South Korea was th a poor part of the Korean peninsula and suffered harsh treatment under the Japanese colonists in the 1st half of the 20th century. It was then utterly destroyed during the Korean War. 2 generations later it was one of the richest countries in the world.
The author of this article gives the incorrect impression that the Deep Roots literature is about how past oppression undermined the ability of a modern society to develop. That is not really what the field is about. All societies have experienced oppression in the past.
A key part of South Korea’s ability to industrialize is that they had a long history of living within an Agrarian society. This was largely due to geography:
Japanese imperialism and the Korean War did not erase that legacy.
Most regions, particularly those outside of Eurasia, did not have this advantage. Other nations in East Asia shared that historical advantage (like China and Japan) and have also experienced rapid economic growth.
I agree with you about Korea. However, most African nations were agricultural. The Bantu who were farmers, pretty much wiped out the San and other hunter gatherers in a way similar to what happened to the native Americans in the US or to the European hunter gatherers by the neolithic farmers. When Zimbabwe was Rhodesia the African farmers were doing pretty a lot better.
The oppression narrative is, essentially, just another lie whose purpose is to excuse the failures of non Europeans and blame Europeans instead. Are there any papers on how the Islamic slave trade impacted African life? I have not heard of any.
Africa will not prosper if they can't get over blaming others. The blaming only provides aid which is stolen by corrupt governments. Instead, Africans need to create their own institutions which will help them create their own prosperity.
I said “Agrarian” not “ agricultural.” I know that they sound the same, but they are not.
Agrarian societies had agriculture based on animal-driven plows. Horticultural societies have agriculture based on hand tools (I.e. gardening). Agrarian societies have far greater agricultural productivity, so their food surplus enabled them to evolve far more complex societies. This forced genetic, cultural and institutional changes that had lasting effects on today.
These two articles help to explain the difference and why it matters:
This has a good deal of Thomas Sowell's Conquests and Cultures in it. Noam Chomsky once tried to claim in a college debate that economic improvement was not a moral good in itself because standard of living had gone up gradually for blacks in slavery, and that would mean that slavery was a good thing. He missed the point. That evidence says nothing about whether slavery is a good thing, but is powerful evidence that free markets and good institutions are a good thing. Even when people are completely callous about your well-being or even hostile to your interests, if you live in a free market, your lot improves.
I too dislike the deep roots literature for thorny methodological reasons, but I’m not enthused by the Kelly paper anymore. Voth convincingly eviscerated it.
I read Voth's article in a book. I did not mention it because I would then have to show why it is a good critique of Kelly and why despite its concerns the deep roots is still flawed. I don't know how many people would follow read that. I have read your papers on immigration
The Deep Roots literature does not have a specific methodology. It has a domain of interest (long-term causes of recent history). The methodological flaws are in the specific articles mentioned, not in the entire field.
For example, methodological flaws in a few economics articles does not undermine the entire discipline of economics.
While you point out some serious methodological weaknesses in some of the current Deep Roots literature, it is a grave over-statement to say that focusing on long-term causes of modern development is “at best incomplete and at worst simply wrong.”
The focus on long-term causes of modern events goes far beyond the few articles that you mentioned, and your examples focus excessively on the supposed negative effects of European imperialism.
In the same paragraph you admit that societies “are sometimes constrained by genes or geography.” The study of Deep Roots is about understanding those constraints. And no one in the field claims those factors are the only causes.
Other schools of thought are woefully inadequate at explaining those long-term constraints, nor for the most part do they even try. That is why there is such a huge void in the current literature that is not fulfilled by focusing on contemporary institutions and policy.
Just because some “societies can and do remake themselves” doesn’t mean that geography, genes, culture, energy and other factors have not played a powerful constraining on how societies developed.
The fact is that the vast majority of attempts by societies “to remake themselves” have failed. And the ones that succeeded have similar histories. We need to understand why.
Understanding the constraints of the past does not mean that societies of today cannot change. I have written hundreds of articles and published two books on the topic, which I believe are more comprehensive than the articles you mentioned. Here is just a few examples:
Individualism is the best cultural predictor of economic performance. Pro-market institutions do better in individualistic societies. Other than intelligence Gene's that are associated with novelty seeking are important and some have found genetic variants which are more evident in rich societies. I thought I was the only person who noticed the devolution of the American upper class. Nobody is talking about the political realignment
If you believe that individualistic culture is the best cultural predictor of economic performance, then your beliefs are more in alignment with the Deep Roots literature than this article suggests.
Your focus on culture in this comment also conflicts with societies remaking themselves (which you mention in your article).
The next question is explaining why an individualistic culture evolves in some societies and not others, as well as why it is persistent over time. That is also a key part of the Deep Roots literature.
I believe that individualistic cultures are the legacy of Commercial societies, which only evolve under certain geographical and political circumstances. They also evolved pro-market institutions.
South Korea was th a poor part of the Korean peninsula and suffered harsh treatment under the Japanese colonists in the 1st half of the 20th century. It was then utterly destroyed during the Korean War. 2 generations later it was one of the richest countries in the world.
