Long-Run Determinants of Economic Growth: Putterman and Weil Revisited

Jason Briggeman

Econ Journal Watch, 2022, vol. 19, issue 1, 85–108

Abstract: How strongly is ‘deep’ history related to present GDP per capita, and how ‘deep’ are we talking? In a number of papers, Louis Putterman and collaborators claim that the relationship is strong and that several thousands of years of history are relevant. I replicate some of the work by Putterman and Weil (2010, Quarterly Journal of Economics), who found a “surprisingly” strong linear relationship between migration-adjusted state history during the first fifteen centuries of the Common Era and present income. I present four main empirical findings. First, by restoring dozens of countries mistakenly dropped from their regressions, I find the linear relationship is somewhat weaker than they reported. Second, I find that weighting the data to address the endogeneity of present-day borders—a concern raised but not addressed by Borcan, Olsson, and Putterman (2018)—causes the linear relationship to become markedly weaker or even nonexistent. Third, I conduct robustness checks that are suggested or implied but not pursued in Putterman’s work, generally finding a weaker linear relationship or no linear relationship. For example, there is no linear relationship when grouping countries into 11 world regions defined by Putterman and Weil themselves, nor is there a linear relationship when looking at sub-Saharan African countries alone. For another example, the linear relationship is weak when using GDP per capita for the year 1960 rather than the year 2000. Fourth, I show that had their data been correct, Putterman and Weil (2010) would have found a statistically significant quadratic relationship between their 1,500 years of state history and present income had they tested for it, which refutes the finding by Borcan, Olsson, and Putterman (2018) that a quadratic relationship only exists when using additional thousands of years of history. I then ask by what standard any of these results, whether in Putterman and Weil’s original presentation or herein revisited, can be deemed surprising; I propose one standard by which I find the results to be unsurprising. I close by calling attention to some problems with the “World Migration Matrix” data set constructed by Putterman and Weil (2010) and used in numerous studies.

JEL-codes: F22 N10 N30 O40 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://econjwatch.org/File+download/1221/BriggemanMar2022.pdf?mimetype=pdf (application/pdf)
https://econjwatch.org/1264 (text/html)

Related works:
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:ejw:journl:v:19:y:2022:i:1:p:85-108

Access Statistics for this article

Econ Journal Watch is currently edited by Daniel Klein

More articles in Econ Journal Watch from Econ Journal Watch Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Jason Briggeman ().