Results for “Koyama”
52 found

Rubin and Koyama on the Industrial Revolution

From Dylan Matthews:

The big question is what drove this transformation. Historians, economists, and anthropologists have proposed a long list of explanations for why human life suddenly changed starting in 18th-century England, from geographic effects to forms of government to intellectual property rules to fluctuations in average wages.

For a long time, there was no one book that could explain, compare, and evaluate these theories for non-experts. That’s changed: How the World Became Rich, by Chapman University’s Jared Rubin and George Mason University’s Mark Koyama, provides a comprehensive look at what, exactly, changed when sustained economic growth began, what factors help explain its beginning, and which theories do the best job of making sense of the new stage of life that humans have been experiencing for a couple brief centuries.

Here is the full coverage with interview.  And you can order the book here from Amazon.  I haven’t read it yet, but this is surely self-recommending…

My Conversation with Noel Johnson and Mark Koyama

Lots of economic history in this one, with the underlying themes of persecution and tolerance, here is the audio and video.

We talk about the evolution of anti-Semitism, how the Black Death influenced Europe, the economics and politics of volcanic eruptions, how much prejudice will come back, amateur astronomy,  Jared Diamond, cousin marriage and the origins of the West, why England was a coherent nation-state so early, the origins of the Industrial Revolution, Schindler’s List, and more.  I split the time between the two, here is one excerpt:

JOHNSON: Mark and I have done a lot of work on building datasets of Jewish persecution and Jewish expulsions at the city level and the country level in Europe over a very long period of time. And a question that I, for one, don’t fully understand is, you don’t need to actually kill all the Jews or expel them in order to extract resources from them. In fact, in some way, this is off the equilibrium path. You’re no longer in some optimal equilibrium for both the ruler and for the Jewish community.

Oftentimes, these Jewish communities would be expelled from a city, they would be invited to come back, and they would come back — in 5, 10, 15 years, sometimes even shorter. But that’s a little bit easier to understand.

In the case I gave you in England in 1290s, I think I understand a little bit about why it might have happened that way. I think it was signaling credibility in some political compact between the king and the nobles, but I’m not sure. But that’s an example of top down.

Other times, clearly, people are . . . You have, say, guilds moving against these Jewish communities. An example of this would be in 1614, when the most well-known Jewish persecution was in Frankfurt am Main. It was called the Fettmilch Massacre. Fettmilch was a baker. He was in guild, and he was upset about the terms of the political deal between the city rulers — the city council — and what the guilds were getting. One of the things that the guilds wanted were the Jews to be expelled. This was competition in some sense.

There was this bit from me:

COWEN: If the Black Death raised wages, does that mean that immigration today lowers wages?

And:

COWEN: Large volcanic eruptions earlier in history. From an economic point of view, what’s the single most interesting thing we know about them?

JOHNSON: I think what’s very interesting about the volcanic eruptions is that we are discovering more and more that they may have played a large role in political change that occurred. Joe Manning at Yale, and I believe his graduate student (Bruce M.S. Campbell) have been doing work on . . . They looked at a series of volcanic eruptions that led to the end of the pharaonic empire. That ended around 30 or 60 BC, I forget. Right around that time.

That was an empire that lasted for 300 years, but they experienced all these crop failures. And then once you look at it, you see that in Indonesia, all these major volcanic eruptions were happening in perfect timing with these crop failures that were taking place. Actually, they can tell from looking at the Nile and how much it’s flooding and things.

COWEN: Politics becomes nastier when the volcano goes off?

And from Mark Koyama:

COWEN: Why was China, as a nation or territory, so large so early in world history?

KOYAMA: Yeah, that’s a great question. There are several potential explanations, one of which is geographic. Another one would be an argument from the writing system. But I think the geography story is quite important. Jared Diamond, building on people like Eric Jones, argued that China’s geography . . .

Essentially there are two core geographic regions in China around the Yellow and Yangtze river deltas, which produced a huge amount of grain or rice. If you control those core regions, you can raise large armies. You can have a large population and dominate the subsequent regions.

Whereas, the argument is for Europe that these core regions are, perhaps, arguably more separated by geographical boundaries. The limitation of that argument on its own is that geography is static, so it doesn’t really tell you anything about the timing.

