Chris Blattman

Search
Close this search box.

PE of development class, Week 4

This week’s lecture, “Institutions“, where I try to get away from just the usual political economy fare (North, Acemoglu & Robinson, Engerman & Sokoloff) and bring in the comparative historians and political scientists — Barrington Moore, Jeffrey Paige, Charles Tilly, Jack Knight, Theda Skocpol, Paul Pierson.

As a result, I am faking it even more than usual, and so please do not take these slides as rigorous assessments of anything. Errors of commission and omission are welcome, however painful they may feel…

2 Responses

  1. It’s quite good. I have only a few comments.

    a. There’s another view of institutions that you get from sociologists and that separates them from organizations: institutions are organizations that are valued for themselves. Iow, rational calculations aren’t the first consideration. Instead, it’s the very existence of the organization that counts: think religions, established colleges, well-established national governments. The origins of this valuation based on the rational considerations you mention, but the organizations themselves have gone far beyond that.

    b. The “Glorious Revolution” was, in fact, a Dutch invasion of England. William came over with a fleet of 500 ships and an army of 40,000 men that he occupied most of the major English cities with. He went along with what Parliament suggested, but those suggestions were, shall we say, considered. There’s a recent book on the subject.

    c. You might look at some of Helmke and Levitsky’s stuff on informal institutions. I used it in my recent book and found their ideas quite handy.

    d. I passed this along to one of my former students who is struggling – who isn’t? – to understand the use of instrumental variables. A great exposition of the practical difficulties, imho.

Why We Fight - Book Cover
Subscribe to Blog