Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Culture and Development
Jon R. Jellema*
Department of Economics, U.C. Berkeley
November 2008
Job Market Paper - Preliminary
Abstract Whether culture affects development is one of the most fundamental questions in
economics, but sample, measurement, and direction-of-causation issues hinder empirical
analysis. Making use of advances in empirical anthropology and population genetics, I
provide robust solutions to these problems. I assemble measures of cultural behavior
collected systematically from more than 1200 anthropological case studies. I describe
the generation of cultural variety without invoking previously existing institutions or
tendencies. I exploit the parallel random mutation and long-term persistence of genetic
and cultural information in an instrumental variables framework where I demonstrate
that predictable variation in neutral genetic information (and not genetic inheritance of
social information) provides a valid and powerful instrument for culture. I show that
within this instrumental variables framework class stratification, inheritance rights, and
other cultural technologies can explain up to 115 percent of a standard deviation in
output, or approximately the size of the gap in per-capita GDP between Thailand and
Ireland.
* Contact information: 508-1 Evans Hall #3880; University of California, Berkeley; Berkeley, CA 94720-3880.
Email: [email protected].
1
1. Introduction
Economic exchange is a social transaction. The outcomes resulting from it, expectations
surrounding it, and its prescribed structure cannot be isolated from the shared norms and
mandated behaviors that accompany all social transactions. The role of culture in economic
development, in other words, is fundamental.
However, social behaviors, rules, norms, and standards can logically be determinants or
results of economic exchange, making empirical identification of the developmental effects of
culture problematic. Culture itself is difficult to measure as it requires observation of social
interaction which is multi-faceted and not amenable to summary by indicators like price or
quantity; neither are data capturing singular opinions or beliefs precise guides to social activity.
In this paper, I assemble two global datasets that offer novel and robust solutions to these
identification and measurement problems in order to demonstrate empirically the causal
relationship between cultural behavior and economic development.
Specifically, I show that cultural technologies that promote division of labor and
specialization, informal education or research and development, or property rights lead to cross-
sectional increases of up to 70 percent of a standard deviation of economic development.
Increases in all of them simultaneously leads to increases of up to 115 percent of a standard
deviation of economic development. Cross-sectional differences in current real GDP per capita
roughly this size can be found between, for example, Thailand and Ireland, the Czech Republic
and Belgium, Colombia and Japan, or Bhutan and Chile. These relationships remain visible
within geographic regions and production technologies and each cultural practice remains
individually predictive when the others are held constant.
2
To measure culture convincingly, I use observations from detailed ethnographies
covering more than 1200 populations worldwide. This dataset of cultural practices is richer in
both detail and scope, more objective, less prone to perception bias, and contains less non-
random noise than other cultural datasets. Culture is observed closely and recorded as behavior
rather than belief. The sample of populations is world-wide and includes groups and areas, like
Pacific Island societies, often missing from empirical studies; there is no oversampling of
populations by income, geographic location, or colonial history.
I describe the discovery and long-term persistence of cultural practices among
populations choosing new environments to in which to settle. Variation in cultural technologies
is generated by partially-random solutions to problems concerning the management of group
resources, or the aggregate of fixed environmental endowments and the labor of individual
members. The physical environment, choice of subsistence activity, and the risk stemming from
the interaction of these two variables force decisions regarding how labor will be managed.
Chance mutation also plays a role, so similar endowments do not necessarily generate similar
cultures.1 All of these variables in addition to culture determine economic development
simultaneously.
The event generating variation in cultural technologies (or, more precisely, variation in
the constraints under which technologies are developed) is the serial migration of modern
humans across the globe that began roughly 100,000 years before present and ended roughly
10,000 years before present. This event also left a remarkable signature on the human genome
visible at the population level: genetic variety, or the number of potential genomic possibilities
found in a population, is inversely proportional to distance from East Africa, the original start
1 Though developed consciously and purposefully, cultural outcomes are not always predictable, nor is the decision
to adopt any norm always observable. In both senses, the discovery of cultural practices is partially random.
3
line for this era of migration that eventually brought humans to the extreme southern end of
South America and virtually every habitable locale in between.
This information has been measured across a large portion of the human genome that
does not code for the production proteins and is not associated with observable behaviors or
physical characteristics. Variety calculated from this information records only neutral genetic
diversity, or that portion of overall genetic diversity that is not under natural selection and is
mostly not a result of gene flow between populations. Because it is not a likely cause of any
observable behavior or characteristic, it is not an object of choice or optimization for economic
actors. Variation in this information is analogous to results from successive random draws (at
the population level) without replacement from the original pool of genetic material, leaving
populations near the source with the most variety and those farthest away with the least.
I demonstrate a significant and robust correlation between the candidate instrument and
specific cultural technologies. Since both genetic and cultural information are transmitted with
modification from parent to offspring across generations, this result is expected. I exploit the
empirical correlation and the assumption that variation in genetic heterogeneity is exogenous to
income generation to pursue an instrumental variable strategy that demonstrates empirically the
main hypothesis of this paper: culture creates economic incentives and human capital that affect
development in a robust and economically significant manner.
More generally, I provide empirical support for the hypothesis that preferences and
incentives are endogenously determined by social interaction and the unpredictable development
and adoption of cultural norms.2 It amplifies the notion that luck in the endowment of
technologies and culture has played a significant role in economic development.3 From an
2 See Akerlof and Kranton (2005) for the former and Roland (2004) for the latter.
3 See Diamond (1997) for physical technologies and Tabellini (2007) for cultural technologies.
4
economic policy perspective, the key finding is that informal, uncodified, and often-invisible
institutions create economic incentives. This suggests that formal institutions should be adapted
to local conditions rather than transplanted wholesale.
The plan of the paper is as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature on culture and
economic development, focusing on empirical treatments with careful identification strategies.
Section 3 provides the historical background and a detailed description of the mechanism linking
migration, cultural variation, genetic variety, and development. Section 4 describes data sources.
Section 5 presents the main empirical specifications and results, brief discussions of the
pathways between specific cultural behaviors and development, and examples of the cultural
behaviors at work. In addition, Section 5 includes tests of the validity of the instrument and a
discussion of the robustness of the empirical findings where I demonstrate that they hold across
several different subsamples and alternative measures of economic development. Section 6
offers concluding remarks. Extended robustness testing, discussions of the relationships between
cultural technologies and development, and specific examples of culture at work are found in the
appendices at the end of the paper.
2. Literature Review
Empirical analysis of the link between cultural variables and economic outcomes is a relatively
new research program. Some early examples like Knack and Keefer (1997), Temple and
Johnson (1998), and Hall and Jones (1999), while they do not explicitly observe culture, use
indices of ―social infrastructure‖ which likely contain latent elements of culture. These early
empirical analyses are in agreement: variation in social infrastructure predicts variation in
economic outcomes. Roland and Jellema (2006) produce evidence that culture and political
5
institutions are complements in income generation and that culture remains a significant
predictor of income when other institutions are held constant.
Identifying historical eras or chronologically distant events to utilize as a source of
plausibly exogenous variation in formal or informal institutions is also a relatively new avenue of
research. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001, 2002) exploit variation in the disease
environment confronting colonial settlers arriving in the 1500s to identify variation in current
levels of the risk of expropriation. Nunn (2008) finds that variation in the intensity with which
nations participated in the 13th
through 15th
century slave trades predicts variation in current
income.4 Galor and Moav (2007) suggests that years since the introduction of agriculture can
explain contemporary variation in life expectancy; they hypothesize that the Neolithic revolution
brought cultural and biological changes which in turn made longer life expectancy not only
possible but optimal.5
Recent examples combining both explicitly cultural variables and plausibly exogenous
sources of historical variation include Tabellini (2007), Licht, Goldschmidt, and Schwartz
(2007), and Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales (2008). The first two combine cross-national
observations of beliefs or opinions and an identification strategy that uses variation in linguistic
rules determined by ―distant traditions‖.6 Each describes an interaction between a set of beliefs
(as recorded by survey) and formal institutional outcomes like the rule of law or the quality of
government. The subsequent interaction between institutions and economic outcomes is not
4 Though institutions are not statistically identified or tested in Nunn (2008), the author suggests them as
intermediaries through which slave-trade participation might operate on current income. 5 Olson and Hibbs (2005) also begins at the Neolithic revolution but does not include an independent effect of
institutions. But see also Putterman (2008), which replicates Olson and Hibbs (2005) with corrections for the
diffusion of populations and technologies, including social practices. 6 See also Alesina and Fuchs-Schündeln (2005), Giuliano (2007), Fernandez and Fogli (2007), or Munshi and
Wilson (2008), all of which use the not-too-distant traditions of first-generation immigrants as instruments for the
cultural practices of second- or third- generation offspring of those immigrants. These later generations receive a
cultural package developed for a substantially different environment and variation in outcomes among them is
correlated with this cultural variation.
6
statistically tested but is assumed given the wealth of evidence available from other studies. The
latter finds that historical experience with independent city states in Italy is associated with
greater social capital (measured by civic participation). The authors hypothesize that the cultural
norm of cooperation reaffirmed by that historical experience has persisted and produces higher
social capital and income today.
Different versions of the genetic data underlying this paper‘s proposed instrument has
been used before. Two studies, Spolaore and Wacziarg (2009) and Ashraf and Galor (2008),
estimate a direct effect of genetic dissimilarity on economic outcomes.7 Using a condensed
version of the genetic data, Spolaore and Wacziarg (2009) take pairwise genetic differences at
the country level and estimate the contribution of these differences to pairwise differences in
income. They hypothesize that pairwise genetic dissimilarity is a proxy for differences in
―characteristics, including cultural traits‖ which act as barriers to the diffusion of innovation.
Ashraf and Galor (2008) estimate the direct effect of expected variation in genetic material on
national population densities in 1500 or earlier. The authors take genetic diversity as a proxy for
intra-population cultural dissimilarity and hypothesize two competing effects on population
density: genetic diversity hinders the transmission of ―society-specific human capital‖ but
encourages the ―accumulation of universally-applicable human capital‖.8 This leads to a non-
monotonic and indeterminate effect of genetic diversity on population density.
7 One of the first examples of genetic information used as an instrument in a two-stage least squares framework is
Fletcher and Lehrer (2008). The authors use variation in the presence of specific genes known to impact multiple
health outcomes to isolate the effects of poor health on educational outcomes. Though I use genetic information that
does not lead to differences in phenotype (observable characteristics, attributes, or behaviors), my empirical strategy
is much the same as Fletcher and Lehrer (2008) as I rely on the inability of economic actors to make genetic
information a choice variable. 8 Spolaore and Wacziarg (2009) and Ashraf and Galor (2008) both suggest a relationship between variation in
genotype, or the unobservable genetic makeup of a person, and variation in the observable behaviors they believe
lead to economic growth, but these relationships are not tested empirically.
7
This paper, with its emphasis on the local generation of observable behaviors and their
effects on local development, offers the following improvements to analyses discussed above:
the candidate instrument is unobservable by economic actors; I do not rely on previously existing
cultures, institutions, or external innovations to explain developmental or cultural variety; and I
am able to show which cultural behaviors matter for local output.
3. Instrument, Hypothesis and Historical Background
Economists have long suspected that culture and development covary - see Smith (1759) or
Weber (1905) - and empirical analyses have lent broad support to this hypothesis, but
measurement and identification issues are inescapable. In Sections 5 and 6 I provide a
discussion of why certain cultural technologies might cause development (see also Appendices B
and C), describe cultural measurement, and provide additional details on the candidate
instrument, including its ability to identify exogenous cultural variation. Following directly
below is a description of the candidate instrument and a summary of its attractive features. I then
discuss the mechanism generating both cultural and instrumental variation.
3.1. Candidate Instrument
The instrument I propose is population-level variety in neutral genetic information.9 Along the
human genome there are many thousands of sites where different versions of a gene, nucleotide
group, or a single nucleotide10
can potentially occur. An individual carries at most one variant at
any site where multiple variants can occur. If an individual is carrying a particular variant in the
9 Effectively, this means I use variation-in-variation to estimate the developmental effects of culture.
10 Nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA, which is itself the material of which genes are made. Nucleotides
are the discrete chemical compounds that line up along the familiar double helix in which DNA is arranged.
8
section of the human genome that determines blood type, for example, then she will end up with
blood type A. A different variant at the same site in another individual leads to blood type B and
another possible variant to blood type O. Three individuals, each with a different variant, will
carry three different blood types.
Across a population, however, all variants are observed more or less often and
frequencies can be calculated. Individuals with varieties that produce blood types A and B are
frequent in the Ainu of Japan and nearly nonexistent in the Zuni of New Mexico, for example:
population frequencies for A, B, and O blood types are approximately 26, 20, and 54 percent and
1, 6, and 93 percent for the Ainu and Zuni respectively (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza
1994). At this site, therefore, the Ainu are more heterogeneous than the Zuni.
This population genetic variation may arise from natural selection, or the differential
reproductive success of individuals (and therefore genomes) with or without certain varieties.
The gene variety that codes for the sickling of red blood cells, for example, occurs more
frequently in populations living in environments where malaria is or was common and where that
variant confers a reproductive advantage (resistance to malaria). Sexual selection may also
produce genetic variation: if varieties lead to observable characteristics or behaviors that increase
the likelihood of sexual reproduction by increasing the probability of mating, those may also
become more frequent.
Genetic information that is not advantaged selectively, however, also exhibits varying
population frequencies due to what is essentially sampling error: endogamous populations carry
only those varieties their ancestors carried. More precisely, they carry only those varieties
transmitted by the reproductive individuals within their ancestral group. Endogamous
populations with different ancestors will therefore be carrying differing sets of gene variants and
9
not every ancestor will have contributed genetic information. This compound sampling error
leads to variation in overall genetic variety at the population level even in the absence of clearly
advantageous varieties. Blood type is not selectively advantageous for the Ainu or Zuni, but
sampling error and endogamy have created divergent gene frequencies.
In this paper I use variety in genetic information that does not confer a selective
advantage. The information is averaged from up to 1000 sites where multiple variants can occur.
Each site is not known to specify the production of any protein nor is it associated with any
observable behaviors or physical characteristics.11
Furthermore, using a well-known and
repeatedly-confirmed result from population genetics (discussed in Sections 4 and 5), I am able
to exploit that portion of genetic information that varies as a result of the compound sampling
error discussed above.
Imagine that each population is associated with 20 pages, drawn randomly, one for each
population member, from a phonebook containing all possible 10-digit phone numbers.12
When
two members reproduce, each of their pages is copied automatically and given to offspring.
