nhaliday + alesina   12

The Determinants of Trust
Both individual experiences and community characteristics influence how much people trust each other. Using data drawn from US localities we find that the strongest factors that reduce trust are: i) a recent history of traumatic experiences, even though the passage of time reduces this effect fairly rapidly; ii) belonging to a group that historically felt discriminated against, such as minorities (black in particular) and, to a lesser extent, women; iii) being economically unsuccessful in terms of income and education; iv) living in a racially mixed community and/or in one with a high degree of income disparity. Religious beliefs and ethnic origins do not significantly affect trust. The latter result may be an indication that the American melting pot at least up to a point works, in terms of homogenizing attitudes of different cultures, even though racial cleavages leading to low trust are still quite high.

Understanding Trust: http://www.nber.org/papers/w13387
In this paper we resolve this puzzle by recognizing that trust has two components: a belief-based one and a preference based one. While the sender's behavior reflects both, we show that WVS-like measures capture mostly the belief-based component, while questions on past trusting behavior are better at capturing the preference component of trust.

MEASURING TRUST: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/laibson/files/measuring_trust.pdf
We combine two experiments and a survey to measure trust and trustworthiness— two key components of social capital. Standard attitudinal survey questions about trust predict trustworthy behavior in our experiments much better than they predict trusting behavior. Trusting behavior in the experiments is predicted by past trusting behavior outside of the experiments. When individuals are closer socially, both trust and trustworthiness rise. Trustworthiness declines when partners are of different races or nationalities. High status individuals are able to elicit more trustworthiness in others.

What is Social Capital? The Determinants of Trust and Trustworthiness: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7216
Using a sample of Harvard undergraduates, we analyze trust and social capital in two experiments. Trusting behavior and trustworthiness rise with social connection; differences in race and nationality reduce the level of trustworthiness. Certain individuals appear to be persistently more trusting, but these people do not say they are more trusting in surveys. Survey questions about trust predict trustworthiness not trust. Only children are less trustworthy. People behave in a more trustworthy manner towards higher status individuals, and therefore status increases earnings in the experiment. As such, high status persons can be said to have more social capital.

Trust and Cheating: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18509
We find that: i) both parties to a trust exchange have implicit notions of what constitutes cheating even in a context without promises or messages; ii) these notions are not unique - the vast majority of senders would feel cheated by a negative return on their trust/investment, whereas a sizable minority defines cheating according to an equal split rule; iii) these implicit notions affect the behavior of both sides to the exchange in terms of whether to trust or cheat and to what extent. Finally, we show that individual's notions of what constitutes cheating can be traced back to two classes of values instilled by parents: cooperative and competitive. The first class of values tends to soften the notion while the other tightens it.

Nationalism and Ethnic-Based Trust: Evidence from an African Border Region: https://u.osu.edu/robinson.1012/files/2015/12/Robinson_NationalismTrust-1q3q9u1.pdf
These results offer microlevel evidence that a strong and salient national identity can diminish ethnic barriers to trust in diverse societies.

One Team, One Nation: Football, Ethnic Identity, and Conflict in Africa: http://conference.nber.org/confer//2017/SI2017/DEV/Durante_Depetris-Chauvin.pdf
Do collective experiences that prime sentiments of national unity reduce interethnic tensions and conflict? We examine this question by looking at the impact of national football teams’ victories in sub-Saharan Africa. Combining individual survey data with information on over 70 official matches played between 2000 and 2015, we find that individuals interviewed in the days after a victory of their country’s national team are less likely to report a strong sense of ethnic identity and more likely to trust people of other ethnicities than those interviewed just before. The effect is sizable and robust and is not explained by generic euphoria or optimism. Crucially, national victories do not only affect attitudes but also reduce violence. Indeed, using plausibly exogenous variation from close qualifications to the Africa Cup of Nations, we find that countries that (barely) qualified experience significantly less conflict in the following six months than countries that (barely) did not. Our findings indicate that, even where ethnic tensions have deep historical roots, patriotic shocks can reduce inter-ethnic tensions and have a tangible impact on conflict.

Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision?: http://www.columbia.edu/~mh2245/papers1/HHPW.pdf
We identify three families of mechanisms that link diversity to public goods provision—–what we term “preferences,” “technology,” and “strategy selection” mechanisms—–and run a series of experimental games that permit us to compare the explanatory power of distinct mechanisms within each of these three families. Results from games conducted with a random sample of 300 subjects from a slum neighborhood of Kampala, Uganda, suggest that successful public goods provision in homogenous ethnic communities can be attributed to a strategy selection mechanism: in similar settings, co-ethnics play cooperative equilibria, whereas non-co-ethnics do not. In addition, we find evidence for a technology mechanism: co-ethnics are more closely linked on social networks and thus plausibly better able to support cooperation through the threat of social sanction. We find no evidence for prominent preference mechanisms that emphasize the commonality of tastes within ethnic groups or a greater degree of altruism toward co-ethnics, and only weak evidence for technology mechanisms that focus on the impact of shared ethnicity on the productivity of teams.

does it generalize to first world?

Higher Intelligence Groups Have Higher Cooperation Rates in the Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma: https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp8499.html
The initial cooperation rates are similar, it increases in the groups with higher intelligence to reach almost full cooperation, while declining in the groups with lower intelligence. The difference is produced by the cumulation of small but persistent differences in the response to past cooperation of the partner. In higher intelligence subjects, cooperation after the initial stages is immediate and becomes the default mode, defection instead requires more time. For lower intelligence groups this difference is absent. Cooperation of higher intelligence subjects is payoff sensitive, thus not automatic: in a treatment with lower continuation probability there is no difference between different intelligence groups

Why societies cooperate: https://voxeu.org/article/why-societies-cooperate
Three attributes are often suggested to generate cooperative behaviour – a good heart, good norms, and intelligence. This column reports the results of a laboratory experiment in which groups of players benefited from learning to cooperate. It finds overwhelming support for the idea that intelligence is the primary condition for a socially cohesive, cooperative society. Warm feelings towards others and good norms have only a small and transitory effect.

individual payoff, etc.:

Trust, Values and False Consensus: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18460
Trust beliefs are heterogeneous across individuals and, at the same time, persistent across generations. We investigate one mechanism yielding these dual patterns: false consensus. In the context of a trust game experiment, we show that individuals extrapolate from their own type when forming trust beliefs about the same pool of potential partners - i.e., more (less) trustworthy individuals form more optimistic (pessimistic) trust beliefs - and that this tendency continues to color trust beliefs after several rounds of game-play. Moreover, we show that one's own type/trustworthiness can be traced back to the values parents transmit to their children during their upbringing. In a second closely-related experiment, we show the economic impact of mis-calibrated trust beliefs stemming from false consensus. Miscalibrated beliefs lower participants' experimental trust game earnings by about 20 percent on average.

The Right Amount of Trust: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15344
We investigate the relationship between individual trust and individual economic performance. We find that individual income is hump-shaped in a measure of intensity of trust beliefs. Our interpretation is that highly trusting individuals tend to assume too much social risk and to be cheated more often, ultimately performing less well than those with a belief close to the mean trustworthiness of the population. On the other hand, individuals with overly pessimistic beliefs avoid being cheated, but give up profitable opportunities, therefore underperforming. The cost of either too much or too little trust is comparable to the income lost by forgoing college.

...

This framework allows us to show that income-maximizing trust typically exceeds the trust level of the average person as well as to estimate the distribution of income lost to trust mistakes. We find that although a majority of individuals has well calibrated beliefs, a non-trivial proportion of the population (10%) has trust beliefs sufficiently poorly calibrated to lower income by more than 13%.

