Conclusion: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 06:12, 2 December 2009

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-:<br>Economic growth cannot be fully explained by cultural and genetic factors. However, Clark’s new ideas on labor quality and downward social mobility for economic growth are definitely useful in understanding growth and development of countries in the past as well as in the present. Clark’s arguments on the role played by culture in shaping economic growth are quite plausible but his genetic argument to justify the English economy’s growth circa 1800 is not convincing. Moreover, his new ideas do not debunk the generally accepted idea that good institutions are essential for growth. We conclude that for sustained economic growth, good institutions are a necessary condition and cultural and genetic diffusion of good virtues might not be a necessary condition.
+*The United States passed many laws and Britain did not.  Why?
+**US
+***Nationalisms and patriotism used to gain momentum
+****Individual and political agendas helped drive the movement
+***Racism
+****immigration
+**Britain
+***Classism
+****Class struggle
+****Working class was singled out
+***The players were not politically motivated because of the class divide
+**Timing
+***US: Early 1900s
+***Britain: Late 1920s at the heels of Nazi movement\
+**Religion
+***Not much of factor in the US
+***Catholics joined with Labor party to create a coalition against sterilization
+*Movies
+**Rabbit Proof Fence
+**Gattaca
+*Opinion