These phonebooks have two special properties: first, the numbers, if dialed, would not call up
anyone – they are ―non-coding‖. Second, neither the numbers nor the copying are observable by
any group member. The analogous variation I might propose as an instrument would not be the
presence or absence of any particular number or group of numbers. Instead, the population
frequency of varieties would be observed (count the numbers with area code 510) and from that
count a summary measure that describes overall heterogeneity in phone numbers (does area code
11
Though a large portion of the human genome is ―non-coding‖ in this way, these sequences are not necessarily all
non-functional. 12
Following the rules for US exchanges (no zeros or ones in the first digit of the area code or prefix, no quadruple
zeros in the suffix), there are just under 6.4 x 109 possible phone numbers.
10
510 occur frequently or not at all?) would be calculated; this heterogeneity could be averaged
over all digit locations.
Taking an average of information at several hundred sites produces a statistic
summarizing variety in total neutral genetic information. Populations can be classified based on
this average total variety and it has been shown to be distributed around the world in a
predictable manner (see Sections 4 and 5). I take advantage of this known distribution and
suggest that population differences in average total variety make up an appropriate instrumental
variable for culture.13
It is important to note that this variety is always based on genetic
information (which nucleotide varieties are present) and never on the physical outcomes
(phenotypic variety) that genetic information sometimes instructs.
Genetic variety calculated in this manner is unobservable, does not confer a selective
advantage, and could not have been a matter of choice or optimization. The generation of variety
by repeated sampling error makes the accumulation of population genetic variety analogous to
random draws from the original pool of genetic information. Furthermore, taking average
variety over several hundred sites effectively dampens the signal from the genetic information at
any one site. Therefore, even if some sites from which information is taken are discovered to be
under selection, the average information remains neutral.14
Finally, genetic information, like cultural information, is reproduced and persists by
sexual reproduction and vertical transmission from parent to offspring. In other words, each time
the non-coding phonebooks are passed on, an additional set of phonebooks with cultural codes
are also replicated and internalized. With observations from both sets of information for several
13
Exploiting the known distribution of genetic variety allows me to avoid capturing in my instrument that portion of
genetic information that varies as a result of gene flow between neighboring populations. 14
This is true also for gene flow, or the exchange of genetic material between neighboring populations through
exogamy: a signal that happens to be the product of exogamy will be dampened by averaging over many sites.
11
distinct populations, it is possible to identify the cultural codes that have persisted by vertical
transmission across generations by their correlations with the neutral genetic codes.
3.2. Historical Diffusion of Human Populations
Figure 1 shows routes taken by modern humans to all currently inhabited areas of the globe. The
dates shown are estimated arrival times in years before present, but confidence intervals on
proposed dates are not narrow. For example, the evolutionary events leading to the
establishment of modern humans in Africa are thought to have occurred between 200,000 and
150,000 years ago; expansion out of Africa between 100,000 and 65,000 years ago; and the first
FIGURE 1 – ANCIENT MIGRATIONS of MODERN HUMANS
Note: Figure 1 shows hypothesized routes to and dates of arrival in all currently inhabited areas. Dates shown
are years before present and are inexact. Adapated from Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (2003).
12
arrival of humans in North America between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago (Mellars 2006). Intra-
continental migration dates and arrival times are similarly imprecise (Lahr and Foley 1994).
There are two important features of these migrations the empirical analysis exploits. The
first is the ―Out of Africa‖ or ―Recent Single Origin‖ hypothesis, which states that there was one
site-specific beginning to the diffusion and expansion of modern humans; the available evidence
suggests the site was East Africa (Harpending and Rogers 2000). The second concerns the
composition of successive migrating groups: each outmigrant group was a genetically non-
representative subset of the stay-at-home population (Prugnolle, Manica, and Balloux 2005). A
recent single origin links every human population to the founding population while serial
selection of genetically non-representative migrating groups produces population variation in the
human genome.15
3.3. Cultural Innovation and Maintenance
Each migrating group confronted a distinct and unfamiliar environment requiring new strategies
and technologies for subsistence and reproduction.16
These strategies and techniques include
ideas about how members will relate to one another socially and familiarly, collective actions
and goals, taboos, leisure, and myriad other norms and conventions all of which can properly be
called culture. Some ideas may be explicitly optimal solutions to unambiguous problems,17
15
Though evidence from archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, and population genetics supports an East African
origin and serial migration, a multi-site model of the origin of modern humans has not been conclusively ruled out.
Though it would make interpretation of the patterns present in population genetic information less straightforward, a
multi-site model would not invalidate either the hypothesis of cultural innovation or the empirical results discussed
below. 16
Lahr and Foley (1998) argue that these ―myriad local histories‖, rather than population exchange, are responsible
for most of the linguistic, cultural, morphological, and genetic diversity among modern human populations. 17
Also likely is toleration of ideas that are not welfare-improving but that are maintained by collective action or
coordination failures (Olson 1965).
13
some may be the result of extensive trial and error, and some may have occurred
serendipitously.18
All locally-developed solutions need not have been a result of local inputs and local
experience alone. Human capital (including culture) and physical capital (tools, production
techniques) acquired during earlier eras may have been locally useful.19
This ability to re-
optimize and co-adapt to a broad range of ecological niches is unique (historically if not
biologically) to humans, and the available evidence suggests that the elements necessary for this
relentless innovation were in place before populations moved from Africa. The cognitive,
neurological, cultural, and technological changes that occurred before expansion out of Africa
may be directly associated with the evolution of anatomically and genetically modern
populations (Mellars 2006).
Once developed, local solutions to social problems will be transmitted from generation to
generation and parent to child (Bisin and Verdier 2001; Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981). The
vertical transmission of local cultural solutions results in a relatively stable set of cultural values
which are slow to change and become fixed for several generations (Roland 2004). Though not
necessarily developed for this purpose, some parts of the cultural apparatus may prove
advantageous as populations grow and begin to produce above subsistence levels.20
Larger
populations and production above subsistence in turn make possible specialization, intra-group
18
Both Roland (2004) and Tabellini (2008) accommodate randomness or luck in the history of ideas, as no norms
concerning human interaction are accepted everywhere. Diamond (1997) leaves room for chance in the worldwide
distribution of subsistence practices and technologies by noting both that the most productive subsistence strategy,
sedentary agriculture, did not arise first in the areas most suited for it and also that the original development of
subsistence agriculture was probably accidental. 19
Roland (2004) defines the accumulated stock of embodied knowledge as technology. I will also treat cultural
strategies as part of the technological endowment that determines how a given society functions. 20
As discussed below, the cultural apparatus is determined at least partially by randomness in the generation and
adoption of ideas. The generation of ideas is analogous to the generation of mutant genotypes in the sense that it is
unpredictable and unobservable; the adoption of ideas may appear random and unpredictable but a complete model
of human interaction could yield reasonable forecasts regarding the adoption of previously unknown ideas even if
the act of adoption is unobservable.
14
trade, and group-wide improvements in production scale and scope, all of which lead to greater
incomes or levels of development.
3.4. Schematic: Cultural Innovation, Persistence, and Income
The preceding arguments concerning human diffusion, cultural innovation, cultural
maintenance, and economic development are captured in the following set of equations
governing the distribution of population income over the long run:
Yj = k(Cj, Ej, Aj, H) + εj, (1)
Cjt = (2)
H = α * m( , S). (3)
In equation (1), development Y is determined by cultural strategies C, environment E, subsistence
activity A, and technology H, which is an accumulated stock including physical and human
capital. Location is indexed by j, generations by t; ε, η, and υ are all random shocks; σ is the
share of output devoted to durable physical capital and α is a constant that describes the rate at
which the stock of capital decays. S (discussed below) represents time elapsed since settlement.
Equation (2) describes the mechanism generating the innovation and diffusion of cultural
strategies. Migration brings a people to a new homeland, where cultural strategies develop
randomly under constraints to meet the demands of social organization and subsistence
production in new environments. Once migration has ended and location is fixed, transmission
with modification across generations leads to relative stability in cultural technologies.
The distribution of culture generated by equation (2) includes error terms capturing
random shocks to culture that might, for example, be generated by contact with a neighboring
15
group, the discovery of a new food source, a re-interpretation of a sacred myth, or any event that
leads to either the insertion of new or the deletion of old cultural strategies. The presence of
these shocks means that two groups with similar initial endowments E, A, H, andY may not end
up culturally similar.
Since there are likely shocks affecting both income and culture, ε, η, and υ may contain
common elements. Consider a prolonged drought which reduces production and also leads to the
adoption of new methods by which authorities are chosen. A common shock produces
predictable (reduced output) and unpredictable (a new cultural norm) outcomes. The
unpredictable element is perpetuated by the vertical transmission of cultural behaviors where it
may be further modified.21
The cultural innovation may eventually affect income if, in addition
to specifying a new mode of political organization, it creates incentives to produce, or leads to
increased property security.
The persistence of cultural technologies also leads to stabilization in the broad technology
measure H (equation (3)) which contains S, capturing the gradual improvements in technology
that come from extensive trial and error or familiarity with the local environment, including
knowledge of other groups. During those eras when location is fixed, cultural strategies are re-
generated each period t. This means some of the depreciation α of the stock of accumulated
knowledge is counterbalanced by generational renewal.
An example of these processes is in Figure 2 which shows the worldwide distribution of
evil-eye belief for the populations I use in the empirical analysis (see Section 4.2.1). Evil-eye
belief is the belief that a look, touch, or verbal expression of envy or excessive praise can cause
21
Durham (1991) provides several examples of the transmission with modification of cultural behaviors adopted
after environmental shocks to subsistence production.
16
FIGURE 2 – EVIL EYE BELIEF WORLDWIDE
Sub-Saharan Africa
Circum-Mediterranean
East Asia
17
FIGURE 2 CONTINUED– EVIL EYE BELIEF WORLDWIDE
Note: Evil eye belief (dark circles) for 175 societies in Sub-Saharan Africa, Circum-Mediterranean, East Asia,
the Pacific, North America, and South America (consecutively from top left). See the accompanying text for
definitions.
The Pacific
North America
South America
18
material harm like sickness, loss of vitality or even death.22
In Sub-Saharan Africa, it is
distributed mostly evenly, though its absence from the west is conspicuous. In the Circum-
Mediterranean (North Africa, Europe, and the near Middle East), evil eye belief is ubiquitous.
Then, moving through East Asia, the farthest east where it is seen is Bhutan; it is absent from Sri
Lanka through Southeast Asia, China, Japan, and far east Russia. In the Pacific, where it is
occurs with the least frequency, it is seen at least as far east as Fiji. Finally, in North America,
evil eye belief is confined to the west coastal corridor and in South America it has not spread east
or south.
Tracing the diffusion of any specific behavior is beyond the scope of this paper, but
Figure 2 shows discontinuities in both the frequency and spatial distribution of cultural
technologies. These discontinuities suggest that migration and endogamy generate unpredictable
variation in cultural strategies. Significant physical boundaries or long distances produce
clusters of groups with similar technologies, but groups that have crossed such boundaries do not
predictably choose those technologies their ancestors had.
Equations (2) and (3) highlight the tendency of cultural strategies to evolve randomly
under local constraints at any j and then to persist over long periods of time after location has
become fixed. Equation (1) proposes that these same behaviors affect production. Genetic
information is conspicuously absent from the schematic model in equations (1) through (3) by
design: there is no direct mechanical link or singular mapping from genetic to cultural
information. Nonetheless there is robust global correlation between the two sets arising from
evolution under common constraints.
22
Evil-eye belief is not predictive of development – see section 5.5.1.
19
3.5 Human Diffusion and the Generation of Cultural and Genetic Diversity
Why is neutral genetic variation correlated with variation in social behaviors? Both are
generated by the process of innovation, diffusion, and permanence described above. The
particular manner in which early migrations were achieved (serially, by genetically non-
representative subsets, from a single origin) led to founder effects and genetic drift, resulting in
long-lived variation in overall genetic information at the population level (Lahr and Foley 1998;
Ramachandran et al. 2005).
A ―founder effect‖ describes the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new society
is established by a small number of individuals who by necessity carry only a subset of genetic
information from the originally available pool. ―Genetic drift‖ is the probabilistic deviation of
genetic information due to random variations in which members of any population actually
reproduce. During the long history of human diffusion, ―Out of Africa‖ and serial migration led
to repeated founder effects and drift within endogamous founding populations; the effect is a
regular decrease in genetic heterogeneity from populations near East Africa to populations
further away (Li et al. 2008). As groups migrated, coalesced, and sent new migrants further
along, each successive group carried with it increasingly smaller subsets of genetic information
from the originally available pool. Once settled, genetic drift operated on each endogamous
population, causing further divergence in genetic information from original populations.
There was likely further adjustment in overall genetic variability depending on the
amount of gene flow achieved by sexual reproduction between neighboring populations.
However, genetic variability was only partially replenished by gene flow from neighboring
groups, so the set of local variants by and large remained local and were perpetuated across
generations through local, endogamous sexual reproduction (Lahr and Foley 1998).
20
The generation of cultural and developmental variability was described as follows:
culture responds to environment including the stock of previously existing knowledge. The
partially random response persists by transmission from parent to offspring. These behavioral
changes in turn induce development outcomes. Analogously, neutral information in the human
genome varies randomly in relation to local conditions23
and random genetic variability achieves
stability by vertical transmission from parent to offspring. Thus, the simultaneous transmission
of two sets of information allows a description of one set (cultural technologies) by the other
(genetic information).24
4. Data
Available cross-sectional data permit an instrumental variables estimation of equation (1), which
describes the effect of culture on levels of development. I describe that data here; Section 5
explains the estimated specifications, demonstrates a robust correlation between cultural
variation and neutral genetic information and identifies the effect of cultural strategies on
development.
4.1. Cultural Data
Cultural technologies are observed and recorded in the Standard Cross Cultural Sample (SCCS)
(Murdock and White 1969). The observations in the SCCS are extracted and coded from the
23
Neutral genetic variability is not a response to local conditions but a by-product of the repeated sampling error
that describes the migration of groups to local habitats (Lahr and Foley 1998). 24
Of course, cultural reproduction does not proceed with the same fidelity as does genetic replication. This should
caution against any hypothesis that asserts a causal link between genes and cultural behavior. It should also, in an
empirical treatment of equation (1) with genetic information as an instrument for culture, bias first-stage coefficients
towards zero.
21
Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock 1967), a compilation of over 1200 ethnographies that collectively
cover virtually all modern and many pre-modern societies.
