Senaste poster
Populära
Google Scholar
« Goda råd är dyra... | Main | Gini i städer runt om i världen »
fredag
feb042011

Albouy vs Acemoglu, Robinson & Johnson – Slutresultat?

En glädjande nyhet: På David Alboyes hemsida står nu hans kommentar på

Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., and Robinson, J. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development. American Economic Review, 91, 1369-1401.

som forthcoming i American Economic Review.

Det är tufft, eftersom det innebär att en okänd doktorand (disputerade 2007) som hittade tokigheter i det som då var det kanske hetaste pappret inom litteraturen om institutions and growth, inte kan bollas bort hur som helst.

Abstract är fortfarande ord och inga visor:

In a seminal contribution, Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001) argue property-rights institutions powerfully affect national income, using estimated mortality rates of early European settlers to instrument capital expropriation risk. However 36 of the 64 countries in their sample are assigned mortality rates from other countries, typically based on mistaken or conflicting evidence.  Also, incomparable mortality rates from populations of laborers, bishops, and soldiers - often on campaign - are combined in a manner favoring their hypothesis.

I själva pappret finns än mer förödande formuleringar (samma som när jag först uppmärksammade pappret – för två år sedan.):

Six assignments [of settler mortality rates to countries] are based  upon AJR’s misunderstanding of former names of countries in Africa.  Another sixteen assignments are based on a questionable use of bishop mortality data in Latin America from Gutierrez (1986), which are based on 19 deaths.

Där rök ett elegant papper, och en bergsäker ekonomipriskandidat.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (2)

Wow. Den publiceringsnivån vill man ha tre år efter att man disputerat...
På tal om ord och inga visor så är ju Acemoglus et al. svar ganska välartikulerade, de med:

http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/203

och

http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/212

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.