Do Trust and … [more]
study  economics  alesina  growth-econ  broad-econ  trust  cohesion  social-capital  religion  demographics  race  diversity  putnam-like  compensation  class  education  roots  phalanges  general-survey  multi  usa  GT-101  conceptual-vocab  concept  behavioral-econ  intricacy  composition-decomposition  values  descriptive  correlation  harvard  field-study  migration  poll  status  🎩  🌞  chart  anthropology  cultural-dynamics  psychology  social-psych  sociology  cooperate-defect  justice  egalitarianism-hierarchy  inequality  envy  n-factor  axelrod  pdf  microfoundations  nationalism-globalism  africa  intervention  counter-revolution  tribalism  culture  society  ethnocentrism  coordination  world  developing-world  innovation  econ-productivity  government  stylized-facts  madisonian  wealth-of-nations  identity-politics  public-goodish  s:*  legacy  things  optimization  curvature  s-factor  success  homo-hetero  higher-ed  models  empirical  contracts  human-capital  natural-experiment  endo-exo  data  scale  trade  markets  time  supply-demand  summary 
august 2017 by nhaliday
WHY DOESN’T THE US HAVE A EUROPEAN-STYLE WELFARE STATE?
ethnic fractionalization (does this extend to 1850-1920 migration?)

there is this:
The fact that the American working class was formed by waves of immigration also contributed to preventing the formation of a European style class consciousness. Ethnic divisions within the working class (for instance old Protestant immigrants on one side, new Catholic immigrants on the other) were as strongly felt as class-based cleavages.28 Even contemporary socialist leaders (including Engels) recognized the powerful effect of ethnic fragmentation within the union movement.
pdf  study  economics  growth-econ  political-econ  policy  redistribution  welfare-state  comparison  usa  europe  diversity  putnam-like  migration  🎩  race  vampire-squid  roots  broad-econ  rot  history  early-modern  pre-ww2  madisonian  domestication  class-warfare  public-goodish  microfoundations  capital  cohesion  alesina  tribalism 
june 2017 by nhaliday
No easy answers: why left-wing economics is not the answer to right-wing populism - Vox
hence why Cato loves mass migration
https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/liberals-and-diversity-85c169580d14
jfc, by the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORWM0ukT-Xw
"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/13/clinton-in-nevada-not-everything-is-about-an-economic-theory/

The End of Liberalism - Samuel Bowles: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/06/19/the-end-liberalism/GLVtC7fExhFPwhOx31fXrN/story.html
The progressive's immigration dilemma: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/the-progressives-immigration-dilemma
Poor people's lives are made enormously better off by moving from poor countries to rich countries. Thanks to remittances, migrants also may have a significant positive impact on their home countries. For any progressive who wants to improve human welfare, facilitating more immigration from poor to rich countries should be an overriding priority.

Not only does a big welfare state reduce the number of immigrants that are politically accepted, a heavily regulated labour market seems to be associated with immigrants having a worse impact on natives. Even policies that seem like they would be good for Britons might still do much more harm than good if they make Britons less willing to accept higher levels of immigration.

This is a serious dilemma for any progressive who wants all humans to live good lives, not just ones of the same race or nationality. It means that these political concerns alone may demand a low regulation, low redistribution state.

fucking traitors

https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/882982045714194433
https://archive.is/o1gUM
Essential liberal values:
You: My countrymen get to speak, think, commerce, associate freely.
Vox: Here are some new countrymen. Enjoy!
news  org:data  org:lite  politics  polisci  wonkish  contrarianism  rhetoric  left-wing  populism  europe  usa  comparison  race  migrant-crisis  economics  redistribution  britain  government  policy  culture-war  westminster  data  counterfactual  values  tactics  coalitions  diversity  putnam-like  tradeoffs  sociology  stylized-facts  current-events  nationalism-globalism  social-capital  managerial-state  madisonian  chart  vampire-squid  welfare-state  identity-politics  class-warfare  microfoundations  multi  org:med  ideology  trump  commentary  video  social  clinton  nl-and-so-can-you  hypocrisy  correlation  crooked  the-bones  zeitgeist  rot  2016-election  postmortem  alesina  org:rec  econotariat  essay  albion  migration  clown-world  flexibility  labor  intervention  links  patho-altruism  article  org:ngo  org:anglo  us-them  kumbaya-kult  twitter  aphorism  gnon  unaffiliated  right-wing  lol  :/  realness  backup  public-goodish  org:local 
march 2017 by nhaliday
Culture and Institutions - American Economic Association
Importing people is not like importing apples: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2016/02/importing-people-is-not-like-importing-apples.html
"Total Factor Productivity" is not some geological feature like the Canadian shield. There has to be a reason why some countries are rich and other countries are basket cases, and unless you are lucky enough to find yourselves sitting on great reservoirs of oil that someone else will pay you to pump out of the ground, that reason seems to have something to do with social/economic institutions, and social/economic institutions seem to have something to do with people.