The SCCS selects populations from the Atlas, each pinpointed to the smallest identifiable
subgroup, to achieve a distribution of human groups with independent histories, homes, and
cultures. Murdock and White (1969) describes the sample selection mechanism as follows: the
original universe of over 1200 well-described populations was partitioned into ―groups of
societies with cultures so similar…that no world sample should include more than one of them.‖
These clusters were then grouped into roughly 200 sampling provinces ―where linguistic and
cultural evidence reveals similarities of a lesser order but still sufficient to raise the presumption
of historical connection…‖ Finally, one population from each sampling province of related
cultures was chosen; the independence of each unit in terms of historical origin and cultural
diffusion is maximal with respect to the other societies in the sample. The observations that
make up this cross-section of world populations were not all recorded the same year or even the
same decade. By design the date of observation (focus year) is that of the earliest high quality
ethnographic description; 85 percent of the observations are recorded between 1850 and 1965.25
Table 1 gives SCCS descriptive statistics. The SCCS is drawn evenly from all world
regions, including Africa and the Pacific. All subsistence strategies are represented at the world
level, but there are no pastoralists in either the Pacific or North America; no foragers in the
Circum-Mediterranean; and relatively few agriculturalists in the Americas, especially North
America.26
25
Often ethnographic information is based on interviews with informants who describe historical practices. This
contributes to the selection of a sample relatively free of the influence of colonization by European powers. 26
This does not mean there is no pastoralism in the Pacific or foraging in the Circum-Mediterranean, only that no
society in those regions gets a majority of subsistence production from those activities.
22
TABLE 1 — DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
World
Sub-Saharan Circum- East Insular North South
Africa Mediterranean Asia Pacific America America
Number of societies 186 28 28 34 31 33 32
Agriculturalists (%) 39 57 50 53 42 12 25
Pastoralists (%) 6 4 21 12 0 0 3
Foragers (%) 31 11 0 21 23 70 53
Mixed (%) 24 29 29 15 35 18 19
Population density 5 to 5 to 26 to 26 to 26 to 1 to 1 to
(median range, per square mile) 25 25 100 100 100 5 5
Total population 10 to 100 to 100 to 100 to 1 to 1 to 1 to
(median range, thousands) 100 1000 1000 1000 10 10 10
Community Size/Urbanization 200 to 200 to 1000 to 200 to 100 to 100 to 50 to
(mean size range, persons) 399 399 5000 399 199 199 99
Climate equatorial equatorial
arid/ temperate/ equatorial temperate equatorial
(median Köppen -Geiger type) temperate equatorial
Pathogen stress 50th 85th 50th 50th 40th 10th 60th
(world percentile)
Observation year 1915 1920 1920 1930 1930 1870 1928
(median)
Note: The Insular Pacific includes societies from countries with East Asian elements that are not connected to the Asian landmass (Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines, and Taiwan) as well as aboriginal societies Australia and New Zealand. The Circum-Mediterranean includes societies from Europe, the
Middle East, and North Africa. Societies from Iran and countries east of Iran are included in East Asia. Russia is split between the Circum-Mediterranean
(Russians) and East Asia (Chukchee, Gilyak, Yukaghir, and Samoyed). North America includes Mexico. For subsistence activity categories, a society is
defined as being a type if more than 55 percent of subsistence production comes from that activity. Foragers must get more than 65 percent of subsistence
production from any combination of hunting, gathering, and fishing. Mixed economies get less than 55 percent of subsistence from any one category.
Pathogen stress is a cumulative index of the presence of 7 separate pathogens.
23
Environmental variables show the poor physical characteristics that some regions were
dealt (Sub-Saharan Africa‘s high pathogen stress) but also indicate that development is not fully
determined by geography (East Asia‘s equatorial climate, North America‘s low pathogen stress).
Interestingly, all regions are within one-third of a standard deviation of worldwide average
agricultural potential (determined by land slope, soil quality, and climate); the largest deviation
is in Sub-Saharan Africa and it is towards better agricultural potential. I return to the importance
of environmental and geographical determinates of economic development in Section 5.3 below.
Sub-Saharan Africa has relatively large societies spread thinly while the Pacific has very dense
societies that nonetheless are quite small. East Asia‘s dense populations are distributed evenly
into smaller communities, while Circum-Mediterranean populations (also dense) are more often
concentrated in a few large towns.27
This suggests that neither total population, population
density, nor urbanization are appropriate proxies for income everywhere. Instead I construct
and describe here an income proxy that directly measures production of human and physical
capital.
The SCCS does not observe prices or consumption, but does contain enough output
measures to construct society-wide wealth. The income proxy I calculate is an index aggregating
physical capital, improvements in administrative capacity, and financial market depth. Table 2
presents the index components and their range; Figure 2 presents a map marking the location of
all SCCS societies with development proxy levels indicated by marker size.28
27
Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2002) make a theoretical and empirical case for urbanization as a proxy for
income. Ashraf and Galor (2008) develop a case for total population as an income proxy (in Malthusian eras).
Maddison (2001, 2005) uses both urbanization and population densities to construct income-per-capita from the year
0. Empirical results (discussed below) hold when either urbanization or total population are substituted for the
development proxy described below. 28
Another technology, boat building, was observed but not included in the development index in order not to
handicap locations where water transport is not feasible. Including boat building in the development index while
dropping those societies for which water transport is infeasible does not change results or rankings. The
24
development index including boat building is nearly perfectly correlated (ρ = 0.98) with the index excluding boat
building.
TABLE 2 — DEVELOPMENT PROXY COMPONENTS
Minimum
Maximum
World World
Median Mean
Land transport: human motorized human pack
method carriers vehicles carriers animals
Land transport: unimproved paved unimproved improved
routes trails roads trails trails
Large or impressive none
public,
ceremonial, none
personal
structures
military, or
industrial
residence
Craft none
potters,
weavers,
potters,
weavers, potters,
weavers,
specialization
and metalwork
or metalwork
or metalwork
Writing and none
true writing mnemonic mnemonic
records and records devices devices
Money none true alien domestic
money currency articles
Credit source friends,
banks friends, internal
relatives relatives money
Note: To create the development proxy, categorical values for these seven variables are
summed. The number of categories for each variable are as follows: land transport:
method, writing and records, and money: 5; land transport: routes and credit source: 4;
large or impressive structures and craft specialization: 3. The minimum and maximum
values of the index are 7 and 29.
25
FIGURE 3 — SCCS SOCIETIES & DEVELOPMENT
Note: Larger marker size indicates greater levels of development as measured by the proxy described in the Table 2 and accompanying text. Lighter marker
shading indicates lower levels of expected genetic heterozygosity as described in Figure 3 and accompanying text in Section 4.2.
26
There are nearly 2000 variables recorded in the SCCS, from weaning practices to sources
of political authority. Though certain variables record beliefs (in a god or gods, for example),
the object of all observations is actual cultural practice rather than opinions, forecasts, or moral
judgments. This distinction is important if the goal is to identify an effect of variation in social
behavior on variation in development. A more detailed discussion of the SCCS cultural
variables used in the empirical analysis appears in Section 5.
4.2. Genetic Data
For approximately 60 percent of SCCS societies I match information on population gene
frequencies from Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza (1994). The History and Geography of
Human Genes observes frequencies for nearly 2000 populations on every inhabited continent and
several islands in the Pacific Ocean.
From variant frequencies a population-wide measure of total genetic variety
(heterozygosity) can be calculated. With I loci (sites where variants occur), J possible alleles
(variants), and Pj the population frequency of each possible allele, heterozygosity is equal to:
. (4)
The more frequently any particular allele j occurs, the less frequently other potential alleles occur
and heterozygosity decreases. If all potential alleles occur with equal frequency, heterozygosity
increases.
Information from only a small number of loci is available from The History and
Geography of Human Genes for a limited number of SCCS societies. Using a result from
population genetics, I calculate for all SCCS societies a version of expected heterozygosity
calculated from alleles at over 750 loci. The measure, which is based on the previously
27
described linear decay of genetic heterozygosity as migratory distance from East Africa
increases, summarizes the evolution of these migrations: they occurred serially, with genetically
non-representative population subsets, from a single origin.
Figure 3 demonstrates this relationship for two samples: populations from the Human
Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel used to confirm the relationship between heterozygosity and
distance from East Africa (Ramachandran et al. (2005), Prugnolle, Manica, and Balloux (2005),
Liu et al. (2006), Li et al. (2008)), and a subsample of SCCS populations.29
The previous Figure
2 exhibits expected heterozygosities obtained from applying Ramachandran et al. (2005) slope
coefficients (dark dashed line in Figure 3) to SCCS societies - lighter marker shading means less
genetic heterozygosity.30
Expected heterozygosity has attractive properties beyond SCCS-wide availability. It
captures the minimum effect that genetic drift due to a serial founder effect has on variation in
total genetic information and does not contain the portion produced by selection or post-
migration gene flow between populations (Ramachandran et al. (2005)). This same portion of
demographic history is what drives cultural mutation and permanence described in equation (2).
It is also the portion of demographic history the SCCS sample selection mechanism attempts to
capture. Furthermore, using many loci that are in non-coding regions31
helps ensure that the
signal from neutral genetic information dominates and that information from any alleles under
selection is muted.
29
Intercepts vary due to the number of loci considered There is one population common to both samples: Chinese at
roughly 10500 kilometers from Addis Ababa. 30
The expected SCCS heterozygosity shown in Figure 2 is positively correlated with actual SCCS heterozygosity
based on 3 loci (shown as light diamonds in Figure 3) with a ρ approximately equal to 0.75. 31
Number of poly-allelic loci (300+, 750+, 1000+) considered changes intercepts and slope coefficients, but not the
general conclusions demonstrated in Figure 3. Number of loci underlying expected heterozygosity does not
substantively change instrument relevance or two-stage least squares coefficients in Tables 3 through 7 upcoming.
28
FIGURE 3 — EXPECTED HETEROZYGOSITY FOR TWO SAMPLES
Note: Expected genetic heterozygosity (dashed lines) versus migratory distance from East Africa for two different samples. Dark circles are actual heterozygosities
calculated over 783 loci for all populations in the Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel (HGDP-CEPH). Light diamonds are actual heterozygosities calculated
over 3 loci for a subset of populations in the SCCS. The only common population is Chinese at approximately 10500 kilometers from Addis Ababa. Migratory
waypoints are those used in Ramachandran et al. (2005). HDGP-CEPH data and figure are adapted from Ramachandran et al. (2005); SCCS data and figure are
author‘s calculation. When applying HGDP-CEPH slope coefficients to all SCCS societies, expected heterozygosity decays as shown in the previous Figure 2, where
lighter shading indicates less heterozygosity.
slope = -6.5 x 10-6
slope = -9.9 x 10-6
29
5. Empirical Results
5.1. Specification
Table A.1 in the first appendix lists unconditional correlations among regressors32
used in
estimating the following equation:
Yj = λy + βCj + δyAj + τyEj + σyXj + εy, (5)
where Y is the development proxy (see Table 2), C is a vector of cultural behaviors taken from
the SCCS (discussed below), A and E are vectors describing subsistence activity and
environmental conditions, respectively, X is a vector of additional controls, and λ is a constant.
Given the description of developmental and cultural change in equations (1) through (3),
empirical estimation of (5) should explicitly incorporate the partial effect of Yj on Cj,. This is
unobservable and direct estimation of (5) may produce inconsistent coefficients, so I use genetic
heterozygosity as an instrumental variable. When heterozygosity Gj satisfies the relevance
assumption and exclusion restriction, a first-stage estimation of the reduced-form equation for Cj,
Cj = λc + ΨGj + δcAj + τcEj + σcXj + εc, (6)
combined with a second-stage estimation of (5) using predicted values of culture from (6) in
place of observed Cj will just identify β for any cultural behavior. I show that Gj satisfies the
relevance assumption using standard statistical tests; overidentification tests and regional
empirical patterns suggest Gj is correctly excluded from equation (5) and therefore uncorrelated
with εy.
32
There are significant correlations between subsistence activities, environment, and cultural behaviors. Agriculture
is not always found in the most agriculturally productive environments and agriculturally productive land is
frequently situated in equatorial climates with relatively high levels of rainfall and pathogen stress. Intuitively, these
characteristics dovetail with the account of early sedentary agriculture in Diamond (1987), which argues it initially
led to worse health, nutrition, and demographic outcomes.
30
5.2. What Might Class, Inheritance Rights, and Game Complexity be Good For?
The pathways between Table A.1 cultural behaviors and development are straightforward. More
detail is given in Appendix A, but a convenient shorthand is the following: class stratification
coordinates the division of labor, games are education, and inheritance rights are an early form of
property rights.
Class stratification produces division of labor and specialization by providing rules for
the separation of the larger population into subpopulations based on culturally-specific
determinations of superiority and inferiority. Regardless of whether values like honor or purity
are eventually replaced by pecuniary success as the basis of class divisions, this division into
subpopulations, once crystallized, encourages the transmission of group-specific skills,
behaviors, and information. Not only does this facilitate specialization and the decentralized
coordination of information relevant to production, but also the formation of group identity and
the creation of markets for the wares or symbols associated with groups, all of which promote
economic development.
Games and play behavior function much as formal education or research and
development: they encourage cognitive development and human capital acquisition by providing
a consequence-free environment in which experimentation, trial and error, and the spontaneous
recombination of known quantities or methods can provide novel and better solutions to social
problems. The SCCS observes game complexity and not time spent in play; the interaction
described suggests that higher levels of game complexity are analogous to higher levels of
formal schooling.
Inheritance rights are an early form of property rights giving the property owner the
freedom to allocate his property once he can no longer use it personally. The SCCS observes
31
rights in both portable and permanent property and while they are correlated, they are not
collinear. The developmental response to secure property rights is familiar and will not be
discussed at length here; further details and references are included in Appendix A.
5.3. Instrumental Variables Results
5.3.1. Cultural Behaviors and Development
Table 3 presents results from two-stage least squares estimation of equations (5) and (6) with
expected genetic heterozygosity as an instrumental variable candidate. Three unique cultural
behaviors are included as regressors. Columns (1) and (2) take class stratification as the
regressor. Class stratification is an ordered categorical variable with five different values:
―absence among freemen‖, ―incipient wealth distinctions‖, ―elite‖ (where control over scarce
resources distinguishes a propertied class), ―dual (hereditary aristocracy)‖, and ―complex (social
classes)‖. The categories are ordered, so that higher numbers on this variable represent more
complex, crystallized, and widespread stratification. The information recorded excludes purely
political and religious statuses and individual-level variation in ―repute achieved through skill,
valor, piety, or wisdom.‖33
Columns (3) and (4) use inheritance rights as the cultural regressor.
Inheritance rights describe the ―rule or practice governing the disposition or transmission‖ of
permanent and portable property.34
Finally, columns (5) and (6) take game complexity as the
33
Both ―caste stratification‖ and the form and prevalence of ―slave status‖ is recorded and could add dimension to
the class variable, but neither castes nor slavery are common: nearly 90 percent of SCCS societies with income data
do not have castes and nearly 80 percent do not have hereditary slavery. 34
The SCCS includes information on who receives property (offspring, kin, in-laws), but I use the information to
establish the presence or absence of rights in inheritance.
