tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post5141295250803924715..comments2023-10-11T09:06:30.060-07:00Comments on Douglas L. Campbell: Alfred Crosby Deserves a Nobel Prize in Economics...Doug Campbell http://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-6323112027529043582018-02-02T02:00:17.488-08:002018-02-02T02:00:17.488-08:00To reply to the first bullet: yes, if you use the ...To reply to the first bullet: yes, if you use the settler mortality data that assigns very low levels of mortality to Singapore and Hong Kong, both in Malaria-central, then it's going to be hard to find a geographic variable that will beat it. But, if you use the revised data, which assign higher rates of mortality to places like Singapore and Hong Kong, then settler mortality is no longer robust.<br /><br />On your 2nd point, go read Alfred Crosby. Immediately. The evidence here is quite overwhelming.<br /><br />On your third point, I never wrote that AJR don't control for any geographic variables. If you read AJR, you'll realize they didn't consider the possibility that settler mortality could be a proxy for climatic similarity with Europe. And thus that there is a good argument for using it as an IV for climate rather than for institutions. <br /><br />I agree that Albouy finds flaws in a majority of the AJR data. However, you only need to make a handful of changes to kill the result. <br /><br /><br /><br />Doug Campbell https://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-67298492894352567832017-10-09T02:19:57.515-07:002017-10-09T02:19:57.515-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989054498119193022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-55608228779871279472017-08-21T12:09:20.498-07:002017-08-21T12:09:20.498-07:00Man, you've said that latitude is more differe...Man, you've said that latitude is more different than climate and I responded that go ahead and replace it (the latitude) with smth better. I am not asking for a new IV.<br /><br />Second, it is very easy (or so cheap) to write that mortality *could be* itself a proxy for climate without providing any evidence for such claim.<br /><br />But now it seems like you have not read AJR at all. In fact, AJR used numerous proxies for climate: various tempertures, humidity and soil quality.<br /><br />Albouy's paper is not about few changes in data. Just the contrary. He examines majority of datapoints to argue that the IV is weak.<br /><br />You are fooling yourself.<br />obycajny clovekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18254905727901736691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-3573081759174775822017-08-20T14:45:05.805-07:002017-08-20T14:45:05.805-07:00Re: "If a better variable besides latitude is...Re: "If a better variable besides latitude is available, then why not to use it and show how it changes AJR results? Why Albouy did not use it?"<br /><br />Bro, re-read the post and my responses above more carefully. "1. Death rates of European settlers could itself be a proxy for climatic similarity to Europe." Thus, the other variable I choose to proxy geography is settler mortality.<br /><br />Albouy showed a few changes to the series killed the results. Go check out his tables. Why should he introduce a new IV? <br /><br />As I wrote above, it's a waste of time to try to get down in the weeds of individual points. The AJR response is designed to fool exactly people like you. But it's not true that just one outlier drives the Albouy results. This was more AJR nonsense.<br /><br />However, a reason why I don't go and write a paper about this is because no one really takes that paper seriously anymore. Oh, sure, you probably are not the only dead-ender, and Acemoglu certainly has a fan club, but outside of that club, the paper is openly derided for good reason. <br />Doug Campbell https://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-44954258803021303902017-08-20T14:25:52.175-07:002017-08-20T14:25:52.175-07:001. If a better variable besides latitude is availa...1. If a better variable besides latitude is available, then why not to use it and show how it changes AJR results? Why Albouy did not use it?<br /><br />Hypothesis of different human capital endowments was studied in AGR 2014 and it did not work.<br /><br />2. Albouy changes in data were sloppy as well. And not only that. Albouys result was driven entirely by one outlier (within 28 observations). After dropping the outlier, AJR result is back there.<br /><br />Sure, the research goes on (I like the Dutch-Indonesia case), but mortality IV is used from time to time (see Gorodnichenko and Roland recently)<br /><br /> <br /><br />obycajny clovekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18254905727901736691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-36080125885110226742017-08-20T12:54:21.982-07:002017-08-20T12:54:21.982-07:00There was a reply, yes. But a serious reply, no. I...There was a reply, yes. But a serious reply, no. It was merely intended to try and cloud the issue as much as possible. <br /><br />First, their reply says nothing about point 1 above. Or a related problem that settlers could also bring human capital and/or their technologies with them, and not just institutions. <br /><br />Second, to see how disingenuous AJR can be, check out this version of the response: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/17b7/d3b6bc1d42d3044229c93c38f2d47f78c93a.pdf<br /><br />In it, they write "The substantive disagreement between AJR (2001) and Albouy's current and previous comments revolve around Africa."<br /><br />That statement by AJR is patently false, and clearly intended to mislead. The substantive disagreement also revolved around the American and Asian data points. Yes, they became more sophisticated in their rebuttal as time went on, but it doesn't change the fact that their original data was sloppy, and making the Albouy changes makes their results go away. Or that their IV was invalid for various reasons in the first place, so the debate over their data isn't a productive use of our time in any case. The profession has moved away from the Settler Mortality IV in any case. <br /><br />Doug Campbell https://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-22146820611067676912017-08-20T12:19:15.009-07:002017-08-20T12:19:15.009-07:00Like there was no reply from AJR to Albouy?
https:...Like there was no reply from AJR to Albouy?<br />https://economics.mit.edu/files/8620obycajny clovekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18254905727901736691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-17391316341153395602017-08-20T12:10:10.185-07:002017-08-20T12:10:10.185-07:00Nice try, but no. Two main problems with AJR:
1. ...Nice try, but no. Two main problems with AJR:<br /><br />1. Death rates of European settlers could itself be a proxy for climatic similarity to Europe. Indeed, it could be better than simply just latitude. This is because, for example, much of Europe and the US have similar average temperatures even though Europe is much further north. Latitude is more different than climate. Good settler mortality data would probably pick this up. <br /><br />2. Go read Albouy. The IV they construct for "institutions" has unreasonably low settler mortality rates for Singapore and Hong Kong; they mistranslated the name of an African country, and they assigned settler mortality to most of Latin America based on 18 deaths of clergy in Mexico. Nobody takes that data seriously anymore. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Albouy/publication/268365609_The_Colonial_Origins_of_Comparative_Development_An_Empirical_Investigation_Comment/links/5544e9980cf234bdb21d4e42.pdfDoug Campbell https://www.blogger.com/profile/11028049845008665877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-22191411491962814792017-08-20T11:56:03.514-07:002017-08-20T11:56:03.514-07:00Maybe we should read AJR again:
"Many social ...Maybe we should read AJR again:<br />"Many social scientists, including Montesquieu [1784](1989), Diamond (1997) and Sachs and coauthors have argued for a direct effect of climate on performance, and Gallup, Mellinger, and Sachs (1998) and Hall and Jones (1999) document the correlation between distance from the equator (latitude) and economic performance. To control for this, in columns 5-8, we add the absolute value of the distance from the equator in degrees (latitude) as a regressor (we follow the literature in using a measure of latitude that is scaled between 0 and 1). This changes the coefficient of the index of institutions little."obycajny clovekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18254905727901736691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4409551172339639840.post-17304402372501814482017-08-18T05:00:15.201-07:002017-08-18T05:00:15.201-07:00Totally agreed.Totally agreed.Steve Bannisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14466785184416801339noreply@blogger.com