American Economic Association The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation Author(s): Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, James A. Robinson Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 91, No. 5 (Dec, 2001), pp. 1369-1401 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2677930 Accessed: 21/05/2009 16:59 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aea. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. 9 STOR American Economic Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Economic Review. http://www.jstor.org The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation By Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson1 We exploit differences in European mortality rates to estimate the effect of institutions on economic performance. Europeans adopted very different colonization policies in different colonies, with different associated institutions. In places where Europeanf faced hiah mortality mips thru could not settle and were more likely to ions persisted to the present. Exploiting in instrument for current institutions, we income per capita. Once the effect of set up CLEARLY SPECIFIED diffen RESEARCH QUESTION estimc institutions is controlled for, countries in Africa or those closer to the equator do not have lower incomes. (JEL Oil, PI6, P51) What are the fundamental causes of the large differences in income per capita across countries? Although there is still little consensus on the answer to this question, differences in institutions and property rights have received considerable attention in recent years. Countries with better "institutions," more secure property rights, an 1 Acemoglu: Department T .ftmer SUCCINCT SUMMARY OF EXISTING RESEARCH Sconomics, E52-380b, nbridge, MA ;ed Research hool of Man-s ology, Cam- bridge, MA 02319 (e-mail: sjohnson@mit.edu); Robinson: Department of Political Science and Department of Economics, 210 Barrows Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 (e-mail: jamesar@socrates.berkeley.edu). We thank Joshua Angrist, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Stan Engerman, John Gallup, Claudia Goldin, Robert Hall, Chad Jones, Larry Katz, Richard Locke, Andrei Shleifer, Ken Sokoloff, Judith Tendler, three anonymous referees, and seminar participants at the University of California-Berkeley, Brown University, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Columbia University, Har-vard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, search, Northwestern. Princeton Uniyej Universite^Toulouse tionary policies will invest more in physical and human capital, and will use these factors more efficiently to achieve a greater level of income (ej^^Douglass C. North and Robert P. ThoWsT1973; Eric L. Jones, 1981; North, This view receives some support from cross-country correlations between measures of property rights and economic development (e.g., Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, 1995; Paulo Mauro, 1995; Robert E. Hall and Charles I. Jones, 1999; Dani Ro^k, 1999), and from a few micro studies that irivsstigate the relationship between property right^sand investment or output (e.g., Timothy Besle} 1995; Christopher Mazingo, 1999; Johnson et al., 1999). At some level it is obvrmjs that institutions matter. Witness, for example>the di\r; paths of North and South Korea, oNI; West Germany, where one part of the RESEARCH FRONTIER IDENTIFIED AS LACK OF RELIABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ngeles, and the We also thank Robert >n bishops' mortality. EMPIRICAL VIDENCE stagnated under central planning and conec-tive ownership, while the other prospered with private property and a market economy. Nevertheless, we lack reliable estimates of the effect of institutions on economic performance. It is quite likely that rich economies choose or can afford better institutions. Perhaps more important, economies that are different for a variety of reasons will differ both 1369 1370 THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW DECEMBER 2001 in their institutions and in their income per capita. To estimate the impact of institutions on economic performance, we need a source of exogenous variation in institutions. In this paper, we propose a theory of institutional differences among countries colonized by Europeans,1 and exploit this theory to derive a possible source of exogenous variation. Our theory rests on three premises: 1. There were different types of colonization policies which created different sets of institutions. At one extreme, European powers set up "extractive states," exemplified by the Belgian colonization of the Congo. These institutions did not introduce much protection for private property, nor did they provide checks and balances against government expropriation. In fact, the main purpose of the extractive state was to transfer as much of the resources of the colony to the colonizer. At the other extreme, many Europeans migrated and settled in a number of colonies, creating what the historian Alfred Crosby (1986) calls "Neo-Europes." The settlers tried to replicate European institutions, with strong emphasis on private property and checks against government power. Primary examples of this include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. 2. The colonization strategy was influenced by the feasibility of settlements. In places where the disease environment was not favorable to European settlement, the cards were stacked against the creation of Neo-Europes, and the formation of the extractive state was more likely. 