The interesting thing about China, in my view, is not just that it was once unified, or unified early. But it’s persistently unified. It reunifies. Interestingly enough, the periods of de-unification get consistently smaller. So there are always periods where it’s fragmented, like the warlord period in the early 20th century, but over time may become smaller.

Europe doesn’t seem to have that centrifugal force, so a lot of Europe is unified by the Romans, but it’s not able to come back together along those lines later.

And the argument that I put forward in an article with Tuan-Hwee Sng and Chiu Yu Ko of National University of Singapore is that it’s not just the core geographical reason. That’s part of it. But actually, the periodic threat from a nomadic steppe is another key factor.

This is geographic because China has a very sharp slope from really productive agricultural land to land which is only fit for horses, for Eurasian steppe. China could be invaded very easily from the north by these steppe nomads, whereas Europe — it was much less vulnerable to this. And that helps to explain why the Chinese state is often a northern state.

So if I can add, if you think about China today, or even China in the past, the really productive land — a lot of it’s in the quite far south, in Shanghai, Yangtze delta. But the political center of China is near Beijing, or it’s in the north. And that’s due to this political economy threat from the steppe. And it’s these periodic steppe invasions which we argue are responsible for the centralization, an almost militarized character of the Chinese state through history.

And:

COWEN: Max Weber. Overrated or underrated?

KOYAMA: Underrated.

COWEN: Why?

KOYAMA: Because most people just know the Protestant theory, and they misreport it. Whereas, actually, his most interesting stuff is on Chinese religion and ancient Judaism. And the role of —

COWEN: The history of music, right?

There is much more at the link.  I am very happy to recommend their forthcoming book Persecution and Tolerance: The Long Road to Religious Freedom.

What should I ask Mark Koyama and Noel Johnson

They are my colleagues, and both are economic historians, and they have an important forthcoming book Persecution and Toleration: The Long Road to Religious Freedom.  I will be doing a Conversation with them.

More generally they have worked on state capacity, nation building, why China evolved into such a large political unit, the Black Death, scapegoating, usury prohibitions in history, the economic impact of volcanic eruptions, and more.  I am always happy to see them.

Their home pages are here and here.  So what should I ask them?

Mark Koyama review of the Roman economy

Observe that Roman history leaves no traces of great mercantile companies like the Bardi, the Peruzzi or the Medici. There are no records of commercial manuals of the sort that are abundant from Renaissance Italy; no evidence of “class-struggle” as we have from late medieval Europe; and no political economy or “economics”, that is, no attempts to systematize one’s thoughts and insights concerning the commercial world. The ancient world, in this view, only superficially resembled that of early modern Europe. Seen from this perspective, the latter contained the potential for sustained growth; the former did not. Why is this?

The most obvious institutional difference between the ancient world and the modern was slavery. Recently historians have tried to elevate slavery and labor coercion as crucial causal mechanism in explaining the industrial revolution. These attempts are unconvincing (see this post) but slavery certainly did dominate the ancient economy.

In its attempt to draw together the various strands through which slavery permeated the ancient economy, Schiavone’s chapter “Slaves, Nature, Machines” is a tour de force. At once he captures the ubiquity of slavery in the ancient economy, its unremitting brutality—for instance, private firms that specialized in branding, retrieving, and punishing runaway slaves — and, at the same time, touches the central economic questions raised by ancient slavery: to what extent was slavery crucial to the economic expansion of period between 200 BCE and 150 AD? And did the prevalence of slavery impede innovation?

Here is the full piece, Mark is reviewing Aldo Schiavone’s The End of the Past.

Guest Blogger: Mark Koyama

We are pleased to have Mark Koyama blogging with us through Monday. Mark, our colleague at GMU, is an economic historian with an interest in institutional economics and the relationship between culture and economic performance. Mark’s paper on witches, taxes and the rule of law (with Noel Johnson) was recently covered at the Washington Post. Mark has also just published a paper in the Journal of Legal Studies on prosecution associations. Prosecution associations were private providers of insurance and police services in in early nineteenth-century England in the years before public police.

Mark’s career, however, has had one unusual feature. Mark began blogging as a student at Oxford but when he became a professor at GMU he defied all tradition and stopped blogging! We are thus happy to bring Mark back to the fold.