32
TABLE 3 — IV REGRESSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT PROXY
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Panel A: IV Second stage Cultural Technology Regressor is:
Class stratification Inheritance rights Game complexity
Culture 2.740*** 2.076* 3.036** 3.117+ 5.183*** 3.575*
(0.61) (1.04) (1.11) (1.67) (1.34) (1.73)
Agriculture 0.585* 0.721* 0.665*
(0.27) (0.32) (0.28)
Foraging -0.081 -0.031 -0.378*
(0.26) (0.27) (0.19)
Nomadic 1.591 0.756 0.574
(1.28) (1.41) (1.00)
Pathogen stress -0.281* -0.256 -0.263+
(0.13) (0.16) (0.15)
Food variability 0.311 -0.864 -1.336
(0.71) (0.93) (0.99)
Agricultural potential -0.001 0.108 0.034
(0.09) (0.14) (0.10)
Rainfall -0.199 -0.192 0.158
(0.18) (0.31) (0.27)
Climate? no yes no yes no yes
Focus year? no yes no yes no yes
Panel B: IV First stage Instrument: Genetic Heterozygosity
Expected heterozygosity 1.816*** 1.101* 1.195*** 0.932*** 1.067*** 0.855**
(0.38) (0.40) (0.23) (0.23) (0.22) (0.29)
R2 0.12 0.32 0.20 0.52 0.13 0.21
Panel C: Ordinary Least Squares
Culture 2.122*** 1.595*** 3.385*** 2.071** 2.460*** 1.593**
(0.28) (0.27) (0.52) (0.65) (0.53) (0.47)
R2 0.36 0.55 0.19 0.46 0.13 0.47
Number of observations 153 144 120 113 145 136
Legend: + p<0.1; * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
Note: The dependent variable is the development proxy (see Table 2). Cultural technology regressors used are listed
at the top of each column. Panel A reports the second stage results from IV regressions with the respective cultural
variable and all listed environmental and subsistence activity control variables, instrumenting for each cultural
technology with expected genetic heterozygosity; Panel B reports corresponding first stage results (first stage
coefficients on other excluded variables have been suppressed to save space); Panel C reports coefficients from an
OLS regression of the dependent variable on the respective cultural technology plus the same controls listed in Panel
A (OLS coefficients on those controls have been suppressed to save space). Robust standard errors are in
parentheses. In regressions with climate dummies, the dummy for temperate climates is omitted. In regressions
with focus year dummies, the dummy for focus years 1936-1960 is omitted. Only societies with focus years greater
than 1750 are included
33
cultural regressor. Game complexity measures which combination of the following three
elements are involved in competitive contests35
: physical skill, chance, and strategy.
Panel A presents second-stage results for each cultural behavior, first for the
unconditional correlation of development with the behavior and then with a complete set of
subsistence production, environmental, climate, and focus year controls. Panel B presents the
corresponding first-stage coefficients on expected genetic heterozygosity and confirms that it
satisfies the relevance assumption in the first stage. Panel C presents OLS coefficients from a
direct estimation of equation (5); Panel C controls are precisely the same as those in Panel A. In
Table 3 and all subsequent specifications, sample standard errors are calculated using the Huber-
White estimator which is robust to heteroskedasticity in the residuals εy and εc.36
The developmental benefits of these cultural behaviors are substantial: a one category
increase in class stratification, inheritance rights, or game complexity leads to an increase of 40,
60, and 70 percent of a standard deviation of development, respectively. Or, from the lowest
levels of class, inheritance rights, and games to the highest, individual increases of roughly 1.6,
1.2, and 2.0 standard deviations of development. The development proxy is not a standard
measure of income and most SCCS societies are unfamiliar, so the economic meaning of a
standard-deviation increase in development is not transparent. However, comparing societies
near the bottom of the distributions of all three cultural technologies and development to
societies near the middle to societies near the top involves comparing, for example, the Yahgan
(South American foragers) or Kung! (South African foragers) to Natchez (North American
35
Only games with an outcome, i.e., a winner and a loser, are included in the coded information. 36
Though the SCCS sampling frame goes some way toward producing relatively independent observations, there is
still likely to be some autocorrelation in the cultural variables along geographic, historical, or ancestral distances.
The Huber-White variance estimator is robust to such patterns.
34
foragers/agriculturalist) or Somali (East African pastoralists) to the Irish (Western European
mixed agriculturalists/pastoralists) or Chinese (Western Asian agriculturalists).
Results in Table 3 summarize a naïve statistical exercise: if expected heterozygosity is a
valid instrument for class stratification, say, it cannot technically be so for inheritance rights
because it will remain correlated with development after inheritance rights are held constant.37
Table 4 presents specifications including combinations of class stratification, inheritance rights,
and game complexity and otherwise similar to Table 3. Columns (1) and (2) use the first latent
variable extracted from a factor analysis of all three cultural behaviors38
; columns (3) and (4) use
an index created by adding scores from all three cultural behaviors; and columns (5) and (6)
include all three independently and simultaneously.
From second-stage results in Panel A, a standard-deviation increase in the first factor or
the additive index lead to increases of approximately 50 percent of a standard deviation of
development; a simultaneous one standard deviation increase in all three cultural technologies
working through the first factor increases development by approximately 115 percent of a
standard deviation. The latter number is approximately the current gap in log GDP per capita
between Mongolia and Turkey, Thailand and Ireland, or Colombia and Japan. When all three
technologies are entered independently, OLS coefficients (Panel B) on class stratification,
inheritance rights, and game complexity are reduced approximately 14, 46, and 48 percent from
Table 4 columns 2, 4, and 6 respectively, but each remains statistically significant at the 10
percent level or better. A simultaneous one-unit change in all three produces an increase of two-
37
Formally, in an IV estimation of equation (5) with inheritance rights as the culture Cj , genetic heterozygosity will
be correlated with the error εy through class stratification. I thank David Levine and Chad Jones for independently
suggesting this naivety. 38
The correlation between class and either inheritance rights or game complexity is approximately 0.45; that
between inheritance rights and game complexity approximately 0.17. The first factor extracted from the three
technologies leaves a substantial amount of variation in each unexplained.
35
TABLE 4 — IV REGRESSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT PROXY
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Panel A: IV Second stage Cultural Technology Regressor is:
First factor Additive index All independently
Cultural Index 3.323*** 3.335* 1.069** 1.070+
(0.97) (1.41) (0.31) (0.45)
Table 3 controls? no yes no yes no yes
Panel B: IV First stage Instrument: Genetic Heterozygosity
Expected heterozygosity 1.256*** 1.056*** 3.905*** 3.290***
(0.23) (0.24) (0.71) (0.77)
R2 0.19 0.48 0.18 0.46
Panel C: Ordinary Least Squares
Cultural index 4.728*** 3.880*** 1.49*** 1.207***
(0.54) (0.61) (0.17) (0.19)
Class stratification 1.706*** 1.387***
(0.35) (0.30)
Inheritance rights 1.551** 1.114+
(0.52) (0.59)
Game complexity 0.816+ 0.832+
(0.50) (0.48)
R2 0.43 0.61 0.43 0.61 0.42 0.60
Number of observations 115 108 115 108 115 108
Legend: + p<0.1; * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
Note: The dependent variable is the development proxy (see Table 2). Cultural technology regressors used
are listed at the top of each column. First factor is the first latent variable extracted from a factor analysis
of Class stratification, Inheritance rights, and Game complexity. Additive index is a simple sum of scores
on the same three cultural technologies. Panel A reports the second stage results from IV regressions with
the respective cultural variable and all listed environmental and subsistence activity control variables
(coefficients on those controls have been suppressed to save space), instrumenting for each cultural
technology with expected genetic heterozygosity. There are no first- or second-stage results for the
specifications in columns (5) and (6) because instruments for all three cultural technologies are not
available simultaneously. Panel B reports corresponding first stage results (first stage coefficients on other
excluded variables have been suppressed to save space); Panel C reports coefficients from an OLS
regression of the dependent variable on the respective cultural technology plus the same controls listed in
Panel A (OLS coefficients on those controls have been suppressed to save space). Robust standard errors
are in parentheses. In regressions with climate dummies, the dummy for temperate climates is omitted. In
regressions with focus year dummies, the dummy for focus years 1936-1960 is omitted. Only societies
with focus years greater than 1750 are included.
36
thirds of a standard deviation of development.39
In Table 3, OLS coefficients from Panel C are mostly smaller than 2SLS coefficients
from Panel A while in Table 4 the opposite is true. This is consistent with attenuation in OLS
coefficients from measurement error in the cultural variables, which attempt to capture all
relevant cultural variation in singular indicators. Thus the first factor, which by design searches
for common variance among all the cultural technologies, is capturing a less noisy share of
―developmental culture‖ than any singular technology. The additive index may do the same but
without suppressing information that predicts development – columns 5 and 6 in Table 4
demonstrate each cultural technology has an effect beyond its association with other cultural
technologies.
Since it is a by necessity a chronological as well as a geographic summary of populations,
heterozygosity may contain the omitted variable S (time since settlement – see equation (3))
which captures gradual improvements that are a result of extensive trial and error or familiarity
with the local environment. As discussed in Section 5.5.3 below, time since the introduction of
technologies is a determinate of income at the national level. If the principle applies at the
population level, 2SLS coefficients on singular cultural behaviors (Table 3) should increase if
heterozygosity and S are correlated. However, gradual improvements in the collection of
technologies would also be expected, so the decrease in 2SLS coefficients (relative to OLS) in
Table 4 are difficult to reconcile if the omitted variable S is driving results. Furthermore, in OLS
specifications with both cultural technologies and heterozygosity (expected or actual) entered
simultaneously, the heterozygosity coefficient is not significant and occasionally negative.
39
Attempting to instrument for any two of these cultural strategies simultaneously produces weak first-stage results
for one of them.
37
5.3.2. Culture, Crops and Development
Diamond (1997) argues, in contrast to the thesis of this paper, that long-run income differences
can be traced to the particular features of settlement environments interacting with coadaptation
and domestication of potent plant and animal species. The accidental development of higher net
energy ―food packages‖ allowed societies to support more members; these demographic changes
in turn led directly to higher group incomes. Table 5 provides an empirical amplification of his
hypotheses by testing the effects of variation in animal and crop domesticates. I do not include
information concerning the ease with which locally-developed food production technologies
might have been transferred to neighboring populations, so Table 5 contains incomplete
specifications of Diamond (1997) hypotheses.
The most potent of all domesticated plants and animals were the cereals (for their annual
production of large, edible seeds) and bovines (for their edible fat, proteins, and milk, and
hauling power). The SCCS records the principal crops (10 cereals, 6 roots or tubers, and 3 tree
fruits) and domesticated animals (pigs, ovides, equines, reindeer, camel, and bovines) each
society maintains. These indicators are included in Table 5, which presents 2SLS estimates from
specifications otherwise similar to columns (2), (4), and (6) of Table 3.
Second-stage coefficients on cultural technologies are similar in economic significance to
Table 3 coefficients even when indicators for both cereals and bovines are included.40
Controlling for multiple plant and animal domesticates simultaneously (results not presented)
does not change cultural coefficient size or significance level appreciably. Most control variables
have broadly the same sign and significance patterns in Table 5 as in Table 3 and cultural
40
First-stage coefficients on expected genetic heterozygosity are also similar in size and significance to Table 3,
Panel B coefficients in columns (2), (4), and (6). Second-stage coefficients on the first factor increase by
approximately 60 percent from Table 4, column (2), while those on the additive cultural index decrease by the same
amount from Table 4, column (4). Both remain significant at the 5 percent level or better.
38
TABLE 5 — IV REGRESSIONS OF DEVELOPMENT PROXY WITH FOOD PACKAGE CONTROLS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
IV Second stage Cultural Technology Regressor is:
Class stratification Inheritance rights Game complexity
Culture 2.427* 2.097* 3.499* 2.874 4.454* 3.941*
(0.98) (1.03) (1.54) (1.81) (2.03) (1.94)
Wheat/Barley 4.266** 3.572* 5.277** 3.752* 3.441 2.581
(1.53) (1.39) (1.86) (1.78) (2.23) (2.11)
Rice 2.110 4.367* 2.254
(1.52) (1.68) (1.87)
Bovines 1.051 1.653 1.963
(1.08) (1.21) (1.43)
Agriculture 0.606* 0.632* 0.606+ 0.733+ 0.731* 0.946***
(0.29) (0.26) (0.32) (0.40) (0.32) (0.22)
Foraging 0.123 0.209 -0.201
(0.25) (0.26) (0.20)
Animal Husbandry -0.052 -0.091 0.118
(0.23) (0.26) (0.24)
Nomadic 1.903 2.165+ 0.574 1.513 0.608 1.162
(1.23) (1.14) (1.16) (1.24) (1.08) (1.00)
Pathogen stress 0.122 0.176 -1.285 -1.004 -1.863+ -1.572
(0.71) (0.70) (0.85) (0.87) (1.05) (1.14)
Food variability -0.255+ -0.304* -0.132 -0.267 -0.269+ -0.345*
(0.13) (0.12) (0.14) (0.17) (0.15) (0.14)
Agricultural potential -0.024 -0.023 0.117 0.078 0.022 0.008
(0.10) (0.09) (0.16) (0.15) (0.11) (0.11)
Rainfall -0.134 -0.033 -0.283 -0.023 0.301 0.344
(0.19) (0.19) (0.27) (0.28) (0.31) (0.27)
Climate? yes yes yes yes yes yes
Focus year? yes yes yes yes yes yes
Number of observations 142 142 113 113 134 134
Legend: + p<0.1; * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
Note: The dependent variable in columns (1)-(6) is the development proxy (see Table 2 and accompanying text).
Cultural technology regressors used are listed at the top of each column. Panel A reports the second stage results
from IV regressions with the respective cultural variable and all listed environmental and subsistence activity control
variables, instrumenting for each cultural technology with expected genetic heterozygosity. Panel A includes
indicators for crops (Wheat/Barley and Rice) and animal domesticates (Bovines) discussed in the accompanying
text. First stage and OLS results, though not reported, are similar to the relevant specification in columns (2), (4),
and (6) from Table 3. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. The dummy for temperate climates and the
dummy for focus years 1936-1960 are omitted. Only societies with focus years greater than 1750 are included.
39
coefficients are similar in size, though less precisely estimated, when those societies not
receiving any plant or animal domesticates are excluded (results not presented).
Table 5 suggests that the distribution of plants and animals does affect development. But
cultural technologies, which are also unpredictable and persistent, continue to have a statistically
and economically significant effect on development when plant and animal distributions are held
constant. There is no indication that a geographic or environmental profile completely
determines income (or culture). In other words, there are multiple and complementary sources of
luck in long-run development.