If you have a model which treats Total Factor Productivity as exogenous, then yes, if "resources" flow from places with low TFP to places with high TFP, as they will if the invisible hand is allowed to operate, that would be a Good Thing. But you need to stop and ask: "Hang on. I wonder why TFP is higher in some places than in others?" Which should lead you to the next question: "I wonder if TFP really would be exogenous to the sort of policy experiment I'm using my model for?". Which should lead you to the next question: "I wonder if social/economic institutions really would be exogenous to the sort of policy experiment I'm using my model for?"

How exactly will social/economic institutions change when we import people? God only knows. They might change for the better; they might change for the worse. It depends on them; it depends on us. But they almost certainly will change. And if you can't even see that question, and wonder about it, then you really are missing something that even the great unwashed uneducated rabble can see. And the great unwashed uneducated rabble are going to put even less credence on what you intellectual elites are telling them they ought to think.

Migration is complicated. Don’t pretend it’s not: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/migration-is-complicated-dont-pretend-its-not/
The concept of freedom of movement is quite different to that of the freedom of goods.

I expect you’ve already noticed it, but in case you’ve been living in a cave or an economics faculty for the past ten years, I’ll repeat it. Goods are not like people. Goods only move wherever they are needed. They don’t come laden with an attachment to a homeland or a social network. Your Bosch dishwasher doesn’t pine for its washing-machine mates back in Stuttgart. Your Ikea sofa doesn’t claim benefits. If you buy a Mercedes, you don’t suddenly find two Audis and a Volkswagen turning up on your drive claiming to be close relatives and demanding to live in your garage.
study  spearhead  garett-jones  economics  growth-econ  history  cliometrics  econometrics  institutions  biodet  migration  roots  culture  anthropology  society  🎩  path-dependence  🌞  sociology  hive-mind  stylized-facts  broad-econ  assimilation  chart  biophysical-econ  cultural-dynamics  wealth-of-nations  s:*  pseudoE  political-econ  multi  econotariat  canada  north-weingast-like  n-factor  individualism-collectivism  kinship  maps  world  data  modernity  occident  microfoundations  alesina  labor  contrarianism  trade  nationalism-globalism  news  org:mag  org:anglo  albion  rhetoric  econ-productivity  comparison  analogy  elite  vampire-squid  org:davos  china  asia  branches  hari-seldon 
march 2017 by nhaliday
Why Aren't the Italians Libertarians?, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
Do Italians cheat on their taxes more than Swedes?: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/05/the-culture-that-is-swedish-italian.html

cf
https://twitter.com/tcjfs/status/886674199967784960
https://archive.is/JpH0d
Also bureaucracy = big weak state as opposed to small strong state. Anarchotyranny is Sam Francis's idea that combines bureaucracy w anarchy

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=536
https://twitter.com/jacobitemag/status/891467216880717824
https://archive.is/EcoWK
The modern world's sickness in one tweet

Last night proved, once again, that there is no anxiety or sadness or fear you feel right now that cannot be cured by political action.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/08/regulation-and-distrust-revisited.html
Here’s a post I wrote in 2009 (no indent) that I will update today:

In an interesting paper, Aghion, Algan, Cahuc and Shleifer show that regulation is greater in societies where people do not trust one another. The graph below, for example, shows that societies with a greater level of distrust have stronger minimum wage laws. Note that the result is not that distrust in markets is associated with stronger minimum wages but that distrust in general is associated with greater regulation of all kinds. Distrust in government, for example, is positively correlated with regulation of business. Or to put it the other way, trust in government (as well as other institutions) is associated with less regulation.