Emergent Ventures, 33rd cohort

Alex Bartik and Arpit Gupta, Chicago and NYU, to work on zoning codes, machine learning, and LLMs.

Sasha Przyblski, 16, Ontario, building more durable batteries.

Egzona Marina, Kosovo and MIT, to promote science and neuroscience education in Kovoso.

Aldrich Heinz Alvarez, Manila, travel grant to San Francisco and Singapore, wearables that harness multi-modal AI.

Molly Cantillon, Stanford, for a hacker house at Stanford.

Ayush Tambde, Dublin (Mumbai), physics and wormholes, and to finance a trip to San Francisco.

Candela Francisco, 17, Buenos Aires, to become the world’s greatest woman chess player.

Aabhas Senapati, Harvey Mudd, from Ahmedabad, general career support, and for work on ecosystems.

Erick Li, Mexicali, to visit a social science conference at Harvard.

Lorcan Geraghty, Country Wicklow, Dublin, EirSpace, aerospace for Ireland.

Regan Arntz-Gray, Brooklyn, writing on feminism.

Steven Gong, Waterloo, to make videos on topics related to physics and math.

Dominic Sobhani, Midwest, Columbia University and now Tokyo, Progress Studies-related meet-ups and also personal travel.

Tomas Markey, 17, Ballineen, Cork area, Direct Air Capture Engineering.

Alexander Koch, Germany, Bay Area, robotics and robot learning.

Dylan Iskandar, Stanford, computer science, music, general career support.

Vesuvius Project, Bay Area.

Mark Koyama and Desiree Desierto, for British economic and political history, including in the 17th century.

Grant Getzelman, Bay area, computational wetware.

Naina Kumar, McLean, Virginia, 16, surgery + AR.

Ukraine:

Yanchuk Dmytro, Kyiv, repairing electric station short circuits.

And here is Nabeel’s AI-driven directory of previous EV winners.

IFOs

While strolling in the garden one day…a priest said to him, ‘Father Joseph, oh, how beautiful God has made heaven!’ Then Joseph, as if he had been called to heaven, gave a loud shriek, leapt off the ground, flew through the air, and knelt down atop an olive tree, and—as witnesses declared in his beatification inquest—that branch on which he rested waved as if a bird were perched upon it, and he remained up there about half an hour” (Paolo Agelli, Vita del Beato Giuseppe di Copertino, 1753).

What kind of nonsense is this? Who is this liar quoted above? Human beings can’t fly or kneel on slender tree limbs like little birds. So, how is it that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries—the very era that gave birth to aggressive skepticism and empirical science—countless people swore that they had witnessed such events? And how is it that some of these sworn testimonies are legal records, archived alongside lawsuits and murder trials, from all sorts of people, not just illiterate peasants but also elites at the apex of the social, intellectual, and political hierarchy?

…Levitation is one of the best of all entry points into the history of the impossible, principally because it is an event for which we have an overabundance of testimonies, not just in Western Christianity but throughout all of world history.

Carlos Eire argues in CommonWeal that these events should be taken seriously. Eire is cagey about what he means by take seriously but I agree that we can say something about the form such visions take and when and why they rise and fall in frequency. Eire notes, for example, that reporting of such events changed significantly with the Protestant Reformation.

…Protestants of all stripes also rejected the proposition that God had continued to perform miracles beyond the first century, a doctrine that came to be known as “the cessation of miracles” or “the cessation of the charismata.” The miracles mentioned in the Bible had really occurred, they argued, but such marvels became unnecessary after the birth of the early Church and would never happen again. Consequently, all of those miraculous supernatural phenomena associated with holiness throughout the Middle Ages, including levitation, could not be the work of God. But by designating these phenomena “false”—that is, not attributable to God—Protestants did not declare them impossible. As most Protestant Reformers and their later disciples saw it, ecstatic seizures, levitations, luminous irradiance, and all such phenomena did in fact occur, but they were all diabolical in origin.

…Given the religious, social, political, and intellectual turmoil caused by the advent of Protestantism and its great paradigm shift, it is not at all surprising that miracles became a marker of difference between Catholics and Protestants, as well as a flash point of discord and a polemical weapon.

