You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
And then you wonder: is this the only case in history where weaker property rights may be good for growth? Unlikely. Bob Allen argues that pre-revolutionary France had stronger property protection than England. Protection of slave-owners property was also bad for growth.https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1194007739594350592 …
So in some cases, weak property rights that lead people to bury money into the ground (mentioned by Adam Smith) are bad for growth. In other cases, strong property rights that do not allow for free labor, or do not let you build a highway are bad for growth.
But if so, the relationship between property rights and growth becomes contingent. And one of the main messages of "Why Nations Fail" is undermined.
Also, in 17th-18th France, there was no property rights on books and theater (no copyright before Beaumarchais), however 
culture was prominent (le Grand Siecle, then les Lumières, )
Dean Baker argues for weaker property rights for pharma companies. In fact, intellectual property rights can often stifle growth. The software industry in the US has seen patent “land grabs.”
If growth is dependent on strong property rights, how do they explain China? Property rights exist but they don’t approach the property rights on the West. Also the much-maligned Soviet Union had superb growth in the 1950s; Paul Samuelson was sure it would overtake US in GDP.
Well, but isn't slavery by itself an extractive institution. Not sure you can count this under the property rights umbrella. Or did I misunderstand the point?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
