of Dynamics Again Courtesy of Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 24 / 39

Inspecting the Residuals: The Case of Korea Figure: Red: Korean before democracy. Orange: Korea after democracy. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 25 / 39

The Nickell Bias The presence of the lagged dependent variable creates bias in panel estimates. But this potential bias turns out not to be important in this case. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/ Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 26 / 39

Robustness The results are quite robust to a range of controls for other factors and trends. Courtesy of Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 27 / 39

Semi-Parametric Matching Relax linearity and allow for richer dynamics. More generally, and using the potential outcomes notation, the causal effect of a transition to democracy at time t on GDP s periods thereafter for countries that are democratizing is s s β s = E (Δy ct (1) Δy ct (0) D ct = 1, D ct 1 = 0). The challenge in estimating β s is that countries that democratize may be different in terms of their potential outcomes than those that remain in nondemocracy. To overcome this problem, let us assume: Assumption 2 (selection on observables): Δy s ct (d) D ct D ct 1 = 0, y ct 1, y ct 2, y ct 3, y ct 4, t for all y ct 1,..., y ct 4, and for all c, t, and s 0. Estimation then uses inverse propensity score weighting and regression adjustment based on observables. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 28 / 39

Semi-Parametric Estimates: Democratizations Courtesy of Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 29 / 39

Semi-Parametric Estimates: Reversal in Democracy Courtesy of Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 30 / 39

Instrumental Variables So far, the strategy for identifying the effect of democracy on future economic outcomes has been to condition on observables. Alternative is to use an instrumental-variables (IV) strategy exploiting a source of variation that is less likely to be contaminated with omitted variable biases. There is no perfect instrument for democracy, but a plausibly exogenous source of variation still provides useful estimates for triangulatingthe effect of democracy. Democracy spreads within (culturally homogeneous) areas, reminiscent of democratization waves. Here exploit regional democratization waves. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 31 / 39

IV Strategy Let R c denote the geographic region of country c. Construct the set of countries ' I c = {c ' : c = c, R c ' = R c, D c ' t 0 = D ct0 }, countries in the same region ith the same political history, i.e., D c ' t 0 = D ct0. Then construct the instrument 1 Z ct = D c ' t. I c c ' I c Here, Z ct is the jack-knifed average of democracy in a region initial regime cell, which leaves out the own-country observation. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 32 / 39

First Stage Courtesy of Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 33 / 39

IV Estimates Courtesy of Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 34 / 39

Mechanisms Courtesy of Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 35 / 39

Mechanisms (continued) Courtesy of Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson. Used with permission. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 36 / 39

Summary A range of different strategies yield positive and large effects of democracy on future GDP per capita, indicating roughly that a country that democratizes becomes 20-30% richer than it would otherwise be in the next 20 years. This effect does not appear to be related to other confounding effects or country-specific trends potentially impacting both democracy and growth. But important to control for GDP dynamics (and of course country fixed effects). We will see later that many cross-country regressions do not do this, sometimes leading to unreliable or unstable results. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 37 / 39

Rest of the Course Rest of the Course In the rest of the course, we will introduce several workhorse models of economic growth used in macroeconomics and other fields more broadly (as well as some applications of techniques of dynamic economic analysis utilized even more widely). Three objectives: Build practice and skills in the analysis of dynamic economic models. Obtain intuition and insight about sources and causes of differences in long run economic performance across countries. Start thinking about how to map some of these ideas to data. In the process, of the second goal, we will focus on proximate causes of economic growth (physical capital, human capital and technology), but useful to bear in mind that, especially in the context of the third goal, it is also important to investigate why these vary systematically across countries the question of fundamental causes. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Economic Growth Lecture 1 October 21, 2014. 38 / 39

MIT OpenCourseWare https://ocw.mit.edu 14.452 Economic Growth Fall 2016 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: https://ocw.mit.edu/terms.