Thus, many RCT-backed interventions do not seem to explain much of the cross-national variation in GDP per capita. What does? There are a range of factors including:
Growth-friendly policies
Geography
Natural resources
Human capital
Culture
I’m confused here. It seems like there are examples of RCTs addressing at least:
Geography: It seems like No Lean Season, Duflo’s fertilizer nudges, and deworming (edit: I try to make the link between these and geography more obvious in a grandchild comment.) are all examples of RCTs targeting various aspects of geography depending on how you want to interpret the term.
Human capital: Education and health are clear focus areas for development RCTs.
Culture: It seems likely that many RCTs have flow-through effects on culture.
Is the argument not that RCTs can’t address things in these categories but that they aren’t good at it?
I think it is unreasonable to interpret geography in the way you suggest. I don’t see how migration loans or deworming change the geography of a place. RCTs may have had an effect on culture but it seems likely a very small one wrt culture affecting growth.
The link I was thinking of is that migration loans are relevant for urbanization, agglomeration effects, and generally the distribution and density of humans (which seem like they fit into human geography—”Human geography attends to human patterns of social interaction, as well as spatial level interdependencies”—and urban geography).
Deworming doesn’t change the geography of a place in itself but it mediates the impact of that geography on humans/the economy/society (supposing that we consider the disease environment a part of geography similar to the way we might consider forestation and the endowment of domesticable animals as geographic factors).
Similarly, fertilization mediates the impact of poor soils which are prevalent in equatorial regions.
Not sure if that makes the examples and their connection to geography more scrutable.
What are you thinking of when you emphasize geography as a determinant of growth? Stuff like shipping access and which countries are neighbors?
I’m confused here. It seems like there are examples of RCTs addressing at least:
Geography: It seems like No Lean Season, Duflo’s fertilizer nudges, and deworming (edit: I try to make the link between these and geography more obvious in a grandchild comment.) are all examples of RCTs targeting various aspects of geography depending on how you want to interpret the term.
Human capital: Education and health are clear focus areas for development RCTs.
Culture: It seems likely that many RCTs have flow-through effects on culture.
Is the argument not that RCTs can’t address things in these categories but that they aren’t good at it?
I think it is unreasonable to interpret geography in the way you suggest. I don’t see how migration loans or deworming change the geography of a place. RCTs may have had an effect on culture but it seems likely a very small one wrt culture affecting growth.
I agree on the human capital point.
The link I was thinking of is that migration loans are relevant for urbanization, agglomeration effects, and generally the distribution and density of humans (which seem like they fit into human geography—”Human geography attends to human patterns of social interaction, as well as spatial level interdependencies”—and urban geography).
Deworming doesn’t change the geography of a place in itself but it mediates the impact of that geography on humans/the economy/society (supposing that we consider the disease environment a part of geography similar to the way we might consider forestation and the endowment of domesticable animals as geographic factors).
Similarly, fertilization mediates the impact of poor soils which are prevalent in equatorial regions.
Not sure if that makes the examples and their connection to geography more scrutable.
What are you thinking of when you emphasize geography as a determinant of growth? Stuff like shipping access and which countries are neighbors?