Aghion et al. argue that the causality flows both ways on the regulation-distrust nexus. Distrust makes people turn to government but in a society with a lot of distrust government is often corrupt and this makes people distrust even more. Crucially, when people distrust others they invest not in the highest return projects but in human and physical capital that is complementary to distrust–for example, they invest in human capital that helps them bond with their group/tribe/family rather than in human capital that helps them to bond with “outsiders” and they invest in physical capital that is more difficult to expropriate rather than in easier to expropriate capital, even though in both cases the latter investments may be the all-else-equal higher return investments. Such distrust traps are quite similar to Bryan Caplan’s idea traps.

Thus, societies with a lot of distrust generate regulation and corruption and citizens who don’t have the skills or preferences to break out of the distrust equilibrium. Consider, for example, that in societies with a lot of distrust parents are less likely to consider it important to teach their children about tolerance and respect for others.

The update should be obvious. More and more this appears to be describing the United States. More distrust in government, more regulation, lower growth and more people who are so distrustful of one another that they can’t cooperate to break out of the bad equilibrium. Here drawn from Our World in Data is interpersonal trust in the United States.

https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/765615697514770432
http://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/red-tape-rising-six-years-escalating-regulation-under-obama
https://fee.org/articles/us-economic-liberty-has-been-sinking-for-sixteen-years/
org:econlib  econotariat  cracker-econ  randy-ayndy  politics  polisci  government  poll  data  regulation  institutions  civic  ideology  social-capital  microfoundations  trust  mediterranean  managerial-state  anarcho-tyranny  n-factor  leviathan  multi  study  twitter  social  commentary  gnon  unaffiliated  right-wing  society  usa  migration  marginal-rev  diversity  putnam-like  trends  the-bones  spearhead  garett-jones  polarization  rot  corruption  civil-liberty  economics  growth-econ  broad-econ  org:ngo  obama  alesina  business  law  thiel  ranking  econ-metrics  wonkish  wealth-of-nations  madisonian  political-econ  backup  metrics  the-watchers  culture  socs-and-mops  summary  macro  group-level  taxes  crooked  cooperate-defect  europe  nordic  pop-diff  org:popup 
january 2017 by nhaliday
Ethnic fractionalization and growth | Dietrich Vollrath
Garett Jones did a podcast with The Economics Detective recently on the costs of ethnic diversity. It is particularly worth listening to given that racial identity has re-emerged as a salient element of politics. A quick summary - and the link above includes a nice write-up of relevant sources - would be that diversity within workplaces does not appear to improve outcomes (however those outcomes are measured).

At the same time, there is a parallel literature, touched on in the podcast, about ethnic diversity (or fractionalization, as it is termed in that literature) and economic growth. But one has to be careful drawing a bright line between the two literatures. It does not follow that the results for workplace diversity imply the results regarding economic growth. And this is because the growth results, to the extent that you believe they are robust, all operate through political systems.

So here let me walk through some of the core empirical relationships that have been found regarding ethnic fractionalization and economic growth, and then talk about why you need to take care with over-interpreting them. This is not a thorough literature review, and I realize there are other papers in the same vein. What I’m after is characterizing the essential results.

--

- objection about sensitivity of measure to definition of clusters seems dumb to me (point is to fix definitions than compare different polities. as long as direction and strength of correlation is fairly robust to changes in clustering, this is a stupid critique)
- also, could probably define a less arbitrary notion of fractionalization (w/o fixed clustering or # of clusters) if using points in a metric/vector/euclidean space (eg, genomes)
- eg, A Generalized Index of Ethno-Linguistic Fractionalization: http://www-3.unipv.it/webdept/prin/workpv02.pdf
So like -E_{A, B ~ X} d(A, B). Or maybe -E_{A, B ~ X} f(d(A, B)) for f an increasing function (in particular, f(x) = x^2).

