[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vie/viennp/vie0408.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why the US and not Brazil? Old Elites and the Development of a Modern Economy

Author

Abstract
Old elites can block changes, but not all do. Why is it that stronger elites may allow more changes than weaker elites? Why do economies with larger stocks of natural resources not grow faster than economies poorer in natural resources? We argue that old elites hold some power to extract rents from the economy. Whereas old sectors (i.e. agriculture or extraction of natural resources) are not affected by rent extraction, modern sectors require investments that do react to rent extraction. At the same time, a modern sector relies on networks of firms. These structures form the basis of political power of a new elite, which reduces the ability of the old elite to extract rents. We show that countries rich in natural resources provide their old elite with incentives to extract rents so high that the private sector has no incentives to build up a modern economy. If the old elite is either politically very strong or the natural resource sector is small compared to the potential of the modern sector, the old elite will choose to extract smaller rents from a growing sector. Some empirical evidence completes the paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Uwe Dulleck & Paul Frijters, 2004. "Why the US and not Brazil? Old Elites and the Development of a Modern Economy," Vienna Economics Papers vie0408, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:vie:viennp:vie0408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papersecon.univie.ac.at/RePEc/vie/viennp/vie0408.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aghion, Philippe & Tirole, Jean, 1997. "Formal and Real Authority in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(1), pages 1-29, February.
    2. Per Krusell & José-Víctor Ríos-Rull, 1996. "Vested Interests in a Positive Theory of Stagnation and Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 63(2), pages 301-329.
    3. Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson, 2000. "Why Did the West Extend the Franchise? Democracy, Inequality, and Growth in Historical Perspective," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(4), pages 1167-1199.
    4. Edward C. Prescott & Stephen L. Parente, 1999. "Monopoly Rights: A Barrier to Riches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1216-1233, December.
    5. Acemoglu, Daron & Robinson, James A., 2000. "Democratization or repression?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(4-6), pages 683-693, May.
    6. repec:ner:ucllon:http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/17678/ is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Acemoglu, Daron & Robinson, James A., 2006. "Economic Backwardness in Political Perspective," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(1), pages 115-131, February.
    8. Acemoglu, Daron, 2003. "Why not a political Coase theorem? Social conflict, commitment, and politics," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 620-652, December.
    9. Frederick Guy, 2000. "Power in the Information Age," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 271-276.
    10. James A. Robinson & Daron Acemoglu, 2000. "Political Losers as a Barrier to Economic Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 126-130, May.
    11. Parente, Stephen L & Prescott, Edward C, 1994. "Barriers to Technology Adoption and Development," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(2), pages 298-321, April.
    12. Hahn, Sunku, 2003. "Why should reform wait until things get really bad?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 345-352, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Uwe Dulleck & Paul Frijters, 2004. "Why the US and not Brazil? Old Elites and the Development of a Modern Economy," Vienna Economics Papers 0408, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    2. Andrea Asoni, 2008. "Protection Of Property Rights And Growth As Political Equilibria," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 953-987, December.
    3. Acemoglu, Daron & Johnson, Simon & Robinson, James A., 2005. "Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 385-472, Elsevier.
    4. Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson & James Robinson, 2005. "The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change, and Economic Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 546-579, June.
    5. Daron Acemoglu, 2010. "Institutions, Factor Prices, and Taxation: Virtues of Strong States?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 115-119, May.
    6. James Dow & Enrico Perotti, 2010. "Resistance to Change," Working Papers 2010.48, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Solstad, Sondre Ulvund, 2023. "Political competition in dynamic economies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    8. Maria Rosaria CARILLO & Alberto ZAZZARO, 2002. "The Enigma of Medieval Craft Guilds: A Model of Social Inertia and Technological Change," Working Papers 167, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    9. Asoni, Andrea, 2008. "Protection of Property Rights and Growth as Political Equilibria," Working Paper Series 737, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    10. Davis, Lewis S., 2010. "Institutional flexibility and economic growth," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 306-320, September.
    11. Mwangi S. Kimenyi, 2005. "Economic Rights, Human Development Effort and Institutions," Working papers 2005-40, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    12. Marco Alberto De Benedetto, 2014. "Incumbency Advantage at Municipal Elections in Italy: A Quasi-Experimental Approach," Birkbeck Working Papers in Economics and Finance 1408, Birkbeck, Department of Economics, Mathematics & Statistics.
    13. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2011. "Pillars of Prosperity: The Political Economics of Development Clusters," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9624.
    14. Acemoglu, Daron & Golosov, Mikhail & Tsyvinski, Aleh, 2011. "Power fluctuations and political economy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 1009-1041, May.
    15. Castro, R. & Coen-Pirani, D., 2001. "On the Political Economy of Sequential Reforms," Cahiers de recherche 2001-21, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    16. Luis Garicano & Luis Rayo, 2016. "Why Organizations Fail: Models and Cases," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(1), pages 137-192, March.
    17. Thomas Apolte, "undated". "Why is there no Revolution in North-Korea? The Political Economy of Revolution Revisited," Working Papers 200102, Institute of Spatial and Housing Economics, Munster Universitary.
    18. Dmitry A. Veselov, 2013. "Redistribution and the political support of free entry policy in the Schumpeterian model with heterogenous agents," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 13050, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    19. Roland Bénabou & Davide Ticchi & Andrea Vindigni, 2022. "Forbidden Fruits: The Political Economy of Science, Religion, and Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(4), pages 1785-1832.
    20. Rafael Di Tella & Robert MacCulloch, 2009. "Why Doesn't Capitalism Flow to Poor Countries?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 40(1 (Spring), pages 285-332.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • O14 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vie:viennp:vie0408. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Paper Administrator (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econ.univie.ac.at/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.