"The Japanese people today are the genetic descendants of people who lived in Agrarian societies in 1500. The Sub-Saharan African people today are the genetic descendants of people who lived in Horticultural and Herding societies in 1500."
Just out of curiosity, why can't they be cultural descendants rather than genetic descendants?
As for Africa, there is a fascinating study in the legacy of society types. They make no attempt to separate culture from genetics, so it is hard to know which is most dominant:
In the case of Japan, they are both. Japan has had virtually no migration.
I am sure that both genes and culture are important, but culture is pretty obvious so it has been researched a great deal. It is only recently that we have been able to research genetics.
The problem that I have with all cultural arguments is that they do not explain why culture changes in a specific direction that enables economic development. Until they have a theory of WHY and HOW cultures change in a specific direction, then you do not have a full explanation. It is only a partial explanation.
The Culturalists are merely saying for some reason that we do not understand, cultures moved in different directions, and by coincidence one or more of them promoted long-term economic development.
I believe the concept of Society Type explains the WHY and the HOW of both cultural and biological change.
This is a problem with virtually all competing theories on material progress. They identify one or more causes, but they do not explain what caused variations in the cause. I believe that they all are dealing with intermediate causes and ignoring or downplaying the ultimate causes that I focus on.
Maybe I missed it in this discussion, but there's an obvious issue here that a large surplus of FDI-like capital exists in the form of foreign aid. The rich world has been trying to help speed along economic growth in the poor world by subsidizing capital investments for many decades now, to little avail. This was well-documented in William Easterly's work, which I read in undergrad (he's written a book or two since then that I haven't read).
I'm open to the argument that aid by its nature (applied by NGOs and bureaucrats) is necessarily much worse than FDI (applied by rational investors). Maybe this can be fixed, or maybe it simply can't and there can be no alternative to unsubsidized FDI. But it needs to be addressed.
I share Easterly’s skepticism of the usefulness of foreign aid, though I think sometimes it helps. The fundamental problem is that it does not trigger sustained economic growth.
I seriously doubt that it can be reformed to help developing nations establish profitable export industries. They just do not have the expertise or the desire to do so.
Many NGOs are quite hostile to corporations. Governments will likely not want to create competitors for their own domestic exporting industries via direct aid. Now if the IMF or World Bank tied it loans to an export strategy, that might change things. But they are controlled by rich nations who do not want to create competitors.
So while development aid might theoretically be an alternative source of capital, I just don’t think it can be in practice.
Unfortunately, Thomas Sowell does not use the critical concept of Society Type nor does he take into account the possible impact of genes and biological evolution.
The problem that I have with all cultural arguments is that they do not explain why culture changes in a specific direction that enables economic development. Until they have a theory of WHY and HOW cultures change in a specific direction, then you do not have a full explanation. It is only a partial explanation.
The Culturalists are merely saying for some reason that we do not understand, cultures moved in different directions, and by coincidence one or more of them promoted long-term economic development.
I believe the concept of Society Type explains the WHY and the HOW of both cultural and biological change.
This is a problem with virtually all competing theories on material progress. They identify one or more causes, but they do not explain what caused variations in the cause. I believe that they all are dealing with intermediate causes and ignoring or downplaying the ultimate causes that I focus on.
"The Japanese people today are the genetic descendants of people who lived in Agrarian societies in 1500. The Sub-Saharan African people today are the genetic descendants of people who lived in Horticultural and Herding societies in 1500."
Just out of curiosity, why can't they be cultural descendants rather than genetic descendants?
As for Africa, there is a fascinating study in the legacy of society types. They make no attempt to separate culture from genetics, so it is hard to know which is most dominant:
https://techratchet.com/2020/04/10/article-summary-influence-of-ancestral-lifeways-on-economic-outcomes-in-africa-by-michalopoulos-putterman-weil/
Thanks for the comment.
In the case of Japan, they are both. Japan has had virtually no migration.
I am sure that both genes and culture are important, but culture is pretty obvious so it has been researched a great deal. It is only recently that we have been able to research genetics.
The problem that I have with all cultural arguments is that they do not explain why culture changes in a specific direction that enables economic development. Until they have a theory of WHY and HOW cultures change in a specific direction, then you do not have a full explanation. It is only a partial explanation.
The Culturalists are merely saying for some reason that we do not understand, cultures moved in different directions, and by coincidence one or more of them promoted long-term economic development.
I believe the concept of Society Type explains the WHY and the HOW of both cultural and biological change.
This is a problem with virtually all competing theories on material progress. They identify one or more causes, but they do not explain what caused variations in the cause. I believe that they all are dealing with intermediate causes and ignoring or downplaying the ultimate causes that I focus on.
Maybe I missed it in this discussion, but there's an obvious issue here that a large surplus of FDI-like capital exists in the form of foreign aid. The rich world has been trying to help speed along economic growth in the poor world by subsidizing capital investments for many decades now, to little avail. This was well-documented in William Easterly's work, which I read in undergrad (he's written a book or two since then that I haven't read).
I'm open to the argument that aid by its nature (applied by NGOs and bureaucrats) is necessarily much worse than FDI (applied by rational investors). Maybe this can be fixed, or maybe it simply can't and there can be no alternative to unsubsidized FDI. But it needs to be addressed.
Thanks for the comment.
You are correct that I did not mention development aid from NGOs and foreign governments, but I did cover the issue in another article.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-foreign-aid-does-not-lead-to
I share Easterly’s skepticism of the usefulness of foreign aid, though I think sometimes it helps. The fundamental problem is that it does not trigger sustained economic growth.
I seriously doubt that it can be reformed to help developing nations establish profitable export industries. They just do not have the expertise or the desire to do so.
Many NGOs are quite hostile to corporations. Governments will likely not want to create competitors for their own domestic exporting industries via direct aid. Now if the IMF or World Bank tied it loans to an export strategy, that might change things. But they are controlled by rich nations who do not want to create competitors.
So while development aid might theoretically be an alternative source of capital, I just don’t think it can be in practice.
In conquest and culture thomas sowell explores how African geography contributed to its economy,I was expecting to see it mentioned at some point
Yes, that is an outstanding book.
Pretty much everything that Sowell writes is great. I have no doubt that culture plays an important role.
And I have a summary on my online library of book summaries:
https://techratchet.com/2020/04/23/book-summary-conquests-and-cultures-by-thomas-sowell/
Unfortunately, Thomas Sowell does not use the critical concept of Society Type nor does he take into account the possible impact of genes and biological evolution.
The problem that I have with all cultural arguments is that they do not explain why culture changes in a specific direction that enables economic development. Until they have a theory of WHY and HOW cultures change in a specific direction, then you do not have a full explanation. It is only a partial explanation.
The Culturalists are merely saying for some reason that we do not understand, cultures moved in different directions, and by coincidence one or more of them promoted long-term economic development.
I believe the concept of Society Type explains the WHY and the HOW of both cultural and biological change.
This is a problem with virtually all competing theories on material progress. They identify one or more causes, but they do not explain what caused variations in the cause. I believe that they all are dealing with intermediate causes and ignoring or downplaying the ultimate causes that I focus on.