tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post5874242621151279384..comments2023-11-19T20:38:50.237-08:00Comments on Economic Logic: Religion and the quality of public institutionsEconomic Logicianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171296292101248614noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-34679402532952578342012-03-24T12:03:34.016-07:002012-03-24T12:03:34.016-07:00I sort of agree with the conclusion, but you guys ...I sort of agree with the conclusion, but you guys are dealing with the mother of all endogeneity problems.<br /><br />Europe is rich, and not that religious anymore. I find it hard to swallow that Europe's wealth is primarily due to a lack of church attendance. I think, rather, it's because Europe has been rich for a long time, and has high human capital, that it is rich and not religious. To convince, you'll need an amazing instrument for religiosity uncorrelated with other institutions, geography, GDP, or historical GDP, and you'll need regional clusters and continent dummies in every single one of your regressions. And you must, must, must control for latitude, as a bare minimum of geographic controls. <br /><br />Another minor quibble: You wrote "Property rights and the rule of law have been shown to be of central importance for economic growth and development." While this seems obvious, and I would agree that property rights are important, it's worth pointing out that all of the studies you cite are flawed, and that this has not been definitively proven.<br /><br />Instead, I think the history of development shows that a wide variety of institutional norms and legal arrangements can be consistent with wealth accumulation. Singapore, Japan, the US, and Denmark have quite different legal systems; yet all are rich. And the Soviet Union was much richer than market-based Sub-Saharan Africa. <br /><br />Yours,<br />Alexander HamiltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com