5.4. Cultural Variation at Work
Are the developmental benefits accruing to these cultural technologies evident in pairwise
comparisons? The Olmec of Mesoamerica developed rapidly from a simple village-agricultural
lifestyle to a complex and highly productive civilization requiring management of prodigious
amounts of labor for its products and in turn benefitting from regionally-unknown outputs like
hydraulic technologies. Further south in Peru, the Chavín likewise developed rapidly from
simpler modes of organization. Meanwhile, even though societies in the area between Olmec
and Chavín homelands were also organized into village-agricultural units; were in contact with
Olmec and Chavín cultures; participated in the same technical traditions; and inhabited land
similarly rich in climatic, altitudinal, and vegetational variety and natural resources, those
intermediate societies did not develop either Olmec or Chavín versions, or any other version, of
40
sophisticated civilization. Both Coe (1968) and Willey (1962) suggest the Olmec and Chavín
―genius‖ is a result of cultural changes in class stratification and the division of labor.41
What about within the SCCS universe?42
Consider the Amhara, Aymara, and Haitians:
though in different regions and opposite sides of the equator (East Africa, 13 degrees latitude;
South America, -16 degrees latitude; and the Caribbean, 19 degrees latitude, respectively), these
are all agriculturalists who have received some of the most potent cereals available. They are
also similar in all of the environmental variables in Tables 3 through 5. But the Aymara are a
middle-income group while the Amhara and the Haitians are in the top ten percent of all SCCS
societies and only the Amhara and Haitians have complex class stratification. In addition, there
is evidence that when both Haitians and Aymara experimented with different forms of class
stratification, income responded in the manner predicted by Table 3 through 5 coefficients (see
Appendix B).
The Turks, Koreans, and Mapuche are even more similarly situated geographically,
productively, and in terms of environmental endowments (they are all rice or wheat growers at
approximately 38 degrees absolute latitude). Like the Amhara, Aymara, and Haitians, these
three societies all have inheritance rights and complex games. But the Mapuche did not develop
high levels of class stratification while the Koreans and Turks did. The Mapuche are in the 80th
percentile of the SCCS income distribution while the Koreans are in the 90th
and the Turks in the
95th
percentile, respectively.
41
Both also suggest the mutation that produced stratification was an increase in production devoted to the prevailing
secular religion. Willey (1962) says ―It does us no good to deny the sudden mutation of creative change to the
aborigines of America. It is no easier to explain elsewhere than it is here. What we are seeking is probably in New
World soil, but genius must arise from preconditions which to our eyes do not foreshadow it.‖ 42
Each of the following comparisons is explored at greater length in Appendix B. The summary in Section 5.4 is
meant only as brief sketch.
41
The Chiricahua Apache and the Pomo are both foragers living in Western North America
(-110 and -123 degrees longitude, respectively). Neither society is well-off absolutely, but the
Pomo are one of the richest North American foraging populations while the Chiricahua are tied
for third poorest. Pomo have inheritance rights while the Chiricahua instead destroy virtually all
property associated with a deceased member. The Kutenai, the most developed North American
foragers (also living in the West at -117 degrees longitude), have likewise developed inheritance
rights.43
5.5. Robustness
5.5.1. Overidentification Tests
The validity of the candidate instrument is crucial: identification of the true partial effect of
culture on development requires an instrument uncorrelated with the error εy in equation (5). If
genetic heterozygosity affects development directly, then cultural coefficients may be capturing
these effects and IV specifications will produce biased estimates. An empirical test of the
exclusion restriction for genetic heterozygosity alone is not available because true errors εy are
unobservable. An alternative, based on 2SLS coefficient comparisons when the endogenous
variable is over-identified, is presented in Table 6.
Overidentification tests indicate whether genetic heterozygosity alone provides 2SLS
coefficients similar to 2SLS coefficients from a larger set of proposed instruments. They do not
establish whether any single instrument candidate is itself correctly excluded from equation (5),
but indicate whether estimation with a smaller subset of instruments produces 2SLS coefficients
43
In environmental endowments the Pomo were slightly better endowed than the Chiricahua while the Kutenai are
intermediate between Chiricahua and Pomo.
42
TABLE 6 — OVERIDENTIFICATION TESTS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Panel A: IV Second stage Cultural Technology Regressor is:
First factor Additive index Class stratification Inheritance rights
Culture 4.466* 5.533 1.430* 1.784 3.184*** 3.596+ 6.005* 9.726
(1.96) (4.25) (0.63) (1.38) (0.95) (2.95) (3.03) (10.25)
Production,
Environment, Climate,
& Focus year?
no yes no yes no yes no yes
Panel B: IV First stage Instrument: Evil eye belief
Evil eye belief 0.419** 0.176 1.307** 0.548 0.787** 0.400 0.328* 0.120
(0.14) (0.15) (0.45) (0.48) (0.25) (0.26) (0.13) (0.48)
R2 0.07 0.40 0.07 0.38 0.06 0.37 0.05 0.50
Panel C: Overidentification Tests Additional Excluded Variable: Heterozygosity (Expected or Actual)
p-value: Expected {0.52} {0.70} {0.52} {0.69} {0.57} {0.41} {0.25} {0.46}
Actual {0.45} {0.41} {0.78} {0.82}
Number of Expected 115 108 115 108 153 144 120 113
observations: Actual 65 65 79 66
Legend: + p<0.1; * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
Note: The dependent variable in columns (1)-(8) is the development proxy (see Table 2 and accompanying text).
Panel A reports the second stage results from IV regressions with the respective cultural variable. Production,
environment, climate, and focus year comprise exactly the set of controls listed in Table 3 (second stage coefficients
on those excluded variables have been suppressed to save space). Panel B reports corresponding first stage results for
the instrumental variable candidate evil-eye belief (see accompanying text). First stage coefficients on other excluded
variables have been suppressed to save space. Panel C reports in braces the p-value for the null hypothesis that the
coefficient on the cultural technology in the second stage (Panel A) is the same as when instrumented using the Panel
B instrument plus genetic heterozygosity. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. In regressions with climate
dummies, the dummy for temperate climates is omitted. In regressions with focus year dummies, focus years 1936-
1960 is omitted. Only societies with focus years greater than 1750 are included.
that differ (by more than expected sampling error) from coefficients produced with all candidate
instruments. Conditional on the assumption that at least one of the candidates from the larger set
is correctly excluded, a failure to reject the null hypothesis that coefficients differ only by
sampling error gives some confidence in the exogeneity of all candidates.
Table 6 provides results from testing overidentifying restrictions on class stratification.
The additional candidate instrument is evil-eye belief, discussed in Section 3.4 and Figure 2.
The worldwide correlation evil eye belief and development is small and positive (ρ = 0.16), but
43
like heterozygosity (see below) there is regional variation that suggests there is no direct
relationship. For Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, the Pacific, North and South America,
correlations are -0.16, -0.14, 0.11, 0.18 and 0.46 respectively.44
Panel C in Table 6 demonstrates that for this candidate instruments and expected or
actual genetic heterozygosity, the overidentifying restrictions for cultural technologies are not
rejected, meaning that first-stage coefficients do not differ markedly when a larger subset of
instrument candidates is used.45 Panels B and A show that when the evil eye belief is used in
place of expected heterozygosity, first- and second-stage coefficients are not always precisely
estimated.46
These results show no evidence that genetic heterozygosity has a direct effect on
development and therefore suggest the exclusion of this variable from equation (5) is a valid
assumption.
5.5.2. Regional Irregularities in Expected Heterozygosity
There are regional irregularities in the heterozygosity-development relationship providing
additional evidence that heterozygosity is correctly excluded from equation (5). Intra-region or
intra-subsistence activity correlations between cultural technologies and development mirror
world-wide correlations: class stratification, property rights, and game complexity are always
positively correlated with development. The regional correlations of heterozygosity and
development do not. For Sub-Saharan Africa, the Circum-Mediterranean, East Asia, the Pacific,
North America, and South America, unconditional correlations are roughly -0.5, -0.3, -0.1, 0.3,
44
There are only 4 South American societies observed after 1750 with evil eye belief. The positive correlation for
South America is driven almost entirely by Haiti. In specifications similar to those in Table 4, evil-eye belief is
never statistically significant when any of the other cultural behaviors are held constant. 45
For game complexity no candidate instrument was found to be a good first-stage predictor, leading to weak
instruments and potentially severe inconsistency in second-stage estimates. 46
Estimates of the statistics underlying the tests are heteroskedasticity-robust in both the first- and second-stage.
44
-0.2, and 0.4 respectively.
This regional pattern would entail the following for a direct effect of neutral genetic
variety on development: it was drawn down efficiently among the first migrants, but as the pool
of neutral genetic material continued to shrink absolutely, carrying more, then less, then more of
it became efficient in places further away. If the regular decay of neutral genetic material
happens to be correlated with the population frequency of genetic information that is shown to
directly affect development, it remains difficult to explain the regional heterozygosity-
development correlation pattern above. The genetic information useful for development would
occur less frequently in a regular and monotone manner (see Figure 2 or 3) while its effect on
development would fluctuate depending on region.
5.5.3. Alternative subsamples and alternative outcomes
Table 7 presents 2SLS and OLS regression results from specifications similar to those in
Table 4 columns (2), (4), and (6) over several different SCCS subsamples. In addition to the
regular outcome variable in panels A and B, in panels C and D an alternative measure of
development, urbanization, is specified for each subsample (including the ordinary Table 3
sample). Though urbanization is not a perfect income proxy47
, it is more familiar (see
Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2002)) than the development proxy calculated in this paper
and therefore more intuitively approachable.
The SCCS selection rules described earlier produce a set of ―independent as possible‖
observations. In addition, SCCS societies received identification numbers with the property
47
The SCCS-wide correlation of the development proxy and urbanization is approximately 0.75, but this average
hides significant regional variation: among the richer regions (East Asia and the Circum-Mediterranean), the
correlation is approximately 0.87; among the Americas, the correlation is 0.66; and among Sub-Saharan Africa and
the Pacific, the correlation is approximately 0.42. Sub-Saharan Africa is the 3rd
richest region ranked by
urbanization but 2nd
poorest ranked by the development proxy.
45
TABLE 7 — IV REGRESSIONS: DIFFERENT SAMPLES AND DIFFERENT OUTCOMES
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Cultural Technology: Class stratification Inheritance rights Game complexity
sample: Ordinary With
ancients
Diffuse:
seed 1
No Sub-
Sah. Afr. Ordinary
With
ancients
Diffuse:
seed 2
No
Circ.-
Med.
Ordinary With
ancients
No
agri.
No N.
Amer.
Dependent Variable is Development Proxy
Panel A: IV Second Stage
Culture 2.076* 3.236** 1.377 4.091** 3.117+ 3.985* 4.305+ 3.363+ 3.575* 5.528* 3.064+ 3.599+
(1.04) (1.18) (1.01) (1.36) (1.67) (1.66) (2.42) (1.70) (1.73) (2.64) (1.83) (1.96)
Panel B: Ordinary Least Squares
Culture 1.595*** 1.773*** 1.434*** 1.734*** 2.071** 2.411*** 1.959* 1.828** 1.593** 1.558** 1.483* 1.589**
(0.27) (0.26) (0.37) (0.32) (0.65) (0.65) (0.93) (0.65) (0.47) (0.47) (0.57) (0.51)
R2 0.54 0.56 0.60 0.59 0.46 0.49 0.36 96 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.50
Obs 144 154 74 120 113 118 54 0.45 136 144 90 108
Dependent Variable is Urbanization
Panel C: IV Second Stage
Culture 1.691* 1.707* 2.457* 2.223* 1.973+ 1.757+ 0.521 1.373 3.173+ 3.663 2.576* 4.231
(0.76) (0.70) (1.09) (0.97) (1.09) (1.01) (1.49) (0.89) (1.80) (2.48) (1.17) (2.92)
Panel D: Ordinary Least Squares
Culture 0.569*** 0.647*** 0.758*** 0.634*** 0.851** 0.906** 0.279 0.839** 0.831*** 0.845*** 0.938** 0.870***
(0.12) (0.12) (0.19) (0.14) (0.32) (0.32) (0.39) (0.31) (0.22) (0.22) (0.32) (0.25)
R2 0.55 0.58 0.64 0.59 0.50 0.53 0.42 0.48 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.54
Obs 127 136 60 105 101 106 52 83 123 130 75 103
Legend: + p<0.1; * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
Note: In Panels A and B, the dependent variable is the development proxy (see Table 2). In Panels C and D, the dependent variable is urbanization (see accompanying text).
Cultural technology regressors used are listed at the top of each column. Panels A and C report second stage IV coefficients, and Panels B and D OLS coefficients, from
regressing the dependent variable on the respective cultural variable and all production, environmental, climate, and focus year controls from Table 3 (second stage and OLS
coefficients on these controls have been suppressed to save space). The cultural technology is instrumented in Panels A and C with expected genetic heterozygosity. The
"Ordinary" samples replicate those in Table 3: all SCCS societies with focus years greater than 1750. The "With ancients" sample adds back SCCS societies with focus years
of 1750 or earlier. The "Diffuse: seed 1" and "Diffuse: seed 2" samples skip every other "Ordinary" sample SCCS society (starting with society 1 or 2, respectively) in order
to achieve a subsample of societies more culturally, historically, and geographically independent (see accompanying text). The ―No agri.‖ sample excludes societies
producing more than 56 percent of subsistence output from agriculture. The "No Sub-Sah. Afr.", "No Circ.-Med.", "No S. Amer.", and "No N. Amer." samples drop all
SCCS from Sub-Saharan Africa, the Circum-Mediterranean, South America, and North America respectively. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. The dummy for
temperate climates and for focus years 1936-1960 are always omitted.
46
that two societies closest in number were judged to be closest historically, ancestrally, and
culturally (and often, but not necessarily, geographically). By using this numbering scheme to
select every second society, the most similar pairs can be dropped in a methodical manner and
the independence of each data point from all others increased. Two different seed numbers were
used to select two non-overlapping subsets of SCCS societies: these are the ―Diffuse: seed 1‖
and ―Diffuse: seed 2‖ samples in Table 7. The ―With ancients‖ samples add back in all of those
SCCS societies with focus years of 1750 or earlier. Though only about 6 percent of all SCCS
societies have focus years from this era, the set includes well-known cultures like the
Babylonians, Hebrews, Romans, Khmer, Aztecs, and Incas. The other subsamples are achieved
by dropping entire regions or production strategies from the ordinary Table 3 sample.
For the ordinary sample, increasing class stratification, inheritance rights, and game
complexity are associated with greater urbanization.48
Both OLS and IV coefficients on cultural
technologies typically increase when older SCCS societies are included (columns (2), (6), and
(10)). Choosing a culturally-, historically-, and ancestrally-diffuse sample (column (3) or (7))
does affect estimate precision and first-stage instrument fit (results not presented), but the overall
picture remains the same. Similarly, dropping entire regions or production strategies (column
(4), (8), (11), or (12)) often changes estimate size and precision, but the general conclusions
remain unchanged.
48
Urbanization in the SCCS is recorded as an ordered categorical variable, but the underlying data is log-linear so
coefficients between development proxy and urbanization specifications are not directly comparable. However, a
one-unit change in class, inheritance, or games produces a 72, 84, or 135 percent of standard deviation change in
urbanization categories (from a 2SLS specification). OLS results do not change if either ordered logit or interval
regression models are specified: from a direct interval regression of equation (5) with log(urbanization) as the Yj, a
one-unit change in class, inheritance, or games produces an approximately 35, 40, or 50 percent of standard
deviation change in log(urbanization).