3. The colonial state and institutions persisted even after independence. Based on these three premises, we use the mortality rates expected by the first European settlers in the colonies as an instrument for current institutions in these countries.2 More specifically, our theory can be schematically summarized as (potential) settler mortality early institutions current performance. => settlements current institutions We use data on the mortality rates of soldiers, bishops, and sailors stationed in the colonies between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, largely based on the work of the historian Philip D. Curtin. These give a good indication of the mortality rates faced by settlers. Europeans were well informed about these mortality rates at the time, even though they did not know how to control the diseases that caused these high mortality rates. Figure 1 plots the logarithm of GDP per capita today against the logarithm of the settler mortality rates per thousand for a sample of 75 countries (see below for data details). It shows a strong negative relationship. Colonies where Europeans faced higher mortality rates are today substantially poorer than colonies that were healthy for Europeans. Our theory is that this relationship reflects the effect of settler mortality working through the institutions brought by Europeans. To substantiate this, we regress current performance on current institutions, and instrument the latter by settler mortality rates. Since our focus is on property rights and checks against government power, we use the protection against "risk of expropriation" index from Political Risk Services as a proxy for institutions. This variable measures differences in institutions originating from different types of states and state policies.3 There is a strong 1 By "colonial experience" we do not only mean the direct control of the colonies by European powers, but more generally, European influence on the rest of the world. So according to this definition, Sub-Saharan Africa was strongly affected by "colonialism" between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries because of the Atlantic slave trade. 2 Note that although only some countries were colonized, there is no selection bias here. This is because the question we are interested in is the effect of colonization policy conditional on being colonized. 3 Government expropriation is not the only institutional feature that matters. Our view is that there is a "cluster of VOL. 91 NO. 5 ACEMOGLU ETAL.: THE COLONIAL ORIGINS OF DEVELOPMENT 1371 Figure 1. Reduced-Form Relationship Between Income and Settler Mortality (first-stage) relationship between settler mortality rates and current institutions, which is interesting in its own right. The regression shows that mortality rates faced by the settlers more than 100 years ago explains over 25 percent of the variation in current institutions.4 We also document that this relationship works through the channels we hypothesize: (potential) settler mortality rates were a major determinant of settlements; settlements were a major determinant of early institutions (in practice, institutions in 1900); and there is a strong correlation between early institutions and institutions today. Our two-stage least-squares estimate of the effect of institutions on performance is relatively precisely estimated and large. For example, it implies that improving Nigeria's institutions," including constraints on government expropriation, independent judiciary, property rights enforcement, and institutions providing equal access to education and ensuring civil liberties, that are important to encourage investment and growth. Expropriation risk is related to all these institutional features. In Acemoglu et al. (2000), we reported similar results with other institutions variables. 4 Differences in mortality rates are not the only, or even the main, cause of variation in institutions. For our empirical approach to work, all we need is that they are a source of exogenous variation. institutions to the level of Chile could, in the long run, lead to as much as a 7-fold increase in Nigeria's income (in practice Chile is over 11 times as rich as Nigeria). The exclusion restriction implied by our instrumental variable regression is that, conditional on the controls included in the regression, the mortality rates of European settlers more than 100 years ago have no effect on GDP per capita today, other than their effect through institutional development. The major concern with this exclusion restriction is that the mortality rates of settlers could be correlated with the current disease environment, which may have a direct effect on economic performance. In this case, our instrumental-variables estimates may be assigning the effect of diseases on income to institutions. We believe that this is unlikely to be the case and that our exclusion restriction is plausible. The great majority of European deaths in the colonies were caused by malaria and yellow fever. Although these diseases were fatal to Europeans who had no immunity, they had limited effect on indigenous adults who had developed various types of immunities. These diseases are therefore unlikely to be the reason why many countries in Africa and Asia are very poor today (see the discussion in Section III, subsection A). This notion is 1372 THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW DECEMBER 2001 supported by the mortality rates of local people in these areas. For example, Curtin (1968 Table 2) reports that the annual mortality rates of local troops serving with the British army in Bengal and Madras were respectively 11 and 13 in 1,000. These numbers are quite comparable to, in fact lower than, the annual mortality rates of British troops serving in Britain, which were approximately 15 in 1,000. In contrast, the mortality rates of British troops serving in these colonies were much higher because of their lack of immunity. For example, mortality rates in Bengal and Madras for British troops were between 70 and 170 in 1,000. The view that the disease burden for indigenous adults was not unusual in places like Africa or India is also supported by the relatively high population densities in these places before Europeans arrived (Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, 1975). We document that our estimates of the effect of institutions on performance are not dmjerfDy outliers. For example, excluding Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United^States does not change the results, nor dpeSexcluding Africa. TntPTPStinglv wp shnx^that nnr.p. thp. pffr.r.t of insi ARGUMENTS OF tro] the 'RESEARCH FRONTIER' atornor hese re- is con- sults suggest that Africa is poorer than the rest of the world not because oijpure geographic or cultural factors, but because of worse institutions. The validity of our approach—i.e., ovtlsexclu-sion restriction—is threatened if other facteirs correlated with the estimates of settler mortalit} affect income per capita. We adopt two strategies to substantiate that our results are not driven by omitted