Somewhere, Jared Diamond and his Amish beard are plotting their revenge.

From the National Bureau of Economic Research, an organization reviled by Fox News, comes a fascinating paper.  Two economists suggest that the volume of rainfall in a certain location determines whether a democratic government will be successful.  It is actually a fairly simple argument.   Success in agriculture allows specialization, which, in economic terms, refers to the production, distribution, and consumption.  When farmers produce more food, fewer people need to participate in agriculture, leading the greater economic diversity.  This, in turn, lays the groundwork for the components of democracy.  The dynamic is described below in the abstract of the paper:

Why have some countries remained obstinately authoritarian despite repeated waves of democratization while others have exhibited uninterrupted democracy? This paper explores the emergence and persistence of authoritarianism and democracy. We argue that settled agriculture requires moderate levels of precipitation, and that settled agriculture eventually gave birth to the fundamental institutions that under-gird today’s stable democracies. Although all of the world’s societies were initially tribal, the bonds of tribalism weakened in places where the surpluses associated with settled agriculture gave rise to trade, social differentiation, and taxation. In turn, the economies of scale required to efficiently administer trade and taxes meant that feudalism was eventually replaced by the modern territorial state, which favored the initial emergence of representative institutions in Western Europe. Subsequently, when these initial territorial states set out to conquer regions populated by tribal peoples, the institutions that could emerge in those conquered areas again reflected nature’s constraints. An instrumental variables approach demonstrates that while low levels of rainfall cause persistent autocracy and high levels of rainfall strongly favor it as well, moderate rainfall supports stable democracy. This econometric strategy also shows that rainfall works through the institutions of the modern territorial state borne from settled agriculture, institutions that are proxied for by low levels of contemporary tribalism.

I guess we can get out of Afghanistan and Iraq now.  A counterpoint is Zimbabwe, formerly known as the “breadbasket of Africa,” which has been ruled with an iron fist by Robert Mugabe, one of the most ruthless dictators in the world.  The baggage of colonialism probably laid the groundwork for Mugabe’s reign of terror.  Still, a very interesting concept.

(H/T Tyler Cowen)

Economists found no correlation between democracy and chocolate rain.


"Josh Weinstein is a visionary. I read his blog every day." - Bono

0 thoughts on “Rainfall as a Predictor of Democracy”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Related Posts

Development Economics

Corruption in a Trump Presidency

In December 2009, I moved to Philippines just before the presidential election.  Like most of the former leaders of the Philippines, the outgoing president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, was exiting under a cloud of scandal.  The Read more…

Development Economics

Racism in America

I. Introduction In August of 2014, a police officer shot dead Michael Brown, a black teenager from Ferguson, Missouri, blowing the lid off a debate about racism in America. Protesters filled the streets, yelling “Hands Read more…

Development Economics

Why Do Some Countries Have It So Bad?

Open a newspaper today and you’ll be bombarded with a panoply of terrible news. Ebola is ravaging West Africa, with a projected 10,000 new cases per week and the possibility for 1.4 million people infected Read more…