Note that E ||A - B|| = Θ(E ||E[A] - A||), and E ||A - B||^2 = 2Var A,
for A, B ~ X, so this is just quantifying deviation from mean for Euclidean spaces.

In the case that you have a bunch of difference clusters w/ centers equidistant (so n+1 in R^n), measures p_i, and internal variances σ_i^2, you get E ||A - B||^2 = -2∑_i p_i^2σ_i^2 - ∑_{i≠j} p_ip_j(1 + σ_i^2 + σ_j^2) = -2∑_i p_i^2σ_i^2 - ∑_{i≠j} p_ip_j(1 + σ_i^2 + σ_j^2) = -∑_i p_i^2(1 + 2σ_i^2) - ∑_i 2p_i(1-p_i)σ_i^2
(inter-center distance scaled to 1 wlog).
(in general, if you allow _approximate_ equidistance, you can pack in exp(O(n)) clusters via JL lemma)
econotariat  economics  growth-econ  diversity  spearhead  study  summary  list  survey  cracker-econ  hive-mind  stylized-facts  🎩  garett-jones  wonkish  populism  easterly  putnam-like  metric-space  similarity  dimensionality  embeddings  examples  metrics  sociology  polarization  big-peeps  econ-metrics  s:*  corruption  cohesion  government  econ-productivity  religion  broad-econ  social-capital  madisonian  chart  article  wealth-of-nations  the-bones  political-econ  public-goodish  microfoundations  alesina  🌞  multi  pdf  concept  conceptual-vocab  definition  hari-seldon 
december 2016 by nhaliday
LSE International Development – “Wow!” – Robert Wade’s glowing review of Carles Boix, Political Order and Inequality
The main narrative runs as follows. Forager or simple agricultural societies experienced differential technological change (e.g. irrigation, improved fish traps in reverine environments). At this point two basically different strategies emerged. Those who benefitted from the new technologies and became more productive (achieved a comparative advantage in production) preferred to continue with the existing cooperative equilibrium (“the producers”). Those who saw themselves disadvantaged had an incentive to loot or plunder the output of the more productive individuals or societies (“the looters”). The result could be a Hobbesian world of systematic conflict.

At some times and places a state emerged which restored peace. Boix distinguishes two basic types of states. The more common was created by the looters (also known in the literature as “roving bandits”) when they restrained themselves from plunder and invested in providing permanent protection to producers in return for some continuous flow of resources (food, labor, money) from the latter; they became “stationary bandits”. They tended to create states of monarchical or dictatorial type. Less commonly, the producers succeeded in creating a state and kept control of the levers of power, setting up defensive structures to deter potential looters. The resulting political order took a “republican” form, with an elected leader, a governing committee, an oligarchy of traders, a general assembly, in varying combinations (as in some classical Greek polis and medieval and modern European city-states).

Review by Alesina: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1257/jel.20151366
Political Order and Inequality: Their Foundations and Their Consequences argues that geography, technology, and wars determined the formation of a ruling class, inequality, and institutional development, rather than the other way around. Institutions are not a cause but a consequence. This relatively short book covers an enormous amount of material. I have sympathy for the basic idea of the book, but in some parts I would have liked to see more detailed evidence, especially on the more recent history and the Industrial Revolution. (JEL D02, D63, D72, H11, O43)
pseudoE  economics  growth-econ  antiquity  books  summary  review  institutions  🎩  things  agriculture  farmers-and-foragers  leviathan  history  industrial-revolution  europe  new-religion  government  civilization  divergence  social-structure  inequality  big-picture  s:*  roots  democracy  authoritarianism  order-disorder  deep-materialism  domestication  broad-econ  madisonian  chart  article  news  org:edu  cultural-dynamics  wealth-of-nations  great-powers  cooperate-defect  path-dependence  multi  essay  critique  ideas  elite  vampire-squid  egalitarianism-hierarchy  political-econ  north-weingast-like  pdf  piracy  endo-exo  technology  war  causation  regularizer  envy  microfoundations  open-closed  alesina  endogenous-exogenous  interests  feudal  hari-seldon 
december 2016 by nhaliday

