Abstract
In this paper we investigate empirically whether or not the notion of an enclave adds substantially to existing knowledge of the determinants of long-run economic, political, or institutional development. We discuss the prominent place of enclaves in historical accounts in the dependent development literature, particularly in the work of Cardoso and Faletto (1966, 1979) and the large difficulties of determining in practice whether or not a country was or was not an enclave. We find little evidence for a relationship between past enclave status and long-run growth, inequality, or the size of the government. However, there does seem to be some preliminary evidence that countries that were enclaves have greater state capacity than non-enclaves and have been less democratic in the post-WWII period.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For instance, a search of JSTOR indexed economics journals reveals just two references in general economics journals (once in an article written by political scientists, and one brief mention in a survey of “radical” literature) and only a handful of other references in field journals.
Though slavery was important in the South, many of the key US institutions were formed in the seventeenth century before slavery became more significant and at no time did slaves form more than 20% of the entire population. In contrast, indigenous peoples formed 80–90% of the populations of Peru, Bolivia, or Mexico, while slaves constituted more than 90% of the population in most Caribbean islands (Engerman and Sokoloff 1997).
We are aware, of course, of an existing literature that attempts to relate various measures of “dependency” to economic performance outcomes, for instance, the work of Chase-Dunn (1975) and Evans and Timberlake (1980). Aside from working with more recent datasets, one key advantage to our approach of using pre-1930 enclave status is that it can be more plausibly considered exogenous, or at least pre-determined, relative to present day outcomes compared to the more contemporaneous measures of ‘dependency’ or foreign capital penetration used in these other studies. Also, the book of Cardoso and Faletto makes clear that it is in the period prior to 1930 that the enclave status of a country was determined.
There seem to be many interpretations in the literature about what “control” means. Many argue that what Cardoso and Faletto “really meant” was linkages in the sense of Hirschman (1958). Yet this word is not mentioned in the book, despite the fact that Hirschman’s work was well known by the time the first version was written, and we do not find the arguments in the book closely linked to the notion of linkages.
See Hojman (1983) for a further and more critical exposition of the theoretical and empirical difficulties of defining and measuring enclave status.
The quality grades are determined as follows. One for observations (a) where the underlying concepts are known and (b) where the quality of the income concept and the survey can be judged as sufficient according to the criteria described above. Two for observations where the quality of either the income concept or the survey is problematic or unknown or we have not been able to verify the estimates (the sources were not available to us); the country information. For further details, see http://62.237.131.23/wiid/WIID2c.pdf.
For a couple of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, there is no observation that is rated either 1 or 2. In this case, we took the most recent observation available. The results we report are robust to drop** these observations.
It is not ideal to treat enclave status as exogenous since there may be omitted variables that influence whether or not a country becomes an enclave and are correlated with institutions. If this is so, then the estimated coefficient on the enclave variable will be biased. Ideally, we would also like to have an instrument for D i and estimate a model with two first stages along the lines of Acemoglu and Johnson (2005). There are several potential candidates for such an instrument. Though Cardoso and Faletto do not dwell on why a country is or is not an enclave, their discussion suggests that the presence of a mining sector made a country more likely to be an enclave, and also, small countries were more likely to be enclaves, other things equal. Unfortunately, the presence of mines is not a satisfactory instrument for enclaves since it would not be excludable from the second stage. We did experiment with country size, which is negatively correlated with the propensity to be an enclave. Unfortunately, however, we did not find robust results using this strategy and, thus, do not report results using it here.
References
Acemoglu D, Johnson S. Unbundling institutions. J Polit Econ. 2005;113:949–95.
Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA. The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation. Am Econ Rev. 2001;91:1369–401.
Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA. Reversal of fortune: geography and institutions in the making of the modern world income distribution. Q J Econ. 2002;118:1231–94.
Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA. Institutions as fundamental determinants of long-run growth. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S, editors. The handbook of economic growth, vol. 1A. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 2005. p. 385–472.
Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA, Yared P. 2007. Reevaulating the modernization hypothesis. NBER Working Paper #13334. www.nber.com.
Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA, Yared P. Income and democracy. Am Econ Rev. 2008;98:808–42.
Acemoglu D, Robinson JA. Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
Baier S. An economic history of central Niger. New York: Oxford University Press; 1980.
Bulmer-Thomas V. The economic history of Latin America since Independence. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
Cardoso FH, Faletto E. Dependencia y Desarrollo en America Latina, Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno Editores; 1966.
Cardoso FH, Faletto E. Dependency and development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1979.
Clarence-Smith WG. Slaves, peasants and capitalists in Southern Angola, 1840–1926. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1979.
Chase-Dunn C. The effects of international economic dependence on development and inequality: a cross-national study. Am Sociol Rev. 1975;40:720–38.
Diaz-Alejandro CF. Review of dependency and development in Latin America. J Econ Hist. 1979;39:804–5.
Engerman SL, Sokoloff KL. Factor endowments, institutions, and differential paths of growth among new world economies. In: Haber SH, editor. How Latin America fell behind. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1997.
Engerman SL, Sokoloff KL. The evolution of suffrage institutions in the new world. J Econ Hist. 2005;65:891–921.
Evans PB Embedded autonomy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1995.
Evans PB, Timberlake M. Dependence, inequality, and the growth of the tertiary: a comparative analysis of less developed countries. Am Sociol Rev. 1980;45:531–52.
Evans PB, Rauch JE. Bureaucracy and growth: a cross-national analysis of the effects of ‘Weberian’ state structures on economic growth. Am Sociol Rev. 1999;64:748–65.
Evans PB, Rauch JE. Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. J Public Econ. 2000;75:49–71.
Hall RE, Jones CI. Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? Q J Econ. 1999;114:83–116.
Heston A, Summers R, Aten B. Penn world tables version 6.1. Philadelphia: Center for International Comparisons at the University of Pennsylvania (CICUP); 2002.
Hill P. The migrant cocoa-farmers of southern Ghana; a study in rural capitalism. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1963.
Hirschman AO. The strategy of economic development. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1958.
Hojman DE. From Mexican plantations to Chilean mines: the theoretical and empirical relevance of enclave theories in contemporary Latin America. Centre for Latin American Studies, University of Liverpool; 1983.
Klein HS. Bolivia: the evolution of a multi-ethnic society. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991.
Mitchell BR International historical statistics: the Americas 1750–2000. Basingstoke: Macmillan; 2003a.
Mitchell BR International historical statistics: Africa, Asia and Oceania 1750–2000. Basingstoke: Macmillan; 2003b.
North DC, Thomas RP. The rise of the Western World: a new economic history. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1973.
Paige JM. Coffee and power: revolution and the rise of democracy in Central America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1997.
Pankhurst R. Economic history of Ethiopia 1800–1935. Addis Ababa: Haile Sellassie I University Press; 1968.
Platt DCM, editor. Business imperialism, 1840–1930: an inquiry based on British experience in Latin America. Oxford: Clarendon; 1977.
Rodney W. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Washington: Howard University Press; 1974.
Roseberry W. Coffee and capitalism in the Venezuelan Andes. Austin: University of Texas Press; 1983.
Szereszewski R. Structural changes in the economy of Ghana, 1891–1911. London: Weindefield and Nicolson; 1965.
Williams RG. States and social evolution: coffee and the rise of National Governments in Central America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 1994.
Winson A. Coffee and democracy in Modern Costa Rica. New York: St. Martin’s; 1989.
World Bank. A decade of measuring the quality of governance. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2006.
Yarrington D. A coffee frontier: land, society, and politics in Duaca, Venezuela, 1830–1936. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 1997.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to María Alejandra Palacio for her outstanding research assistance and to María Angélica Bautista for help with the data. We also thank two anonymous referees and seminar participants at the Watson Institute’s conference on Dependency and Development in Latin America after 40 Years, particularly Peter Evans, Patrick Heller, Terry Karl, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Richard Snyder. Financial support from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Conning, J.H., Robinson, J.A. Enclaves and Development: An Empirical Assessment. St Comp Int Dev 44, 359–385 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-009-9052-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-009-9052-1