47
5.5.4. Alternative controls and alternative behaviors
There are alternative ways to code most of the control variables, but alternative codings do not
change results substantially. For instance, production can be entered as 0/1 indicators for
whether a majority of production comes from that activity. Both the pathogen stress and
agricultural potential indices can be disaggregated and the components entered individually.
Absolute latitude can be entered in place of Köppen-Geiger climate classifications. The time
trend can be divided into more or fewer intervals. In results not presented, I try various
combinations of these alternative codings and find no substantial change to results or
conclusions.
Table A.2 in the appendix A presents several specifications with regional environmental
characterizations given by a measure of distance from the equator (absolute latitude) and dummy
variables for continental regions. The local environmental controls included in Tables 3 through
7 more closely capture conditions under which production takes place; Table A.2 includes
instead variables that are more familiar to researchers. Given the discussion in Section 5.5.2, it is
not surprising that regional dummies soak up much of the useful variation in heterozygosity and
consequently render it a weak first-stage instrument. However, the OLS coefficients are
remarkably stable even when all Table 3 through 7 controls are included in addition to regional
dummies and absolute latitude. When first-stage relationships are not weak, the second-stage IV
coefficients are generally larger with regional dummies in place.
There are three variables that contain information germane to the evolution of cultures
and incomes that should be included, but which are recorded at the nation-state level and are
therefore quite noisy in the SCCS sample. State history (Bockstette, Chanda, and Putterman
2002), years since transition to agriculture (Putterman 2008), or colonial identifiers are mapped
48
from just two values (for USA and Canada) to over 30 North American societies, for example.
In specifications including each of these regional variables one by one and otherwise similar to
Table 3 (columns (2), (4), or (6)), there is little change to either OLS or IV coefficients on any of
the cultural technologies (results not presented).
State history and years since transition to agriculture are often statistically significant.
Given the state-level resolution of these variable, this indicates that being surrounded by a
relatively advanced state is beneficial for development, which is sensible given the enhanced
opportunities for trade and labor mobility and the regularization of economic activity that
statehood brings.49
Indicators for British, French, Spanish, or mixed colonial heritage are rarely
statistically significant, but the coefficient pattern is regular: there is a small positive
development boost in states with British colonial heritage and a larger development penalty in
states with French, Spanish, or mixed colonial heritage.50
Finally, an informal test of the power of the empirical framework is provided by using
other cultural behaviors as dependent variables (results not presented). Consider descent,
marriage transactions, postpartum sexual intercourse taboos, local political succession, religion,
and physical separation of adolescent boys from female relatives: the first three of these do not
have a statistically or economically significant economically correlation with development in a
direct OLS estimation of equation (5). 2SLS specifications with actual or expected genetic
heterozygosity as the excluded variable confirm these results, though only descent has a non-
weak first-stage correlation with genetic heterozygosity.
49
See Bockstette, Chanda, and Putterman (2002) for a more detailed discussion of the beneficial effects of state
antiquity on development. 50
94 percent of SCCS societies are located in states that were colonized by European nations (Britain, France,
Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, or Russia).
49
The latter three behaviors have statistically significant OLS correlations from direct
estimation, but even when genetic heterozygosity satisfies the relevance assumption in the first
stage, as it does for religion and separation of boys, the 2SLS coefficients on these behaviors are
not statistically distinguishable from zero; for separation of boys, the second stage coefficient is
positive while the direct OLS coefficient is negative. So genetic heterozygosity does not predict
variation in all distinct cultural behaviors once other correlates have been held constant. Even
when it does, significant OLS coefficients are not always confirmed in a 2SLS framework.
6. Conclusion
The role of culture in economic development is not difficult to unpack logically. Culture is a set
of norms or standards of behavior that develop within and for social groups of individuals.
Cultural behaviors cannot be isolated from social transactions, and economic exchange is a social
transaction. Cultural rules create incentives by specifying which transactions are prohibited,
which individuals can be party to allowable transactions, the expectations associated with any
transaction (which vary by an individual‘s culturally-determined status), and the short- and long-
term outcomes flowing from such transactions.51
They also directly produce human capital.
While the link from culture to development may be easy to trace logically, empirical
identification that is both robust and economically meaningful is not straightforward. The data
assembled in this paper permit me to make sound empirical advances on these hypotheses. I use
a rich database of cultural norms the primary sources for which are close observation of actual
behavior and which are measured at the community level, with an equal distribution of data
51
In all of these ways cultural norms maintain multiple sets of fixed prices by, for example, making the fixed price
of an activity infinite for some and not others.
50
points from all major world regions, to overcome cultural measurement issues.52
I use
population-level records of genetic information in an instrumental variables strategy designed to
overcome simultaneity in the joint determination of income and culture. This variation-in-
variation could not have been optimized by group members during the generation of cultural
technologies. Instead, the generation of genetic variety proceeded by a regular process that
gradually removed potential varieties of genetic material as populations moved farther away
from an origin in East Africa.
The schematic model developed in this paper relies on a common source for the
generation and persistence of cultural and genetic variety. The migration and arrival of humans
in unfamiliar environments set in motion a series of population-level biological and behavioral
changes. The results of these changes have been perpetuated across generations by the vertical
transmission of both sets of information. Since the transmission of cultural information proceeds
with less fidelity, any correlation between genetic and cultural variation should be biased
towards zero.
Empirical results indicate that cultural technologies have a significant impact on
development even after controlling for a wide range of environmental and geographic variables,
production techniques, and a time trend. Results hold for alternative measures of development
and several alternative samples. Class stratification, inheritance rights, and game complexity all
produce behavioral changes which are beneficial for long-run development. I have argued that
stratification encourages the division of labor, specialization, and the dissemination of job-
specific skills, techniques, and technologies across generations. Inheritance rights are an early
form of property rights. Game complexity measures the sophistication of informal education and
52
The decentralized nature of the cultural data gathering is worth mentioning twice. The absence of a central
authority or overarching goal leaves observers free to record what is culturally and contextually meaningful.
51
encourages the development of cognitive skills, including flexibility in problem-solving.
Development of more sophisticated versions of any of these cultural technologies can lead to
cross-sectional increases of up to 115 percent of a standard deviation of development.
Cultural rules are part of the larger institutional background in which economic
transactions take place. While significant headway has been made in uncovering the response of
income to parts of that background, more is needed on the interaction among and between the
latter. If the supposition that institutional backgrounds are cohesive with their development
following a path set down by the very first institutions is correct, there is always a danger that
omitted institutional variables cloud the empirical picture. Further research on the interaction
between formal institutions and culture is possible within the SCCS. Evidence at the country
level is also necessary to confirm that society-level mechanisms are at work in larger
amalgamations of people.
52
REFERENCES
Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson. 2001. ―The Colonial Origins of
Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation.‖ American Economic Review
91(5)(December): 1369-1401.
————. 2002. ―Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the Making of the Modern
World Income Distribution.‖ Quarterly Journal of Economics 117(4)(November): 1231-
1294.
Akerlof, George, and Rachel Kranton. 2005. ―Identity and the Economics of Organizations.‖
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1): 9-32.
Alesina, Alberto and Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln. 2005. ―Good-bye Lenin (or not?): The effect of
Communism on people‘s preferences.‖ Working Paper, Harvard University.
Ashraf, Quamrul and Oded Galor. 2008. ―Cultural Assimilation, Cultural Diffusion and the
Origin of the Wealth of Nations.‖ Working Paper, Brown University.
Bisin, Alberto and Thierry Verdier. 2001. ―The Economics of Cultural Transmission and the
Dynamics of Preferences.‖ Journal of Economic Theory 97(2): 298-319.
Bockstette, Valerie, Areendam Chanda, and Louis Putterman. 2002. ―States and Markets: The
Advantage of an Early Start.‖ Journal of Economic Growth 7(4)(December): 347-369
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca and Marcus Feldman. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca and Marcus Feldman. 2003. ―The application of molecular genetic
approaches to the study of human evolution.‖ Nature Genetics 33: 266-275.
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza. 1994. The History and
Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Diamond, Jared. 1987. ―The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race.‖ Discover May:
64-66.
Diamond, Jared. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York, NY:
Norton.
Durham, William. 1991. Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Fernandez, Raquel and Alessandra Fogli. 2007. ―Culture: An Empirical Investigation of Beliefs,
Work, and Fertility.‖ Working Paper, New York University.
53
Fletcher, Jason and Steven Lehrer. 2008. ―Using the ‗Genetic Lottery‘ within Families to
Examine the Causal Effect of Health on Academic Achievement.‖ Working Paper, Yale
University.
Galor, Oded and Omer Moav. 2007. ―The Neolithic Revolution and Contemporary Variations in
Life Expectancy.‖ Working Paper, Brown University.
Giuliano, Paola. 2007. ―Living Arrangements in Western Europe: Does Cultural Origin Matter?‖
Journal of the European Economic Association 5(5): 927-952.
Guiso, Luigi, Paola Sapienza, and Luigi Zingales. 2008. ―Long Term Persistence.‖ Working
Paper 14728, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hall, Robert and Charles Jones. 1999. ―Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output
per Worker than Others?‖ Quarterly Journal of Economics(February): 83-116.
Harpending, Henry and Alan Rogers. 2000. ―Genetic Perspectives on Human Origins and
Differentiation.‖ Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 1: 361-385.
Hibbs, Douglas A., and Ola Olsson, 2005, ―Biogeography and long-run economic development,‖
European Economic Review 49: 909-38.
Knack, Stephen and Philip Keefer. 1997. ―Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A
Cross-Country Investigation.‖ Quarterly Journal of Economics (November): 1251-1288.
Lahr, Marta Mirazon and Robert Foley. 1994. ―Multiple Dispersals and Modern Human
Origins.‖ Evolutionary Anthropology 3(2): 48-60.
Lahr, Marta Mirazon and Robert Foley. 1998. ―Towards a Theory of Modern Human Origins:
Geography, Demography, and Diversity in Recent Human Evolution.‖ Yearbook of
Physical Anthropology 41: 137-176.
Li, Jun Z., Devin Absher, Hua Tang, Audrey Southwick, Amanda Casto, Sohini Ramachandran,
Howard Cann, Gregory Barsh, Marcus Feldman, Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, Richard Myers.
2008. ―Worldwide Human Relationships Inferred from Genome-Wide Patterns of
Variation.‖ Science 319: 1100-1104.
Licht, Amir, Chanan Goldsmith, and Shalom H. Schwartz. 2007. ―Culture Rules: The
foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance.‖ Journal of Comparative
Economics 35: 659-688.
Liu, Hua, Franck Prugnolle, Andrea Manica, and François Balloux. 2006. ―A Geographically
Explicit Genetic Model of Worldwide Human-Settlement History.‖ The American
Journal of Human Genetics 79: 230-237.
54
Mellars, Paul. 2006. ―Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years
ago? A new model.‖ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 130(25): 9381-
9386.
Munshi, Kaivan and Nicholas Wilson. 2008. ―Identity, Parochial Institutions, and Occupational
Choice: Linking the Past to the Present in the American Midwest.‖ Working Paper
13717, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Murdock, George. 1967. Ethnographic Atlas: A Summary. Pittsburgh, PA: The University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Murdock, George and Douglas White. 1969. ―Standard Cross-Cultural Sample.‖ Ethnology 9:
329:369.
Nunn, Nathan. 2008. ―The Long-Term Effects of Africa‘s Slave Trades.‖ Quarterly Journal of
Economics 123(1).
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Prugnolle, Franck, Andrea Manica, and François Balloux. 2005. ―Geography predicts neutral
genetic diversity of human populations.‖ Current Biology 15(5): R159-R160.
Putterman, Louis. 2008. ―Agriculture, Diffusion, and Development: Ripple Effects of the
Neolithic Revolution.‖ Economica 75: 729-748.
Ramachandran, Sohini, Omkar Deshpande, Charles Roseman, Noah Rosenberg, Marcus
Feldman, and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. 2005. ―Support from the relationship of genetic
and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in
Africa.‖ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(44): 15942-15947.
Roland, Gerard. 2004. ―Understanding institutional change: Fast-moving and slow-moving
institutions.‖ Studies in Comparative Economic Development 38(4): 109-131.
Roland, Gerard and Jon Jellema. 2006. ―Institutional Clusters.‖ In What Drives Growth in the
Transition Countries?: Institutions, Markets, and Economic Performance. European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Smith, Adam. 1759 [1966]. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. New York: A.M. Kelley.
Spolaore, Enrico, and Romain Wacziarg. 2009. ―The Diffusion of Development.‖ Quarterly
Journal of Economics, forthcoming in vol. 124(2), May.
Tabellini, Guido. 2007. ―Institutions and Culture.‖ Presidential Lecture, European Economic
Association Meetings, Budapest.
55
Temple, Jonathan and P. Johnson. 1998. ―Social Capability and Economic Growth.‖ Quarterly
Journal of Economics (August): 965-990.
Weber, Max. 1905 [2001]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Routledge
Classic.
56
A. Appendix: Regressor Correlations and Alternative Geographic Controls
TABLE A.1 — UNCONDITIONAL CORRELATIONS AMONG REGRESSORS
Class
stratification
Inheritance
rights
Game
complexity Agriculture Pastoralism Foraging Nomadic
Food
variability
Pathogen
stress
Agricultural
potential Rainfall
Inheritance rights 0.45
Game complexity 0.44 0.17
Agriculture 0.35 0.61 0.07
Pastoralism 0.28 0.25 0.14 -0.05
Foraging -0.43 -0.63 -0.13 -0.73 -0.55
Nomadic -0.35 -0.52 -0.06 -0.77 0.13 0.52
Food variability 0.23 0.26 0.33 0.37 -0.07 -0.23 -0.36
Pathogen stress 0.12 0.31 -0.11 0.45 0.11 -0.41 -0.30 -0.02
Agricultural potential 0.13 0.18 -0.02 0.39 -0.14 -0.19 -0.35 0.12 0.36
Rainfall -0.05 0.13 -0.27 0.30 -0.32 -0.02 -0.38 -0.03 0.40 0.40
Equatorial climate -0.18 0.06 -0.32 0.27 -0.21 -0.12 -0.24 -0.20 0.49 0.33 0.57
Arid climate 0.01 -0.06 0.13 -0.18 0.35 -0.08 0.28 0.02 -0.04 -0.20 -0.61
Temperate climate 0.21 0.04 0.23 -0.10 -0.05 0.15 -0.02 0.24 -0.44 -0.12 -0.09
Note: Class stratification, inheritance rights, and game complexity are all ordered categorical variables with 5, 4, and 3 categories, respectively. Higher categories
mean more of the cultural behavior as explained in the text. Production variables agriculture, pastoralism, and foraging are measured as percent of subsistence coming
from that activity. Nomadic, food variability and climate variables are categorical 0/1 indicators; rainfall is an ordered categorical variable. Pathogen stress is a
cumulative index of the presence of 7 separate pathogens. Agricultural potential aggregates indicators for slope, soil, and climate. Rainfall is an ordered categorical
variable measuring average annual rainfall in millimeters.