related tags

2016-election  :/  africa  agriculture  albion  alesina  alt-inst  altruism  analogy  anarcho-tyranny  anthropology  antidemos  antiquity  aphorism  arrows  article  asia  assimilation  audio  authoritarianism  axelrod  backup  behavioral-econ  biases  big-peeps  big-picture  biodet  biophysical-econ  books  bounded-cognition  branches  britain  broad-econ  business  canada  capital  causation  chart  china  civic  civil-liberty  civilization  class  class-warfare  clinton  cliometrics  clown-world  coalitions  cohesion  collaboration  commentary  comparison  compensation  composition-decomposition  concept  conceptual-vocab  contracts  contrarianism  convexity-curvature  cooperate-defect  coordination  correlation  corruption  counter-revolution  counterfactual  cracker-econ  critique  crooked  cultural-dynamics  culture  culture-war  current-events  curvature  data  decision-making  deep-materialism  definition  democracy  demographics  descriptive  developing-world  dimensionality  discipline  divergence  diversity  domestication  early-modern  easterly  econ-metrics  econ-productivity  econometrics  economics  econotariat  education  efficiency  egalitarianism-hierarchy  elite  embeddings  emotion  empirical  endo-exo  endogenous-exogenous  environment  envy  epistemic  error  essay  ethnocentrism  europe  examples  explanans  farmers-and-foragers  feudal  field-study  flexibility  game-theory  garett-jones  general-survey  gnon  government  great-powers  group-level  growth-econ  GT-101  hari-seldon  harvard  higher-ed  history  hive-mind  homo-hetero  honor  human-capital  hypocrisy  ideas  identity-politics  ideology  individualism-collectivism  industrial-revolution  inequality  info-dynamics  info-econ  infrastructure  innovation  institutions  interests  intervention  intricacy  iq  iteration-recursion  judgement  justice  kinship  kumbaya-kult  labor  law  left-wing  legacy  leviathan  links  list  lol  long-short-run  macro  madisonian  managerial-state  maps  marginal-rev  markets  measurement  medieval  mediterranean  metabuch  metric-space  metrics  microfoundations  migrant-crisis  migration  models  modernity  multi  n-factor  nationalism-globalism  natural-experiment  new-religion  news  nl-and-so-can-you  noahpinion  noble-lie  nonlinearity  nordic  north-weingast-like  obama  objective-measure  occident  open-closed  optimization  order-disorder  org:anglo  org:data  org:davos  org:econlib  org:edu  org:lite  org:local  org:mag  org:med  org:ngo  org:popup  org:rec  organizing  path-dependence  patho-altruism  patience  pdf  peace-violence  personality  pessimism  phalanges  piracy  podcast  polarization  policy  polisci  political-econ  politics  poll  pop-diff  populism  postmortem  pre-ww2  presentation  proposal  prudence  pseudoE  psych-architecture  psychology  psychometrics  public-goodish  putnam-like  race  randy-ayndy  ranking  rationality  realness  redistribution  regularizer  regulation  reinforcement  religion  responsibility  review  rhetoric  right-wing  roots  rot  s-factor  s:*  scale  self-report  similarity  slides  soccer  social  social-capital  social-choice  social-norms  social-psych  social-structure  society  sociology  socs-and-mops  spearhead  sports  status  stereotypes  strategy  study  stylized-facts  success  sulla  summary  supply-demand  survey  tactics  taxes  technocracy  technology  the-bones  the-watchers  thiel  things  time  time-preference  top-n  trade  tradeoffs  trends  tribalism  trump  trust  twitter  unaffiliated  urban  urban-rural  us-them  usa  values  vampire-squid  video  walls  war  wealth-of-nations  welfare-state  westminster  wonkish  world  zeitgeist  🌞  🎩 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: