“Institutions” and Economic Development

This term paper was prepared for Ethical Reasoning 24: Bioethics, a Core Curriculum course taught at Harvard College.

Abstract

This paper seeks to examine the ethical questions surrounding the intentional manipulation of genes to achieve phenotypic modifications in humans. It is not concerned with distributive justice or the ethics of research, but rather with the debate over whether the technology of genetic engineering itself, once it is to a reasonable level proven both safe and effective, is ethical to use. The study begins by motivating the discussion and introducing some key concepts related to the technology. After establishing the scope and structure of the analysis, the paper proceeds by reviewing the most commonly presented arguments against genetic engineering and demonstrating that all fail to establish a legitimate ethical basis upon which such a criticism could stand. Finally, the paper concludes with a short discussion outlining possible areas for further study and discourse.

Read more…

This paper was written for Economics 1339: Generating Wealth of Nations, a Harvard undergraduate course taught by visiting professor Jeffrey Borland.

Introduction

The United States during the later part of the 20th century experienced a reversal in the pattern of decreasing income inequality that had slowly been establishing itself since the end of the Great Depression. Indeed, by 1982, inequality in the distribution of American family incomes had eclipsed the same figure measured in 1950, the year that had seen the highest level of inequality since record keeping began in 1947.

Figure 1 (above) depicts the top ten percent income share in the United States during the decades between World War I and present day. The data points are logically separated into three discrete periods – The Great Depression (characterized by high inequality), the Great Compression (a decrease in inequality), and the Great Divergence (a return to higher inequality). This last period came as a surprise to many who had previously studied income inequality in America. At the time, the prevailing school of thought regarding the mechanics of economic inequality was one first proposed by Simon Kuznets in his 1955 paper entitled “Economic Growth and Income Inequality”. Kuznets hypothesized that as economies matured in less developed regions, certain emergent factors like industrialization and urbanization would increase income inequality. Then, as those economies continued to develop, social and political forces would come into play to relieve the poorest in society while the upper income group would experience slower growth than under early industrialization. These two observations produced an inverted-U curve of inequality as a function of development, a model that had been supported by empirical evidence from the first half of the 20th century. Around the 1980s, however, income inequality began a steady climb that has carried through to present day. Furthermore, a closer look at family incomes during this time reveals that the income gap has increased the most between the top and the middle of the distribution, while it has remained fairly stable between the middle and bottom. The search for causes of this upward trend in income inequality has been the topic of much research, though a consensus has hardly been reached. Truly, pinpointing a cause would help address inequality in the real world and its associated negative effects, such as increased rates of mortality and obesity. This paper presents a survey of the most compelling theories for income inequality in America and seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Read more…

This paper was written for Economics 1339: Generating Wealth of Nations, a Harvard undergraduate course taught by visiting professor Jeffrey Borland.

Introduction

The convergence hypothesis at its most fundamental level posits that countries with lower productivity will tend to grow at faster rates than their more productive neighbors. This theory follows directly from the law of diminishing returns, which explains that the marginal output of a production factor progressively decreases as the factor is increased. Following this logic, a less productive country can exploit the same techniques utilized in more productive countries to achieve a greater output for any given level of input. While theoretically sound, the convergence hypothesis relies upon one key assumption that is not brought to bear in the real world – either no other determinants of productivity growth exist, or countries with varying productivities are equal in all other aspects. Empirical evidence runs contrary to both possibilities. For example, in the period from 1870 to 1913, America continued to increase its already well-established lead in productivity, while the average productivity level of laggard countries in Europe fell. Following the Second World War, however, Europe’s rapid growth and convergence with the United States seems to validate the hypothesis. These discrepancies imply the existence of other important determinants of growth. This paper seeks to examine the mechanisms by which convergence occurs to uncover the characteristics that explain why some laggard countries experience accelerated growth rates, why others with high productivity remain leaders, and why still others fail to ever catch up.

Read more…