57
TABLE A.2 — IV REGRESSIONS: ALTERNATIVE REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CONTROLS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Geographic controls: AL SSA SSA, CM SSA, CM,
EA
SSA, CM,
EA, PAC
SSA, CM, EA, PAC,
NA
SSA, EA,
NA, SA
AL, SSA,
CM
AL, EA,
PAC
AL, NA,
SA
AL, SSA,
CM, +
Panel A: IV Second Stage Dependent Variable is Development Proxy
First factor (n=114) 2.774* 6.845*** 10.097** 8.333* 12.649+ 0.471 6.635** 10.934* 2.648* -1.096 10.315**
(1.22) (1.36) (3.10) (3.80) (7.57) (11.45) (2.38) (4.22) (1.02) (3.98) (3.91)
Class stratification (n=152) 1.944* 4.388*** 6.906* 9.523 27.749 -1.170 3.802** 7.294+ 1.739* 0.211 6.023*
(0.86) (1.06) (2.79) (8.14) (73.70) (9.98) (1.40) (4.05) (0.71) (2.06) (2.70)
Inheritance rights (n=119) 3.262+ 9.285** 11.388* 5.517 9.913 7.105 23.245 10.302* 2.969* -13.523 10.263+
(1.93) (2.76) (4.85) (3.86) (7.68) (30.07) (24.99) (4.82) (1.43) (42.79) (5.49)
Game complexity (n=144) 2.390* 8.159*** 9.386* 5.972* 4.943** -1.580 8.252* 14.283 2.183* 0.307 25.361
(1.09) (2.21) (3.67) (2.53) (1.60) (7.72) (3.87) (10.32) (1.02) (1.44) (34.99)
Panel B: IV First Stage Instrument: Genetic Heterozygosity
First factor 0.988*** 1.180*** 0.865* 0.856+ 0.621 -0.595 0.940* 0.689* 1.200*** 0.617* 0.734*
(0.21) (0.26) (0.34) (0.50) (0.49) (0.88) (0.38) (0.32) (0.21) (0.31) (0.32)
R2 0.47 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.40 0.48 0.49 0.48 0.51
Class stratification 1.194** 1.852*** 1.164* 0.764 0.301 -0.735 1.951* 0.852 1.399*** 0.827 1.060+
(0.40) (0.46) (0.55) (0.82) (0.85) (1.60) (0.75) (0.54) (0.41) (0.67) (0.55)
R2 0.29 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.30 0.35
Inheritance rights 0.708*** 0.878*** 0.752* 1.156* 0.698 -0.259 0.271 0.713+ 0.973*** 0.094 0.737+
(0.20) (0.25) (0.35) (0.46) (0.46) (0.61) (0.28) (0.36) (0.21) (0.24) (0.37)
R2 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.50 0.54 0.53 0.53
Game complexity 1.124*** 0.999** 0.901* 1.300* 1.800*** -0.918 0.852+ 0.470 1.195*** 1.278*** 0.275
(0.25) (0.31) (0.38) (0.51) (0.51) (1.02) (0.48) (0.36) (0.26) (0.34) (0.39)
R2 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.21 0.19 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.28
58
TABLE A.2 — CONTINUED
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Geographic controls: AL SSA SSA, CM SSA, CM,
EA
SSA, CM,
EA, PAC
SSA, CM, EA, PAC,
NA
SSA, EA,
NA, SA
AL, SSA,
CM
AL, EA,
PAC
AL, NA,
SA
AL, SSA,
CM, +
Panel C: Ordinary Least Squares
First factor (n=114) 3.774*** 4.597*** 4.721*** 4.486*** 4.570*** 4.378*** 4.497*** 4.337*** 3.852*** 3.715*** 3.915***
(0.54) (0.49) (0.52) (0.56) (0.56) (0.58) (0.55) (0.57) (0.54) (0.61) (0.62)
R2 0.60 - 0.68
Class stratification (n=152) 1.550*** 1.790*** 1.732*** 1.636*** 1.660*** 1.610*** 1.730*** 1.526*** 1.549*** 1.515*** 1.376***
(0.24) (0.24) (0.26) (0.27) (0.27) (0.26) (0.24) (0.26) (0.23) (0.26) (0.27)
R2 0.54 - 0.62
Inheritance rights (n=119) 2.013** 2.589*** 2.354*** 2.112** 2.261** 1.886* 2.099** 2.025** 1.997** 1.538* 1.911**
(0.61) (0.59) (0.62) (0.64) (0.70) (0.73) (0.71) (0.61) (0.63) (0.70) (0.58)
R2 0.44 - 0.57
Game complexity (n=144) 1.484*** 2.708*** 2.606*** 2.476*** 2.508*** 2.269*** 2.475*** 2.104*** 1.706*** 1.351** 1.804***
(0.43) (0.40) (0.40) (0.40) (0.43) (0.46) (0.45) (0.47) (0.47) (0.44) (0.47)
R2 0.48 - 0.58
Legend: + p<0.1; * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
Note: The dependent variable is the development proxy (see Table 2). Geographic controls included are listed at the top of each column, where AL = absolute
latitude, SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa, CM = Circum-Mediterranean, EA = East Asia, PAC = Insular Pacific, NA = North America, and SA = South America. SSA,
CM, EA, PAC, NA, and SA are all indicator variables. Cultural technology regressors used are listed at the left in rows. First factor is the first latent variable
extracted from a factor analysis of the three cultural technologies Class stratification, Inheritance rights, and Game complexity (see Table 4). Panel A reports the
second stage results from IV regressions with the row cultural variable, the column geographic controls, and subsistence activity and focus year variables from Table
3 (second stage coefficients on geographic, subsistence, and focus year variables have been suppressed to save space). Column 11 includes additional controls:
Wheat/Barley and Bovines (see Table 5), as well as Food variability, Pathogen stress, Agricultural potential, Rainfall, and Climate (see Table 4). The number of
observations, (n=...), applies to columns 1 through 10; Column 11 specifications lose 6, 10, 6, and 8 observations for the First factor, Class stratification, Inheritance
rights, and Game complexity, respectively. Each row's cultural technology is instrumented with expected genetic heterozygosity. Panel B reports corresponding first
stage results (first stage coefficients on other excluded variables have been suppressed to save space); Panel C reports coefficients from an OLS regression of the
dependent variable on the respective cultural technology plus the same controls listed in Panel A (OLS coefficients on those controls have been suppressed to save
space). Robust standard errors are in parentheses. In regressions with focus year dummies, the dummy for focus years 1936-1960 is omitted. Only societies with
focus years greater than 1750 are included.
59
B. Appendix: Cultural Technologies and Development Pathways
B.1. Inheritance Rights
The theoretical and empirical association of property rights and income has been studied
previously. Costly investments will not be made if the embodied investment can be seized by
others without recompense (Demsetz 1967 and Alchian and Demsetz 1973). Inheritance rights
over movable or fixed property are recorded in the SCCS, so the threat of expropriation is not
precisely the correct description of the mechanism creating disincentives to invest. Inheritance
rights give property holders the right to dispose (post-mortem) of possessions according to how
they see fit rather than protect property from being seized.
Besley (1995) identifies three separate channels via which property rights and investment
could be linked. Property rights insecurity may act like a random confiscatory tax on
possessions, property rights might make possessions more easily collateralizeable (leading to
lower interest rate charges), or property rights could lead to expanded trading opportunities and
the ability to exploit gains from trade, resulting in enhanced investment incentives by expanding
the range of profitable investments. Specifically in the case of inheritance, property rights may
also encourage the adoption of longer time horizons (the life cycle of a lineage, for example,
instead the life cycle of an individual) and may lessen the likelihood of a tragedy of the
commons.
Besley (1995) finds property rights predictive of investment in agricultural production in
modern Ghana. Bandiera (2007) finds qualitatively similar conclusions for investment in
agricultural production in modern Nicaragua. Brunt (2007) finds property rights increase
agricultural output through fixed capital investment in South Africa; British administration
finally offered this novel institution near the middle of the 19th
century. Johnson, McMillan, and
60
Woodruff (2002) find that property rights are an important predictor of reinvestment in
manufacturing firms in a sample of formerly communist countries.
B.2. Competitive Contests
Time spent in play has been described by anthropologists and other social scientists as human
capital acquisition. Play can be thought of as an educational program or pure research and
development activity with all the attendant externalities from either (Gosso et al. 2005).
What follows is a partial list of functions or consequences of play in both human and
closely related species: language acquisition, learning to deceive and recognize deception, brain
growth and cognitive development, motor skill development, behavioral flexibility, the
development of social strategies, including the management of conflict and compromise, an
originator and disseminator of novel behavior, which in turn can furnish new food sources,
change social positions, extend geographical range, and open new ecological niches (Fagen
1981); a discoverer of roles or identities, general problem solving, creativity, divergent thinking
(Bock 2005); mental flexibility and ―planfulness‖, a discoverer of the benefits of delayed
gratification, adjudication, control, and leadership (Power 2000); and a preparer for adult
competency in subsistence work (Bock and Johnson 2003).
Equally important as the skill correlates of play is the manner or method in which play
teaches and in particular the incentive and reward structure implicit in play. All the works on
play cited in this appendix mention that play is a behavior that lacks consequences. This
combined with the reward structure from play, in which a winner takes all but losers remain
nearly as well off as they were before (materially), creates incentives for experimentation.
Bateson (2005) suggests play as a nearly cost-free optimization search technique. Since in play
61
there is no cost to moving away from the previously established optimum, play makes
optimization less costly, facilitating innovation and encouraging creativity.
The SCCS does not observe or record time spent in play, but rather the complexity of
competitive contests. This assists in empirical identification of the society-wide developmental
impact of play as the observations will not be affected by a latent labor-leisure tradeoff
dimension that could be heterogeneous across levels of development. In addition, by focusing on
the elements of contests rather than the type of play, the observations do not implicitly penalize
lower income societies for a lack of, e.g., fantasy or imaginative play (Gosso et al. 2005).
Empirical evidence suggests that those children who show the highest level of play
involvement and complexity score highest on cognitive functioning (Power 2000). Empirical
tests in this paper show the same mechanisms may be working at the society-wide level. If play
is a proxy for informal education or research and development, then such results should be
expected. Some of the increased productivity from formal schooling, for example, may be
externalities created by socialization and preference formation not explicitly part of the
curriculum. Also like a formal educational program, complexity in play can lead directly to
increased productivity by encouraging innovation along more than one vector.
B.3. Class Stratification
Within groups of humans living together, inequality or a ―pecking order‖ may be
inevitable, since humans belong to a species of mammal that shows dominance behavior
(Hofstede 2001). Or, maybe the dominance, command, and obedience required to sustain a
social ordering, together with a desire to evaluate, creates inequality everywhere (Béteille 1977).
Perhaps instead inequality arises everywhere because a society needs to motivate people to fill
62
positions in the social structure, and some positions require special talents or training that is
costly (Davis and Moore 1945).
SCCS observations show that inequality and social hierarchies may not exist in every
human society. Where they do occur, however, they occur with variability in complexity and
fixedness. Not observed in the SCCS but also relevant for the relationship between stratification
and development are the values concerning the exercise of power that can be expected to
accompany a system of power differentiation. Since ―history is full of dead and overthrown
stratification systems‖ (Smith 1966), any link between variation in stratification systems and
development is perforce a link between legitimacy or longevity of stratification systems and
development.
Stratification systems vary also by the attributes to which social power is distributed or
from which power flows. French and Raven (1959) classify the bases of social power into five
types: reward power, coercive power, legitimate power (based on rules), referent power (based
on personal charisma), and expert (specialist) power. The SCCS observation of status excludes
purely political or religious statuses as well as individual-level variation in repute achieved
through skill, valor, piety, or wisdom, but there is otherwise no precise indication of which
attributes produce social strata nor why those attributes and not others are evaluated.
The channel from more complex and durable stratification to increased development is
that of division of labor and specialization.53
Some stratification may be sufficient for a stable
social ordering and a stable social ordering is necessary before production and exchange can
occur.54
But further durability and complexity in stratification leads to rewards being distributed
53
Orans (1966) provides an early argument for such a channel. 54
Social stratification may not be necessary for order in large groups: the Chimbu of New Guinea, where exchange
is virtually all reciprocal and interpersonal relations are regulated by an elaborate ritual system, have population
63
and power exercised through a ranking of occupations (Hodge et al. 1966) and pecuniary success
can displace other values such as honor or purity as the basis for evaluation (Béteille 1977). The
highest level of class stratification observed in the SCCS is ―Complex (social classes) –
correlated in large measure with extensive differentiation of occupational classes.‖ A division
of labor by class in turn makes possible all the gains from specialization and exchange.
A division of labor that exists across generations may facilitate the transfer of occupation-
specific skills and promote further productivity within occupations and class.
The argument is not that inequality and dominance must necessarily precede the division
of labor, specialization, and gains from trade. Instead, social stratification serves as a focal point
or a coordination mechanism that eventually produces a division of labor even if it was not
developed consciously for such a project. In other words, a non-contingent class structure can
eventually produce an ordered and durable division of labor and specialization, no matter what
the original basis of differentiation was. Furthermore, neither class stratification nor subsequent
division of labor are irreversible: Carneiro (1967) provides an example of such a system created
and disassembled annually among North American Plains Indians. Each band was relatively
egalitarian during most of the year, but during the annual buffalo hunt, the aggregation of several
different bands into a single hunting group was followed by the creation of a ruling council, a
paramount chief with considerable authority, men‘s societies that assisted the ruling bodies, a
police to enforce the rules that prevailed during the hunt, and a regulatory body to ―[preserve]
order on the march and during the sun dance.‖
The degree of mobility between classes is also important as a moderator of the effects of
class division. The more rigid is the stratification system, the less chance a society will have of
densities reaching 400 people per square mile, yet have no kings, chiefs, social stratification, or ranking. Tellingly,
they also have ―none of the trappings of civilization whatsoever‖ (Flannery 1972).
64
discovering any new facts about the talent of its members (Tumin 1953). The incentives created
by the division of people into categories could be blunted by the maintenance of an unyielding
class structure. There is recently a recognition within economics that non-monetary incentives
like status, role, and identity can enhance performance (Besley and Ghatak 2008; Akerlof and
Kranton 2005). Belonging to a class may not only enhance productivity directly through
specialization but indirectly by providing motivation to ascend to the next higher class or to
cement one‘s status in one‘s own class. Bernard and Killworth (1973) provide early anecdotal
evidence that such incentives are important for motivating labor.
