Voice and Growth: Was Churchill Right?

Peter Lindert

The Journal of Economic History, 2003, vol. 63, issue 2, 315-350

Abstract: The debate over whether political democracy is the least bad regime, as Churchill said, remains unresolved because history has been misread, and because statistical studies have chosen the wrong tests. This address reinterprets five key experiences to show how the institutional channels linking voice and growth are evolving with the economy. Until the early nineteenth century, the key institutional link was property-rights and contract enforcement. Since then, the human-investment channel has assumed an ever-greater role. Elite rule damages growth by underinvesting in egalitarian human capital, especially primary schooling, relative to historical norms for successful economies.This Presidential Address was delivered at the Economic History Association Annual Meeting, 12 October 2002, in St. Louis, Missouri.

Date: 2003
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (45)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
Working Paper: Voice and Growth: Was Churchill Right? (2003)
Working Paper: Voice and Growth: Was Churchill Right? (2003)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:jechis:v:63:y:2003:i:02:p:315-350_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Economic History from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().