factors. First, we investigate whether institutions have a comparable effect on income once we control for a number of variables potentially correlated with settler mortality and economic outcomes. We find that none of these overturn our results; the estimates change remarkably little when we include controls for the identity of the main colonizer, legal origin, climate, religion, geography, natural resources, soil quality, and measures of ethnolin-guistic fragmentation. Furthermore, the results are also robust to the inclusion of controls for the current disease environment (e.g., the prevalence of malaria, life expectancy, and infant mortality) and the current fraction of the population of European descent. Naturally, it is impossible to control for all possible variables that might be correlated with settler mortality and economic outcomes. Furthermore, our empirical approach might capture the effect of settler mortality on economic performance, but working through other channels. We deal with these problems by using a simple overidentification test using measures of European migration to the colonies and early institutions as additional instruments. We then use overidentification tests to detect whether settler mortality has a direct effect on current performance. The results are encouraging for our approach; they generate no evidence for a direct effect of settler mortality on economic outcomes. We are not aware of others who have pointed out the link between settler mortality and institutions, though scholars such as William H. McNeill (1976), Crosby (1986), and Jared M. Diamond (1997) have discussed the influence of diseases on human history. Diamond (1997), in particular, emphasizes comparative development, but his theory is based on the geographical determinants of the incidence of the neolithic revolution. He ignores both the importance of institutions and the potential causes of divergence in more recent development, which are the main focus of our paper. Work by Ronald E. Robinson and John Gallagher (1961), Lewis H. Gann and Peter Duignan (1962), Donald Denoon (1983), and Philip J. Cain and Anthony G. Hopkins (1993) emphasizes that ^ttler colonies such as the United States and NeVZealand are different from other colonies, and porfi^ut that these differences were important for "their economic success. Nevertheless, this literature does not develop the link between mortality, settlements, and institutions. Our argument is most closely related to work on the influence of colonial experience on institutions. Frederich A. von Hayek (1960) argued that the British common law tradition was superior to the French civil law, which was developed during the Napoleonic era to restrain judges' interference with state policies (see also Seymour M. Lipset, 1994). More recently, Rafael La Porta et al. (1998, 1999) emphasize the importance of colonial origin (the identity of VOL. 91 NO. 5 ACEMOGLU ET AL.: THE COLONIAL ORIGINS OF DEVELOPMENT 1373 the colonizer) and legal origin on current institutions, and show that the common-law countries and former British colonies have better property rights and more developed financial markets. Similarly, David Landes (1998 Chapters 19 and 20) and North et al. (1998) argue that former British colonies prospered relative to former French, Spanish, and Portuguese colonies because of the good economic and political institutions and culture they inherited from Britain. In contrast to this approach which focuses on the identity of the colonizer, we emphasize the conditions in the colonies. Specifically, in our theory—and in the data—it is not the identity of the colonizer or legal origin that matters, but whether European colonialists could safely settle in a particular location: where they could not settle, they created worse institutions. In this respect, our argument is closely related to that of Stanley L. .Eflgerman and Kenneth L. Sokoloff (1997) who^alStsem-phasize institutions, but link them to factor endowments and inequality. Empirically, our work is related to a number of other attempts to uncover the link between institutions and development, as^well as to Graziella Bertocchi and Fabio Car? and Robin M. Grier (1999), who investigate effect of being a colony on postwar growth. Two papers deal with the endogeneity of institutions by using an instrumental variables approach as we do here. Mauro (1995) instruments for corruption using ethnolinguistic fragmentation. Hall and Jones (1999), in turn, use distance from the equator as an instrument for social infrastructure because, they argue, latitude is correlated with "Western influence," which leads to good institutions. The theoretical reasoning for these instruments is not entirely convincing. It is not easy to argue that the Belgian influence in the Congo, or Western influence in the Gold Coast during the era of slavery promoted good institutions. Ethnolinguistic fragmentation, on the other hand, seems endogenous, especially since such fragmentation almost completely disappeared in Europe during the era of growth when a centralized state and market emerged (see, e.g., Eugen J. Weber, 1976; Benedict Anderson, 1983). Econometrically, the problem with both studies is that their instruments can plausibly have a direct effect on performance. For example, Wil-liiam Easterly and Ross Levine (1997) argue that ethnolinguistic fragmentation can affect performance by creating political instability, while Charles de Montesquieu [1748] (1989) and more recently David E. Bloom and Jeffrey D. Sachs (1998) and John Gallup et al. (1998) argue for a direct effect of climate on performance. If, indeed, these variables have a direct effect, they are invalid instruments and do not establish that it is institutions that matter. The advantage of our approach is that conditional on the variables we already cantrol for, settler mortality more than 100 years ago should have no effect on output today, other than through its effect on institutions. Interestingly, our results show that distance from the equator does not have an independent effect on economic performance, validating the use on this variable as an instrument in the work b\ Hall and Jones (1999). The next section outlines cbr hypothesis and yjides supporting historical evidence. Section II pres5»tsOLS regressions oi GDP per capita on our inde>