|
on Evolutionary Economics |
| By: | Davide Cantoni; Noam Yuchtman |
| Abstract: | The analysis of historical natural experiments has profoundly impacted economics research across fields. We trace the development and increasing application of the methodology, both from the perspective of economic historians and from the perspective of economists in other subdisciplines. We argue that the historical natural experiment represents a methodological bridge between economic history and other fields: historians are able to use the cutting edge identification strategies emphasized by applied microeconomists; economists across subfields are able to scour history for useful identifying variation; development and growth economists are able to trace the historical roots of contemporary outcomes. Differences in fields suggest differences in scholars' aims of studying historical natural experiments. We propose a taxonomy of three primary motives that reflect priorities in different fields: historians aim to understand causal processes within specific settings. Economists across fields aim to identify "clean" historical events (in whatever context) to test hypotheses of theoretical interest or estimate causal parameters. And, growth and development economists aim to identify past variation that can be causally linked to contemporary outcomes of interest. We summarize important contributions made by research in each category. Finally, we close with a brief discussion of challenges facing each category of work. |
| JEL: | B00 N00 N01 N10 O10 |
| Date: | 2020–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26754&r=all |
| By: | Lueger, Tim |
| Abstract: | In spite of two centuries of extensive debate, a consistent framework of the classical theory of population on which economists can universally agree has not been established. This means that either the theory lacks consistency or it has been misunderstood in important ways. This paper attempts to settle this issue by arguing that the latter was the case, revealing prevailing misconceptions. Since a large amount of these misconceptions most probably arose from the lack of a consistent nomenclature, the paper intends to clarify the classical theory of population by employing unambiguous definitions of the principle of population, the Malthusian trap, positive checks and preventive checks to population. The classical theory of population can then be applied to analyze the transition from economic stagnation to economic growth. As a result, numerous current theories trying to explain the transition to growth that are based on an increase of pro- duction will prove secondary when compared to the great preventive check. |
| Date: | 2018–04–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dar:wpaper:96492&r=all |
| By: | Lueger, Tim |
| Abstract: | This work seeks to answer the "population question," i.e. the effect of population growth on production per capita. This question has lingered in economic thought for centuries and to this day two general lines of thought can be identified, which might be marked as the "optimist" and the "pessimist" view. While the optimists claim that an increase in population will - chiefly owed to concomitant specialization and technological progress - raise average production per capita, the pessimists maintain that the latter would decline as a result of resources becoming relatively more scarce. Integrating both approaches and using a neoclassical framework, this work intends to show that sustainably increasing productivity is predominantly the result of reducing too high fertility toward a lower level such that diminishing returns are outweighed by the benefits from labor division. The paper argues that the historical reduction of fertility can almost completely explain long-run development. |
| Date: | 2019–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dar:wpaper:112079&r=all |
| By: | Hoff,Karla; Walsh,James Sonam |
| Abstract: | How does law change society? In the rational actor model, law affects behavior only by changing incentives and information -- the command and coordination function of law. Under the view that humans are social animals, law is also a guidepost for social norms that regulate behavior -- the expressive function of law. This paper proposes a third function of law?the schematizing function -- based on cognitive research that shows that individuals cannot think without categories. Law makes possible new kinds of exemplars, role models, and social interactions that give people prototypes that transform the categories they use, thereby reframing their options and influencing their behavior. This paper illustrates the schematizing power of law with examples from field and natural experiments. Like the one-two punch in a boxing match, the command and schematizing functions of law together can change society in situations where the command function alone would be ineffective or backfire. |
| Keywords: | Gender and Development,Human Rights,Social Cohesion,Disability,Services&Transfers to Poor,Access of Poor to Social Services,Economic Assistance,Judicial System Reform |
| Date: | 2019–08–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:8954&r=all |