There may be other positive effects of stratification on development. For example,
Béteille (1977) notes that stratification and differential status creates markets for most things
associated with status. Durkheim (2006 [1893]) claims that effective regulation of any
profession comes primarily from members, who are the only actors with the information
necessary to determine costs and benefits. He also claims that when men with common interests
seek each other out, this group will transcend the individual and become the basis for a
generalized morality. Bernard and Killworth (1973) provide evidence that two uniquely
specialized groups will produce a greater joint product if each is held to the standards of their
own profession, even if production takes place under great intergroup friction (when standards
vary across professions). Flannery (1972) stresses the greater information-processing potential
of specialized groups when that information is federated (across ranks) but not centrally
organized. Thus, social stratification may function much like the Hayek (1945) price
mechanism: though each group knows only a fraction of the collective information set, resource
allocations can still be based on local conditions and opportunities. Garicano (2000) translates
the Hayek price mechanism into a hierarchical production-knowledge allocation mechanism that
65
facilitates problem-solving at the firm level, but the efficiency-enhancing aspects of such
hierarchies apply to any group engaged in production.
C. Appendix: Cultural Technologies at Work
Consider the Amhara and the Aymara. Both are agriculturalists, the Amhara cultivating teff (a
cereal) in a temperate climate at approximately 13 degrees north of the equator in East Africa,
the Aymara cultivating barley in an equatorial climate at approximately 16 degrees south of the
equator in South America.55
Both societies face similar levels of pathogen stress, seasonal food
variability, and soil quality. But the Amhara are approximately twice as developed as the
Aymara.56
Though they show similar levels of game complexity and property rights, the Amhara
have the highest level of class stratification and the Aymara the second-lowest.
Hoben (1973) notes that the Amhara are composed of a number of distinct segments
differentiated from one another by ―occupation, power, and honor‖, and the division between
peasants and elite is compounded by a distinction between layman and churchmen, and between
military and non-military. Messing (1957) documents that there is an ethnic division of skilled
labor and endogamy within the ethnic/occupation groups. Though an aura of ―untouchability‖
applies to certain occupational groups (smiths, tanners) and practitioners are often suspected of
witchcraft and black magic, nonetheless their wares are ―much prized‖ not only for their material
utility but also because of their ―supernatural‖ strength, endurance, and workmanship.
55
Amhara secondary crops include barley, wheat, maize, millet, and hops. Aymara secondary crops include
potatoes and quinoa. 56
Though the SCCS places the Amhara in the Circum-Mediterranean region (within which they have mean levels of
development), they would be the most highly developed Sub-Saharan African society. They are near the 85th
percentile in the SCCS-wide distribution of development. In terms of development, the Aymara are a mean South
American society, and near the 45th
percentile in the SCCS-wide distribution.
66
Consequently, ethnic/occupational groups have monopolies on their respective markets as any
manufactures by outsiders are thought to be substandard.57
Within the Aymara, however, social classes have not arisen: though there are leaders,
leadership does not carry with it privilege or special rewards for families. On the social plane all
are considered equal; what classes exist are extremely fluid and mobile, lack formal internal
organization, and fluctuate with the fortunes of families and individuals. Neither is there a
division of labor: everyone is a farmer even if income is supplemented by learning a trade
Furthermore, the means of acquiring wealth are extremely limited and available to few.
(Tschopik 1951).58
Compare both to Haitians, agriculturalists producing the cereal sorghum in an equatorial
climate 19 degrees north of the equator in Central America. They face similar levels of pathogen
stress, rainfall, food variability, and soil quality as the Amhara and the Aymara. The Haitians
were as developed as the Amhara and had an equal level of class stratification (and are similar to
both Amhara and Aymara in inheritance rights and game complexity). Though two separate
episodes of colonization brought physical and human capital, in the roughly 100 years between
the departure of the first colonial power and the arrival of the second, there was variation in the
presence and ubiquity of class stratification. Leyburn (1941) notes that only during that century
when class divisions (primarily between political, military/police, farming, and artisanal groups)
were mandated and enforced from above and through endogamy – in essence, a re-creation of the
57
Importantly, Messing (1957) also notes that wealth enables each of the many social classes to achieve some
upward mobility and Hoben (1970) notes that differences between classes were largely of ―achieved rank, not
‗blood‘, ideals, or basic style of life. Peasant and [elite] shared similar military aspirations, the same ancestors, and
above all the same vertical principles of social organization and ranking.‖ 58
Under the Inca aristocracy, Aymara society was more internally stratified, and there were several levels of class in
between the Inca elite and Aymara commoners. During the same era, Aymara cultural, social, and political
complexity was ―considerably enriched.‖ (Tschopik 1946)
67
French colonial hierarchy without the French colonials – did Haitian economic production reach
colonial levels.59
Koreans, Turks, and the Mapuche of Chile are all agriculturalists growing primarily
cereals (rice or wheat) in temperate climates at approximately 38 degrees absolute latitude. They
face similar levels of pathogen stress, food variability, and soil quality, and have similar levels of
game complexity and property rights. However, the Koreans and the Turks have developed high
levels of class stratification while the Mapuche are relatively egalitarian; Turks are in the 95th
,
Koreans the 90th
, and Mapuche the 80th
percentile of SCCS-wide development.
Within the Mapuche there are ―loose‖ divisions between wealthy and commoners, but no
organization into occupational groups (though many different crafts are practiced) and personal
rank and prestige derive chiefly from ―martial prowess and from wealth; generous hospitality,
and eloquence in speech‖ (Cooper 1946). Furthermore, no great authority attaches to leaders;
they serve mostly consultative or persuasive roles with no authority to sanction or coerce. (Faron
1968). Tasks that require more labor than is available to the household or kin group are
organized communally on a voluntary basis, and the work parties that form for land clearing,
housebuilding, or road repair do not remain once the work is finished. Similarly, much day-to-
day work is organized on a reciprocal basis rather than through market exchange. Though
individual ownership of land is well-established and agricultural partnerships both within the
Mapuche and with the surrounding Chileans are frequent, sophisticated, and economically
productive, still little renting or selling of land occurs because it amounts to a loss of ―cultural
integrity and agrarian status‖ (Faron 1961).
59
Furthermore, when those class divisions were essentially erased by an ―in perpetuity‖ re-distribution of land,
formal recognition of private property, the encouragement of small-scale, personal agricultural production, and the
creation of a rudimentary social safety net (employer-provided medical care, social security for the elderly), output
fell steadily and did not recover (Leyburn 1941).
68
Finally, consider two foraging societies, the Pomo and the Chiricahua, settled at 39 and
32 degrees latitude (respectively) in the Western United States. The Pomo are semisedentary
and face no variability in food supply while the Chiricahua are nomadic and face some
variability in food supply. Neither has high levels of pathogen stress. Among all foragers, the
Pomo are relatively well developed (90th
percentile) while the Chiricahua are just below average
(40th
percentile). Among all societies in the SCCS, the Pomo are still well off (75th
percentile)
and the Chiricahua are not (25th
percentile). Though they have identical levels of game
complexity, the Pomo have a higher level of inheritance rights and class stratification.
Gifford (1923), Barrett (1952), and Loeb (1926) all document that the Pomo had definite
rules about individual ownership of economically productive assets like trees, dams, gathering
grounds, and fishing landings. These and other productive capital like harpoons, bows and
arrows, fish and duck nets, or dwellings were passed to family members on the death of their
original owner (Loeb 1926). Opler (1965) notes that the Chiricahua instead destroy all property
belonging to, any objects regularly used by, and any gifts coming from the deceased. So
powerfully do they wish to completely alter the situation associated with the deceased that camp
life is completely reconstructed in a new locality and the deceased‘s home is usually burned.
The pre-death settlement is rarely visited.
Loeb (1926) also notes that there is hereditary occupational specialization among the
Pomo, especially for chieftainship, membership in the secret society, the office of doctor or
shaman, hunting, and fishing. Importantly for the Pomo, a person can be a member of a
profession only if he is ―initiated into the profession by an elder relative and given the magical
outfit and charms necessary‖; outfits, charms, and work songs are all private property handed
down within families. Among the Chiricahua, however, distinctions of hereditary status are
69
recognized, but not rigidly maintained; ability and personal magnetism are as important as birth
and wealth for determining leadership. Furthermore, there is virtually no specialization in
occupation: every hunter also fishes and makes his own arrows, for example (Opler 1965).
70
APPENDICES REFERENCES
Property Rights
Alchian, Armen, and Harold Demsetz. 1973. ―The Property Rights Paradigm.‖ Journal of
Economic History 33: 16-27.
Bandiera, Oriana. 2007. ―Land Tenure, Investment Incentives, and the Choice of Techniques:
Evidence from Nicaragua.‖ World Bank Economic Review 21(3): 487-508.
Besley, Timothy. 1995. ―Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from
Ghana.‖ Journal of Political Economy 103(5): 903-937.
Brunt, Liam. 2007. ―Property Rights and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Natural
Experiment.‖ Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper 6404.
Demestz, Harold. 1967. ―Toward a Theory of Property Rights.‖ American Economic Review 57:
347-359.
Johnson, Simon, John McMillan, and Christopher Woodruff. 2002. ―Property Rights and
Finance.‖ American Economic Review : 1335-1356.
Competitive Contests
Bateson, Patrick. 2005. ―The Role of Play in the Evolution of Great Apes and Humans.‖ In The
Nature of Play: Great Apes and Humans, Anthony Pellegrini and Peter Smith, eds. Pp
13-26. New York: The Guilford Press.
Bock, John. 2005. ―Farming, Foraging, and Children‘s Play in the Okavango Delta, Botswana.‖
In The Nature of Play: Great Apes and Humans, Anthony Pellegrini and Peter Smith,
eds. Pp 254-284. New York: The Guilford Press.
Bock, John, and Sara Johnson. 2003. ―Subsistence Ecology and Play Among the Okavango Delta
Peoples of Botswana.‖ Human Nature 15(1): 63-81.
Fagen, Robert. 1981. Animal Play Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gosso, Yumi, Emma Otta, Maria de Lima Salum e Morais, Fernando Jose Leite Ribeiro, and
Vera Silvia Raad Bussab. 2005. ―Play in Hunter-Gatherer Society.‖ In The Nature of
Play: Great Apes and Humans, Anthony Pellegrini and Peter Smith, eds. Pp 213-253.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Lancy, David. 1996. Playing on the Mother Ground: Cultural Routines for Chldren’s
Development. New York: The Guilford Press.
Power, Thomas. 2000. Play and Exploration in Children and Animals. Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
71
Pellegrini, Anthony, and Peter Smith. 2005. ―Play in Great Apes and Humans.‖ In The Nature of
Play: Great Apes and Humans, Anthony Pellegrini and Peter Smith, eds. Pp 3-12 . New
York: The Guilford Press.
Class Stratification
Akerlof, George, and Rachel Kranton. 2005. ―Identity and the Economics of Organizations.‖
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1): 9-32.
Bernard, H. Russel, and Peter Killworth. 1973. ―On the Social Structure of an Ocean-Going
Rsearch Vessel and Other Important Things.‖ Social Science Research (2): 145-184.
Besley, Timothy, and Maitreesh Ghatak. 2008. ―Status Incentives.‖ American Economic Review
98(2): 206-211.
Béteille, André. 1977. Inequality among Men. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Carneiro, Robert. 1967. ―On the Relationship Between Size of Population and Complexity of
Social Organization.‖ Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23(3): 234-243.
Davis, Kingsley, and Wilbert Moore. 1945. ―Some Principles of Stratification.‖ American
Sociological Review 10: 242-249.
Durkheim, Emile. 1893 [2006]. ―The Division of Labor in Society.‖ In Inequality: Classic
Readings in Race, Class, and Gender, David Grusky and Szonja Szelényi, eds. Pp. 55-64.
USA: Westview Press.
Easterly, William. 2007. ―Inequality does cause underdevelopment: Insights from a new
instrument.‖ Journal of Development Economics 84: 755-776.
Fallers, Lloyd. 1964. ―Social Stratification and Economic Processes in Africa.‖ In Economic
Transition in Africa, Melville Herskovits and Mitchell Harwitz, eds. Pp. 113-130.
Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Flannery, Kent. 1972. ―The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations.‖ Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 3: 399-246.
French, John and Bertram Raven. 1959. ―The Bases of Social Power.‖ In Studies in Social
Power, Dorwin Cartwright, ed. Pp. 150-167. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
Institute for Social Research.
Garicano, Luis. 2000. ―Hierarchies and the Organization of Knowledge in Production.‖ Journal
of Political Economy 108(51): 874-904.
Hayek, Friedrich. 1945. ―The Use of Knowledge in Society.‖ American Economic Review 35(4):
519-530.
72
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hodge, Robert, Donald Treiman, and Peter Rossi. 1966. ―A Comparative Study of Occupational
Prestige.‖ In Class, Status and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Perspective,
Second Edition, Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Lipset, eds. Pp. 309-321. New York: The
Free Press.
Orans, Martin. 1966. ―Surplus.‖ Human Organization 20: 24-32.
Smith, M.G. 1966. ―Pre-Industrial Stratification Systems.‖ In Social Structure and Mobility in
Economic Development, Neil Smelser and Seymour Lipset, eds. Pp. 141-176. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company.
Tumin, Melvin. 1953. ―Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis,‖ American
Sociological Review 18: 387-394.
Cultural Technologies at Work
Barrett, Samuel. 1952. ―Material Aspects of Pomo Culture.‖ Bulletins of the Public Museum of
the city of Milwaukee 20.
Cooper, John. 1946. ―The Araucanians.‖ Bulletins of the Bureau of American Ethnology 143(ii):
687-760.
Faron, Louis. 1968. Mapuche Indians of Chile. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Faron, Louis. 1961. ―Mapuche Social Structure: Institutional Reintegration in a Patrilineal
Society of Central Chile.‖ Illinois Studies in Anthropology 1.
Gifford, Edward. 1923. Pomo Land on Clear Lakes. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Hoben, Allan. 1970. ―Social Stratification in Traditional Amhara Society.‖ In Social
Stratification in Africa, Arthur Tuden and Leonard Plotnicov, eds. Pp. 187-224. New
York: The Free Press.
Hoben, Allan. 1973. Land Tenure among the Amhara of Ethiopia: the dynamics of cognatic
descent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Messing, Simon. 1957. The Highland-Plateau Amhara of Ethiopia. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Pennsylvania.
Leyburn, James. 1941. The Haitian People. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishers.
Loeb, Edwin. 1926. Pomo Folkways. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
73
Opler, Morris. 1941 [1965]. An Apache Life-Way. New York, NY: Cooper Square Publishers
Tschopik, Harry. 1946. ―The Aymara.‖ Bulletins of the Bureau of American Ethnology 143(ii):
501-573.
Tschopik, Harry. 1951. ―The Aymara of Chcuito, Peru.‖ Anthropolgoical Papers of the Museum
of Natural History 44: 137-308.