That’s right but the author would have done better to refer to the work of my GMU colleagues. GMU (oddly?) is a leading center of experts on witch trials. See most notably Leeson and Russ and Johnson and Koyama.

People don’t report seeing flying people the way they used to. Is that because people have become more rational or because the socially acceptable form of vision has changed?

Statement of Commitment to Academic Freedom and to Intellectual Merit

Academic freedom and intellectual merit are under attack in the United States, from both the left and the right. The norms of the university and intellectual life are fragile and need protecting because such norms are always in tension with political and economic power.

The undersigned members of the GMU Department of Economics express their commitment to academic freedom and to intellectual merit.

Addressed to the George Mason University (GMU) community and the public at large

~~~

American universities have professed allegiance to two ideals. First, the ideal of academic freedom – the right of students and faculty to express any idea in speech or writing, without fear of university punishment, and secure in the knowledge that the university will protect dissenters from threats and violence on campus.

Second, the ideal of intellectual merit – the right and duty of academic departments to hire and promote the most brilliant, creative, and productive faculty in their fields, and admit the most intellectually promising students, without pressures from the administration.

These ideals are the cornerstones of liberal education. They protect faculty and students who hold views unpopular on university campuses. Academic freedom protects existing students and faculty who dissent from current dominant academic opinion and ideology. No matter how unpopular their views, they know the university will protect them. As stated in the University of Chicago Statement on freedom of expression and as quoted in GMU’s “Free Speech at Mason” Statement:

[We must hold a fundamental commitment to] the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.

Intellectual merit protects prospective students and faculty who speak and write against current dominant viewpoints. No matter how unpopular their views, they know that university administration will not obstruct or prejudice their admission, hiring, or promotion.

Recently, both of these ideals have come under attack. Pressure for conformity has intensified and universities have increasingly interfered with departments’ personnel decisions. For example, at some universities, one of the more egregious new practices is the requiring of written “diversity” statements by prospective students, staff, or faculty, then used to discriminate among candidates, often by quarters of the university with interests other than those of the department or unit. Such methods recall arrogations of the past, such as The Levering Act of 1950, used against radicals.

We strongly believe the attacks on academic freedom and intellectual merit are deeply mistaken. The classic rationales in favor of these ideals are sound. To protect them, viewpoint diversity must be celebrated and academic departments must maintain their ability to select, hire, and promote students and personnel based on intellectual merit. We insist that the degree of institutional autonomy that the GMU Department of Economics has traditionally enjoyed is vital to the health of viewpoint diversity not only within the university but within the academy writ large.

It is vital that every department in a university enjoys independence, so it can dare to be different and keep viewpoint diversity alive. George Mason University has excelled in supporting viewpoint diversity with a variety of diverse departments, centers and organizations. Viewpoint diversity at George Mason has benefited the university, the United States, and the wider intellectual world.

Indeed, some of the Department’s chief contributions have taught that all forms of authority can exert power to excess, and that guarding against such excess calls for the very ideals affirmed here, respect for dissent and intellectual merit.

We, the undersigned members of the GMU Department of Economics, look forward to continuing our independence to do good economics according to our judgment, guided by the ideals of academic freedom and intellectual merit.

Signed by the following GMU Department of Economics faculty (full-time & emeritus):

1. Jonathan P. Beauchamp
2. James T. Bennett
3. Donald J. Boudreaux
4. Bryan D. Caplan
5. Vincent J. Geloso
6. Timothy Groseclose
7. Robin D. Hanson
8. Garett Jones
9. Daniel B. Klein
10. Mark Koyama
11. David M. Levy
12. Cesar A. Martinelli
13. John V.C. Nye
14. Thomas C. Rustici
15. Vernon L. Smith
16. Alex Tabarrok
17. Karen I. Vaughn
18. Richard E. Wagner
19. Lawrence H. White

