Conclusion: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
We | 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. | ||
Revision as of 03:27, 4 December 2007
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.
As George Akerlof stated:
"People tend to be happy when they live up to how they think they should be; and they are, correspondingly, unhappy when they fail to live up to those norms."
