A re examination of the Columbian exchange: Agriculture and Economic Development in the Long Run

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "A re examination of the Columbian exchange: Agriculture and Economic Development in the Long Run"

Clement Dixon
6 years ago
Views:

1 Are examinationofthecolumbianexchange: AgricultureandEconomicDevelopmentintheLongRun AlfonsoDíezMinguela MªDoloresAñónHigón UniversitatdeValéncia UniversitatdeValéncia May2012 [PRELIMINARYRESEARCH,PLEASEDONOTCITE] Abstract This paper explores the Columbian exchange and its impact on economic developmentinthelongrun.todoso,wehavecalculatedtheproportion ofthetotalareaharvestedofnativecropsinagivenyearfortheoldand New World countries. Our preliminary results show that there is a significant and positive correlation between native cultivation and economic development in the Old World. This, in turn, indicates that remaining loyal to what was known prior to the discovery of the New World has had a positive effect on economic development. On the other hand,thecolumbianexchangehadtheoppositeeffectforthenewworld countries. These preliminary findings contribute to the existing literature on economic history and economics by providing a novel quantitative analysisonanextensivelydebatedsubject. 1

2 1.Introduction This paper examines the Columbian exchange and its impact on economic development in the long run. The Columbian exchange refers to the exchange of diseases,ideas,foodcropsandpopulationbetweenthenewworldandtheoldworld following the voyage to the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492 (Nunn and Quian, 2010: p. 163). The Columbian exchange brought new crops to the Old World suchasmaize,potatoes,sweetpotatoes,tomatoes,peanutsorcocoabeans.however, theeffectsofthecolumbianexchangewereevenlargerinthenewworldwherethe pre Columbianagrarianstructurewas,insomecases,entirelytransformed.Afterfive centuries of the discovery of the New World, it remains unclear how the Columbian exchange has affected economic development. This study is a first attempt to investigate the impact of the Columbian exchange on the course of comparative economicdevelopment.todoso,wehavecomputedtheproportionofthetotalarea harvestedofnativecropsinagivenyear.then,wecarryoutacross sectionempirical analysis. Our preliminary results show that the Columbian exchange partially explained the varianceineconomicdevelopmentacrossthesample.ourestimatesindicatethatthe thoseoldworldcountriesthatdidnotchangemuchtheiragrarianstructurewithnew World crops enjoy a high level of economic development. On the other hand, our estimates for New World countries, although less precisely, show the opposite, i.e. thosenewworldcountriesthatchangedtheiragrarianstructuremorewitholdworld cropshavedevelopedmore.thispaperopensupafurtheravenueforresearchonthe longrunforcesthathaveshapedtheworldeconomy.moreover,ourresearchfollows (NunnandQuian,2010)thatraised 2.Methodology We begin by examining the empirical relationship between the Columbian exchange andeconomicdevelopment.tothisend,wecapturethecolumbianexchangewiththe 2

3 variable Precolumbian crops which measures the proportion of the total area harvestedofnativecropsinagivenyear.thetotalareaharvestedbycropinhectares foragivenyearsisgivenbyfaostat.then,eachofthe160cropsoritemshasbeen accordingly classified as being native to the Old World or New World. To do so, we havefollowedseveralsourcesanddistinctliteraturessuchasbellwood(2005),harlan (1995), Kiple and Ornelas (2000a, 2000b), Smith (1995), Watson (1974; 2008) and Zoharyetal.(2012). Table1.Precolumbiancropsandareaharvested,1960and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ources:FAOSTAT2010,Author'sowncalculations Notes: a) 1961; b) The central Asian and Transcaucasian former republics of the USSR are included in EasternEurope;c)IncludingSudan. 3

