Pseudoerasmus

@pseudoerasmus

Economic history & comparative development 🚫 NO current events in this feed ⚠️ Economic history ≠ history of economic thought. In love with 💞

Vrijeme pridruživanja: kolovoz 2011.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @pseudoerasmus

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @pseudoerasmus

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    17. lis 2019.

    My exposition, followed by critique, of Branko Milanovic’s thesis on the “world-historical role of communism”, as expounded in his recent book, “Capitalism, Alone”. Thread on a single page here:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    9. sij

    Good time as any to announce my review paper in 's guest-edited volume of JICT: "The New Empirics of Industrial Policy" I discuss key empirical issues around IP & how new studies address them. I also unpack some of the historical confusion surrounding these policies.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. 5. sij

    If you can't believe the early US lead in manuf productivity, then consider: leading sectors pre1870 were textiles & iron where USA & UK were comparable. So lower bound estimate still makes the USA at least similar to the UK. USA was ALWAYS at the technol. frontier. Here's Allen:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. 5. sij

    A "developing country" circa 1840 with (probably) the highest labour productivity in manufacturing in the world.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. 5. sij

    { of course in 1870 Japan's schooling rate was nowhere near the USA or northwestern Europe. The UK famously had low schooling rates compared with the rest of northern Europe in mid 19th century }

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. 5. sij

    According to the Barro-Lee dataset, the population with 'no schooling' for Japan in 1870 was ~80%, at a time when the rest of Asia was >99%. This made Japan one of the best educated countries in the world! Just after the Meiji Restoration & well before drastic reforms.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 4. sij

    Everyone already agrees need for more research on the political economy of industrial policy. But strangely neglected: the relationship between industrial policy and human capital formation. (SUBTEXT seems to be it’s all endogenous to IP so why talk about? :-)

    Poništi
  8. 4. sij
    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 4. sij

    (the 19th century trajectory of the USA in this chart from Lindert & Williamson is still contested but the regional movements make the chart worth it )

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 4. sij

    My tweet is not a critique of industrial policy or state-led development. Just noting there are VAST quality differences in the IP literature. Rodrik, Amsden, Wade, etc >>>>> HJC, Reinert

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 4. sij

    One of the most pernicious influences of HaJoonChang is to DEhistoricise the role of the state in development. (Ironically he thinks he's historicising) He rips policies out of their hist context; hence why so many can think USA 1840 can be compared with Korea or Bolivia 1950

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 4. sij

    It still has not sunk in that in the early 19th c. the USA was not like a developing country of the 20th. Agrarian USA had high wages (maybe the highest in the world), skilled labour, and high manufacturing productivity. It was the industrial UK which was the low wage country!

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    2. sij

    Okay people, "Fully Grown" is due to be released January 14th, . I am told review copies are in the mail. Join my mom in pre-ordering now!

    Poništi
  14. 2. sij

    One-quarter of the worlds’s pig population perished from swine flu as an unintended consequence of China swiftly enforcing environmental regulations. So does this mean China has too much or too little state capacity? :-) Or is it just “seeing like a state”? per Scott?

    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    31. pro 2019.

    The paper discussed above is finally out and it's open access. Some comments from me.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 31. pro 2019.

    Modernisation theory gets a bad rap (and I myself have mocked it abundantly on this platform). But the statement “Cross-country convergence of income results in a certain amount of convergence in political and social values” seems like an empirically defensible statement....

    Poništi
  17. 31. pro 2019.

    My only Gregorian New Year-related observation is that the French revolutionary calendar, which got so much right, began on the autumnal equinox — and that was just deeply wrong. I mean it’s just common sense that a new year in sync with nature should be the vernal equinox.

    Poništi
  18. 31. pro 2019.

    NB: I'm deliberately avoiding the tariffs-&-US-industrialisation debate. I mention them only because Link & Maggor barely do!! (W/o tariffs the USA might have specialised in very different industries from the UK & industrialised nevertheless. Or maybe not)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 31. pro 2019.

    They do actually state explicitly that the State of Michigan“state policies tipped the scale in favour of local producers”. But the point is not elaborated — I suppose that’s their research for the future!

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 31. pro 2019.

    Interestingly, Link & Maggor argue that individual American states acted as mini developmental states. In fact that’s their novel contribution. In some parts of their paper, they come close to arguing each state pursued its own industrial policy with regard to ‘domestic’ firms!!

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  21. 31. pro 2019.

    YET there was NOTHING like that in the USA during the 19th century!

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·