The author of this article gives the incorrect impression that the Deep Roots literature is about how past oppression undermined the ability of a modern society to develop. That is not really what the field is about. All societies have experienced oppression in the past.
A key part of South Korea’s ability to industrialize is that they had a long history of living within an Agrarian society. This was largely due to geography:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/how-geography-shaped-east-asian-history
Japanese imperialism and the Korean War did not erase that legacy.
Most regions, particularly those outside of Eurasia, did not have this advantage. Other nations in East Asia shared that historical advantage (like China and Japan) and have also experienced rapid economic growth.
I agree with you about Korea. However, most African nations were agricultural. The Bantu who were farmers, pretty much wiped out the San and other hunter gatherers in a way similar to what happened to the native Americans in the US or to the European hunter gatherers by the neolithic farmers. When Zimbabwe was Rhodesia the African farmers were doing pretty a lot better.
The oppression narrative is, essentially, just another lie whose purpose is to excuse the failures of non Europeans and blame Europeans instead. Are there any papers on how the Islamic slave trade impacted African life? I have not heard of any.
Africa will not prosper if they can't get over blaming others. The blaming only provides aid which is stolen by corrupt governments. Instead, Africans need to create their own institutions which will help them create their own prosperity.
I said “Agrarian” not “ agricultural.” I know that they sound the same, but they are not.
Agrarian societies had agriculture based on animal-driven plows. Horticultural societies have agriculture based on hand tools (I.e. gardening). Agrarian societies have far greater agricultural productivity, so their food surplus enabled them to evolve far more complex societies. This forced genetic, cultural and institutional changes that had lasting effects on today.
These two articles help to explain the difference and why it matters:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/all-of-human-history-in-one-graphic
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-our-deep-history-explains-global
I agree with you that the Oppression narrative is not only inaccurate but it undermines the ability of societies and sub-national groups to develop.
(Typo in P7, "so" instead of "sow.")
This has a good deal of Thomas Sowell's Conquests and Cultures in it. Noam Chomsky once tried to claim in a college debate that economic improvement was not a moral good in itself because standard of living had gone up gradually for blacks in slavery, and that would mean that slavery was a good thing. He missed the point. That evidence says nothing about whether slavery is a good thing, but is powerful evidence that free markets and good institutions are a good thing. Even when people are completely callous about your well-being or even hostile to your interests, if you live in a free market, your lot improves.
I too dislike the deep roots literature for thorny methodological reasons, but I’m not enthused by the Kelly paper anymore. Voth convincingly eviscerated it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128158746000150
I read Voth's article in a book. I did not mention it because I would then have to show why it is a good critique of Kelly and why despite its concerns the deep roots is still flawed. I don't know how many people would follow read that. I have read your papers on immigration
The Deep Roots literature does not have a specific methodology. It has a domain of interest (long-term causes of recent history). The methodological flaws are in the specific articles mentioned, not in the entire field.
For example, methodological flaws in a few economics articles does not undermine the entire discipline of economics.
While you point out some serious methodological weaknesses in some of the current Deep Roots literature, it is a grave over-statement to say that focusing on long-term causes of modern development is “at best incomplete and at worst simply wrong.”
The focus on long-term causes of modern events goes far beyond the few articles that you mentioned, and your examples focus excessively on the supposed negative effects of European imperialism.
In the same paragraph you admit that societies “are sometimes constrained by genes or geography.” The study of Deep Roots is about understanding those constraints. And no one in the field claims those factors are the only causes.
Other schools of thought are woefully inadequate at explaining those long-term constraints, nor for the most part do they even try. That is why there is such a huge void in the current literature that is not fulfilled by focusing on contemporary institutions and policy.
Just because some “societies can and do remake themselves” doesn’t mean that geography, genes, culture, energy and other factors have not played a powerful constraining on how societies developed.
The fact is that the vast majority of attempts by societies “to remake themselves” have failed. And the ones that succeeded have similar histories. We need to understand why.
Understanding the constraints of the past does not mean that societies of today cannot change. I have written hundreds of articles and published two books on the topic, which I believe are more comprehensive than the articles you mentioned. Here is just a few examples:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-our-deep-history-explains-global
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-development-economists-often
Please read the literature before criticizing it.
Individualism is the best cultural predictor of economic performance. Pro-market institutions do better in individualistic societies. Other than intelligence Gene's that are associated with novelty seeking are important and some have found genetic variants which are more evident in rich societies. I thought I was the only person who noticed the devolution of the American upper class. Nobody is talking about the political realignment
If you believe that individualistic culture is the best cultural predictor of economic performance, then your beliefs are more in alignment with the Deep Roots literature than this article suggests.
Your focus on culture in this comment also conflicts with societies remaking themselves (which you mention in your article).
The next question is explaining why an individualistic culture evolves in some societies and not others, as well as why it is persistent over time. That is also a key part of the Deep Roots literature.
I believe that individualistic cultures are the legacy of Commercial societies, which only evolve under certain geographical and political circumstances. They also evolved pro-market institutions.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/commercial-societies
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-geographical-preconditions-of
I am not sure that I understand your other points…
You wrote a piece on the WASP. I like the piece. For the gene point read Robert Klitgaard