4 Table1illustratesourmainvariableforeachmajorregion.Atafirstglance,Northern EuropeseemsnottohavegainedmuchfromtheColumbianexchange,since96.6per cent of the total area harvested in 2010 was cultivated with Old World crops. In contrast, more than 60 per cent of the total area harvested in Middle Africa and Southern Africa was cultivated with New World crops. Although the Columbian exchange had a greater impact in the New World table 1 also shows that Central America has been the most loyal region to the traditional American crops. This variationintheagrarianstructure,asaresultofthecolumbianexchange,isatthecore ofouranalysis.theanalysisisperformedforasampleofamaximum183countries, classifiedintheoldworld(i.e.europe,asiaandafrica),andthenewworld. Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for the key variable of interest. The first panel covers the extended sample of all countries, while the second and third panel showthedescriptivestatisticsforthesampleofcountriesoftheoldworldandnew World, respectively. As dependent variable in our analysis we use two measures of development.thefirstone,widelyusedingrowthstudies,isthegdppercapitaona PPPbasisfor2000(drawnfromtheWorldPENNtable);whileoursecondproxywillbe thefoodsupply(formfaostat),bothinnaturallogterms. OurvariableofinterestisPrecolumbiancropsanditismeasuredaspreviouslydefined. We also control for the institutional and technological state of development in the 1500s. To control for the degree of institutional development in 1500 we use the variablestatehistin1500,whichtakesintoaccountwhetherwhatisnowacountryhad a supra tribal government, the geographic scope of that government, and whether that government was indigenous or by an outside power in 1500 (see Chanda and Putterman,2007).Inaddition,wealsousethevariableagyearsthatisthenumberof millenniasinceacountrytransitionedfromhuntingandgatheringtoagriculture(see PuttermanandTrainor,2006).Toproxyforthedegreeoftechnologicaldevelopment inthe1500sweusethevariabletechnoindexcreatedbycominetal.(2010). Additionally,wealsocontrolforothergeographicalvariablesthathavebeenshownto determineeconomicdevelopment.thesevariablesarethenaturallogarithmoftotal land (drawn from FAOSTAT); the absolute distance to the equator; the average 4

5 distance to nearest ice free coast (1000 km) from Nunn and Puga (2010) and theproportionoflandwithanelevationabove3000meters. Table2.Descriptivestatistics.&&(+")/&' 0&,(12#&, -'3(12#&,!"#$"%&'(((((( )'"*( +, - )'"*( +, - )'"*( +, -!"#$%&'()*+,-."%/ : ; 77!"#"$%&!"-*,-: < 349:9 :7; 349; :22 343; #'($#)! 746: :6: 84:7: :9; 24<8; :4:22 92 =#$>,%*,?#@ :6 : ;6 34: < 29 A%B-CD!-/#"-$+/*= <4988 :4997 :<< <4226 :47:2 :8: <4<6< A%B-E%%?-F'//&G <5: 34:;6 :65 64<8< 3423< :9; 64<62 34:82 96 A+,? < :<6 225 <475: : : D*0=+,$#-=%-#H'+=%" :64: :3< :646:< :<6 :;4826 : D*0=+,$#-=%-$%+0= < < :<2 34:8< 342;3 8: I&#J+=*%,-+)%J#-9333 :49<; < :49:8 5489< :66 : ;< 8: Figure1.EconomicdevelopmentandPrecolumbiancropsintheOldWorld,1960 DZA AUS AUT BGD BEL BEN BWA BFA BDI CMR CPV CAF TCD CHN COM COG COD CIV CYP DNK EGY GNQ ETH FJI FIN FRA GAB GMB GHA GRC GIN GNB ISL IND IDN IRN IRL ISR ITA JPN JOR KEN KOR LSO MDG MWI MYS MLI MRT MUS MAR MOZ NAM NPL NLD NZL NER NGA NOR PAK PNG PHL PRT ROU RWA SEN SYC SGP ZAF ESP LKA SWE CHE SYR THA TGO TUR UGA GBR TZA ZMB ZWE Precolumbian crops, Log of GDP per capita, Precolumbian crops, 1961 Log of GDP per capita, CHE NLD NZL SWE GBR AUS NOR DNK AUTFRA BEL ISL ITA FIN ISR IRL GRCJPNESP SGP PRT SYC ZAF GAB NAM TURCYP JOR DZA MUS IRN ZMB FJI GHA KOR MYS ROU SEN NGA PHL CMR CAF KEN EGY LKA MDG THA RWA CIV BEN COD GMB GIN PNG CPV MAR TGO COG COM TCD UGA IND NER NPL BFA GNB IDN MLI TZA MWI LSO ETH GNQ MOZ CHN BDI ZWE SYR BGD PAK MRT BWA Precolumbian crops, 1961 Sources:PennWorldTables7.0andFAOSTAT.Author'sowncalculations Notes:Theregressionline,y = x,R! : 0.138,N = 82 Additionally, table 1 illustrates the ratio of change for the period The increasingdemandforagriculturalproductshadledtoaconsiderableexpansionofthe 5

6 total area harvested. However, it does seem that the agrarian structure has not changed much over the last fifty years. For this reason, we study the long run and exploit the cross section variation in this paper. Figure 1 shows the relationship betweeneconomicdevelopmentandourmainvariable,precolumbiancrops,in1960. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between economic development and our main variable,precolumbiancrops,in2010.generallyspeaking,therelationshipappearsto be positive which implies that Old World countries that did not changed much their agrarian structure with the discovery of the New World enjoy a higher level of economicdevelopment,measuredasthenaturallogofgrossdomesticproduct(gdp) percapita. Figure2.EconomicdevelopmentandPrecolumbiancropsintheOldWorld,2010 AFG ALB DZA AGO ARM AUS AUT AZE BHR BGD BLR BEL BEN BTN BIH BWA BRN BGR BFA BDI KHM CMR CPV CAF TCD CHN COM COG COD CIV HRV CYP CZE DNK DJI EGY GNQ ERI EST ETH FJI FIN FRA GAB GMB GEO DEU GHA GRC GIN GNB HUN ISL IND IDN IRN IRQ IRL ISR ITA JPN JOR KAZ KEN KIR KOR KWT KGZ LAO LVA LBN LSO LBR LBY LTU LUX MKD MDG MWI MYS MDV MLI MLT MHL MRT MUS FSM MDA MNG MNE MAR MOZ NAM NPL NLD NZL NER NGA NOR OMN PAK PNG PHL POL PRT QAT ROU RUS RWA WSM STP SAU SEN SRB SYC SLE SGP SVK SVN SLB SOM ZAF ESP LKA SDN SWZ SWE CHE SYR TJK THA TLS TGO TON TUN TUR TKM UGA UKR ARE GBR TZA UZB VUT VNM YEM ZMB ZWE Precolumbian crops, Log of GDP per capita, Precolumbian crops, Log of GDP per capita, ISL AGO ZMB QAT LUX BRN ARE KWT NOR AUS SGP NLD BEL AUT CHE FRA DEU JPN IRL GBR SWE DNK FIN GNQ ISR NZL ITA GRC ESP SVN KOR CZE OMN MLT BHR PRT SAU SYC SVK CYP HUN HRV POLBYEST RUS BLR LBN LVA LTU GAB BGR MYS KAZ ROU AZE IRN TUR BWA MUS ZAF SRB BIH MNE MKD CHN THA TON UKR MHL ALB WSM VUT TKM TUN ARM DZA GEO EGY JOR NAM MDV IRQ CPV BTNIDN LKA FJI KIR SWZ IND FSM MAR MNG PNG SYR DJI PHL VNM MDA LAO COG NGA KGZ YEM UZB SLB SDNPAK TJK CMR STP KHM LSO GHA SEN GMB MRT KEN CIV TCD BGD BEN TZA RWA TLS UGA NPL AFG MLI GIN SLE BFA COM TGO GNBMOZ MDG ETH MWI CAF ERI NER SOM BDI LBR COD ZWE Precolumbian crops, Sources:PennWorldTables7.0andFAOSTAT.Author'sowncalculations Notes:Theregressionline,y = x,R! : 0.179,N = 148 6

7 3.Empiricalresults In this section we briefly explore the effects of the Columbian exchange of crops on economic development. Table 3 shows the results for the whole sample. The OLS regressions presented in columns (1) and (5) reveal the unconditional positive relationship between our main variable and economic development, captured as the naturallogofgdppercapitaandfoodsupply(kcal/capita/day). Table3.TheColumbianexchangeandeconomicdevelopment,allsample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otes: (i) Heteroskedasticity robust standard errors estimates are reported in parentheses; (ii) *** denotes statisticalsignificanceatthe1%level,**atthe5%level,and*atthe10%level,allfortwo sidedhypothesistests. Table4.TheColumbianexchangeandeconomicdevelopment,OldWorld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otes: (i) Heteroskedasticity robust standard errors estimates are reported in parentheses; (ii) *** denotes statisticalsignificanceatthe1%level,**atthe5%level,and*atthe10%level,allfortwo sidedhypothesistests. Nevertheless, once we control for the level of institutional and technological development in the 1500s, the statistical significance vanishes. This calls for a fragmented empirical analysis in which Old and New Worlds are separated. Table 4 7

8 illustratesapositivecorrelationbetweenourmainvariableofinterestandeconomic development.remarkably,oncewecontrolforthelevelofinstitutionsandtechnology inthe1500s,thestatisticalsignificanceofprecolumbiancropsremains.thesefindings suggest that those countries of the Old World that remained loyal to their native cultivationenjoyahigherlevelofeconomicdevelopment. Table5.TheColumbianexchangeandeconomicdevelopment,NewWorld M0;09J09F:G8/78630:7<:,2N:OM.:;0/:18;7F8=:$>>> M0;09J09F:G8/78630:7<:,2N:P22J:<4;;3Q:CR183S18;SJ8QD=:$>>>!"#!$#!%#!&#!'#!(#!)#!*# +,- +,- +,- +,- +,- +,- +, "$*%+,&+-$. E29<F89F <0/G8F729< %) $) %" $$ %( $) %> $$ H?<I48/0J Notes: (i) Heteroskedasticity robust standard errors estimates are reported in parentheses; (ii) *** denotes statisticalsignificanceatthe1%level,**atthe5%level,and*atthe10%level,allfortwo sidedhypothesistests. Table6.TheColumbianexchangeandeconomicdevelopment,OldWorld F0;09E09G:J8/78630:7<:,2O:PF.:;0/:18;7G8=:$>>> F0;09E09G:J8/78630:7<:,2O:Q22E:<4;;3R:BS183T18;TE8RC=:$>>>!"#!$#!%#!&#!'#!(#!)#!*# +,- +,- +,- +,- +,- +,- +,- +,-./ :1/2;<=:$>>> B>?)()C B>?'$*C B>?''*C B>?'$&C B>?>A&C B>?>'(C B>?>*&C B>?>)*C!"#"$%&!":79:"'>> D>?>)" >?>") B>?&AAC B>?%*"C B>?>(AC B>?>'%C #'($#)! >?>$( B>?>&AC B>?>&>C B>?>>)C B>?>>'C,89E D>?>%% D>?>) >?>>A >?>>A B>?>)%C B>?>'AC B>?>>*C B>?>>AC F7<G8910:G2:0H48G2/ B>?>>(C B>?>>(C B>?>>"C B>?>>"C F7<G8910:G2:128<G B>?$%$C B>?$>AC B>?>$AC B>?>$(C I30J8G729:862J0:%>>> D>?>>$ D>?>>% B>?>">C B>?>>*C B>?>>$C B>?>>$C K29<G89G B>?&**C B>?()"C B>?%&&C B>?'))C B>?>(%C B>?>)"C B>?>'$C B>?>*&C +6<0/J8G729< ""* ""* "%% "%% ""( ""( "$( "$( LD<H48/0E >?"*$ >?("" >?$&) >?')) >?$$% >?(&) >?$A" >?(>* MEN4<G0E:LD<H48/0E >?"(* >?'A> >?$%( >?''( >?$"> >?($* >?$)A >?'** Notes: (i) Heteroskedasticity robust standard errors estimates are reported in parentheses; (ii) *** denotes statisticalsignificanceatthe1%level,**atthe5%level,and*atthe10%level,allfortwo sidedhypothesistests. 8

9 Table5showstheOLSregressionsforNewWorldcountries.Althoughtherelationship betweenthecolumbianexchangeandeconomicdevelopmentappearstobenegative and statistically significant, it seems that our variable of interest is more sensitive to thecontrolvariableswhengdppercapitaisusedasdependentvariable. Finally,we conduct a robustness check our previous results by including other control variables that are relevant in the literature of economic development (tables 6 and 7). In particular, we examine whether the inclusion of exogenous geographical variables alterourresults.fromallofthespecificationsweobservethatourresultsarerobust totheinclusionofthesecontrolvariables. Table7.TheColumbianexchangeandeconomicdevelopment,NewWorld F0;09E09G:J8/78630:7<:,2O:PF.:;0/:18;7G8=:$>>> F0;09E09G:J8/78630:7<:,2O:Q22E:<4;;3R:CS183T18;TE8RD=:$>>>!"#!$#!%#!&#!'#!(#!)#!*# +,- +,- +,- +,- +,- +,- +,- +,-./ :1/2;<=:$>>>?$@($(AA?$@$&*?"@)("A?"@&>)?>@&)(AA?>@'$(AA?>@%)BA?>@%%(AA C"@"$&D C"@'&&D C"@>>'D C>@B&BD C>@"BBD C>@"*)D C>@"B%D C>@"''D!"#"$%&!":79:"'>> >@>&B >@(>*?>@>& >@>(' C>@)((D C>@**'D C>@"*$D C>@$"(D #'($#)!?>@"*"?>@>&B >@>>* >@>"& C>@"&'D C>@"*"D C>@>$(D C>@>%%D,89E?>@>>'?>@>&" >@>%%A >@>$" C>@>BD C>@>))D C>@>")D C>@>"*D F7<G8910:G2:0H48G2/ >@>$% >@>%>AA >@>>&AA >@>>(AAA C>@>"&D C>@>""D C>@>>$D C>@>>$D F7<G8910:G2:128<G?>@>'*?>@>$'?>@>B%?>@>)" C>@'(>D C>@'%$D C>@>B(D C>@>B>D I30J8G729:862J0:%>>>?>@>$(?>@>""?>@>>*?>@>>(A C>@>$"D C>@>"*D C>@>>'D C>@>>%D K29<G89G B@()BAAA B@$"&AAA B@B&'AAA B@%%(AAA *@>&%AAA )@(BBAAA )@B)(AAA )@(("AAA C>@&>(D C>@))>D C>@%)%D C>@(&$D C>@>()D C>@"'*D C>@">>D C>@"'$D +6<0/J8G729< $) $) %" %" $) $) %> %> L?<H48/0E >@$)$ >@&%( >@$&( >@&" >@$>% >@''& >@"%) >@'"& MEN4<G0E:L?<H48/0E >@$"" >@$() >@"B$ >@$($ >@"%) >@&$ >@>)% >@%*) Notes: (i) Heteroskedasticity robust standard errors estimates are reported in parentheses; (ii) *** denotes statisticalsignificanceatthe1%level,**atthe5%level,and*atthe10%level,allfortwo sidedhypothesistests. 9