Best non-fiction books of 2022

Behind the links are sometimes but not always my longer reviews.  The list is (mostly) in the order I read them.  Here goes:

Markus Friedrich, The Jesuits: A History.

Barbara Bloemink, Florine Stettheimer: A Biography.

Anna Keay, The Restless Republic: Britain Without a Crown.

Caroline Elkins, Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire.

Richard Overy, Blood and Ruins: The Last Imperial War, 1931-1945.

Mark Bergen, Like, Comment, Subscribe: How YouTube Conquered the World.

Julie Phillips, The Baby on the Fire Escape: Creativity, Motherhood, and the Mind-Baby Problem.

Mancur Olson, reprinted new edition of The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities.

The Malcolm Gladwell audiobook Miracle and Wonder: Conversations with Paul Simon.

Tyler Cowen and Daniel Gross, Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creators, and Winners Around the World.

Mark Koyama and Jared Rubin, How the World Became Rich: The Historical Origins of Economic Growth.

Katherine Rundell, Super-Infinite: The Transformations of John Donne.

Anthony Beevor, Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921.

William C. Kirby, Empires of Ideas: Creating the Modern University from Germany to America to China.

Peter Loftus, The Messenger: Moderna, the Vaccine, and the Business Gamble That Changed the World.

Kevin Kelly, Vanishing Asia, three volumes, expensive, mostly photos, worth it.

Richard R. Reeves, Of Boys and Men.  One of America’s biggest problems.

Andrea Wulf, Magnificent Rebels: The First Romantics and the Invention of the Self.  A+ academic gossip, so to speak.

Pekka Hämäläinen, Indigenous Continent: The Epic Contest for North America.

Johann Peter Eckermann, Conversations with Goethe.  The new translation, much better than the old.

Julia Voss, Hilma af Klint: A Biography.

Hayek: A Life, 1899-1950, by Bruce Caldwell & Hansjoerg Klausinger.

John Higgs, Love and Let Die: Bond, the Beatles, and the British Psyche.

Garett Jones, The Culture Transplant: How Migrants Make the Economies They Move to a Lot Like the Ones They Left.

I don’t think I can pick a favorite this year!  But maybe the Kevin Kelly and the Catherine Rundell books, if I had to say?  And please keep in mind this is a meritocratic list, not based on any quotas or any attempt at “balance.”  These were the best books!

I will be issuing an addendum at the very end of the year, since I will be reading more between now and 2023.

Saturday assorted links

1. “We conclude that the ǣfrog in the panǥ (FIP) momentum effect is pervasive in co-momentum settings, suggesting that information discreteness (ID) serves as a cognitive trigger that reduces investor inattention and improves inter-firm news transmission.”  Link here.

2. Paul Simon and his brother.

3. Why wasn’t the steam engine invented earlier?

4. Ari Armstrong on faith and Stubborn Attachments, a bit of Rand too.

5. Davis Kedrosky reviews Koyama and Rubin.

6. Business talk about “diversity” can be counterproductive.

The Fractured-Land Hypothesis

From Jesús Fernández-Villaverde, Mark Koyama, Youhong Lin, and Tuan-Hwee Sng, here is a new NBER working paper:

Patterns of political unification and fragmentation have crucial implications for comparative economic development. Diamond (1997) famously argued that “fractured land” was responsible for China’s tendency toward political unification and Europe’s protracted political fragmentation. We build a dynamic model with granular geographical information in terms of topographical features and the location of productive agricultural land to quantitatively gauge the effects of “fractured land” on state formation in Eurasia. We find that either topography or productive land alone is sufficient to account for China’s recurring political unification and Europe’s persistent political fragmentation. The existence of a core region of high land productivity in Northern China plays a central role in our simulations. We discuss how our results map into observed historical outcomes and assess how robust our findings are.

Here is a 15-minute video associated with the paper.

Thursday assorted links

1. Various Magnus Carlsen updates.

2. Mark Koyama reviews Walter Scheidel’s Escape from Rome.

3. “Two programmer-musicians wrote every possible MIDI melody in existence to a hard drive, copyrighted the whole thing, and then released it all to the public in an attempt to stop musicians from getting sued.

4. Pandemics and the advantages of globalization.  And “A troop of special Chinese ducks is waiting to be deployed to neighbouring Pakistan to fight a swarm of crop-eating pests that threaten regional food security.

5. If you lose Taiwan, you lose Japan.

6. What the Singaporean PM said about coronavirus.  And illiquid Hypermind betting market in coronavirus.

7. Gary Chamberlain has passed away.