10 References Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., and J. A. Robinson(2001), The Colonial Origins of ComparativeDevelopment:AnEmpiricalInvestigation,AmericanEconomicReview91, pp Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., and J. A. Robinson (2002), Reversal of Fortune: GeographyandInstitutionsintheMakingofModernWorldIncomeDistribution,The QuarterlyJournalofEconomics117,pp Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., and J. A. Robinson (2005), The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change and Economic Growth, American Economic Review95,pp Bellwood,P.(2005),FirstFarmers:TheOriginsofAgriculturalSocieties,Oxford: BlackwellPublishing Chanda, A., and L. Putterman(2007), Early Starts, Reversals and Catch Up in the Process of Economic Development, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 109 pp Comin, D., Easterly W., and E. Gong (2010), Was the Wealth of Nations Determinedin1000BC?,AmericanEconomicJournal:Macroeconomics2,pp Crosby,A.W.(1986),EcologicalImperalism:theBiologicalExpansionofEurope, ,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress Harlan, J. R. (1995), The living fields: our agricultural heritage, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress EditedbyK.F.KipleandK.C.Ornelas(2000a),TheCambridgeworldhistoryof food,volume1,cambridge:cambridgeuniversitypress EditedbyK.F.KipleandK.C.Ornelas(2000b),TheCambridgeworldhistoryof food,volume2,cambridge:cambridgeuniversitypress McCann, J. C.(2005), Maize and Grace: Africa s Encounter with a New World Crop ,London:HarvardUniversityPress Mokyr, J. (1981), Irish History with the Potato, Irish Economic and Social History,Vol.8,pp.8 29 Nunn,N.,andD.Puga(2009), Ruggedness:TheBlessingofBadGeographyin Africa,NationalBureauofEconomicResearchworkingpaper14918 Nunn,N.,andN.Quian(2010), TheColumbianExchange:AHistoryofDisease, Food,andIdeas,JournalofEconomicPerspectives,Vol.24,No.2,pp Nunn, N., and N. Quian (2011), The Potato s Contribution to Population and Urbanization: Evidence from a Historical Experiment, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,Vol.126,Issue2,pp

11 Putterman, L., and C. A. Trainor (2006), Agricultural Transition Year Country DataSet DataSet, ( Smith, A. (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress Smith,BD.(1995),Theemergenceofagriculture,NewYork:ScientificAmerican Library Watson,A.M.(1974), TheArabAgriculturalRevolutionandItsDiffusion, ,TheJournalofEconomicHistory34(1),pp Watson, A. M. (2008), Agricultural innovation in the early Islamic world, CambridgeStudiesinIslamicCivilization,London:CambridgeUniversityPress Zohary, D., Hopf, M., and E. Weiss(2012), Domestication of Plants in the Old World,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,4 th edition 11

Inferring Latent Preferences from Network Data

Inferring Latent Preferences from Network John S. Ahlquist 1 Arturas 2 1 UC San Diego GPS 2 NYU 14 November 2015 very early stages Methodological extend latent space models (Hoff et al 2002) to partial