Hbs Dublin

Address: Telephone: Fax: web: Description: Category: Our Products: News: Location: Statistics: - Harcourt, Business, School, Dublin, 11, &, 89, Har http://www.hbsdublin.com Times viewed : 13 Times listed : 20 Clicks to website : 2 Clicks to products : 0 Clicks to news : 0 Sent to friends : 0 Times contacted : 0 Times it has been clicked the phone : 1 Times added to favorites : 0 Displayed on "How to get" : 0 Local areaKillala - - HBS Mayo, Ireland HBS services: Auctioneering, Valuations, Property Management, Farm Consultancy & Loss. It is distant 127 miles nearly north-west of Dublin, twenty-two north of CAstlebar, six. http://www.tuugo.info/Redirect?nextPage=http://www.billyheffron.com/property-in-mayo-sligo/1/Killala/ Builders in Dublin 13, Ireland Aaa Hbs Www.halpinbuildingservices.com 12 Newbrook Avenue Donaghmede Dublin 13 086-3795673 More Info: ICM Ltd T/A Sunworld The Bungalow Grange Road, Donaghmede, Dublin 13. http://www.tuugo.info/Redirect?nextPage=http://www.irelands-directory.com/Dublin/Dublin%2013/Construction/Builders.html Halpin Building Services 12 Newbrook Avenue Donaghmede, Dublin 13 Mobile : 5673 e-mail : h.b.s@iol.ie. in need of renovation but do not want the hassle of doing and managing the work then HBS. http://www.tuugo.info/Redirect?nextPage=http://halpinbuildingservices.com/services.html Glycated Hemoglobin Products HbS is a hemoglobin variant associated with sickle cell anemia which occurs. Dublin 14, Ireland. Tel: +353-1-4900685 / Fax: +353-1-4900122 E-mail: info@aaltobioreagents.ie. http://www.tuugo.info/Redirect?nextPage=http://www.aaltobioreagents.ie/Glycated%20Hemoglobin.asp HBS 1000E 230 Volt Belt Sander 3In Dublin. Phone is a great option for those who like to hear someone on the other end. HBS 1000E 230 Volt Belt Sander 3In. http://www.tuugo.info/Redirect?nextPage=http://www.handyhardware.ie/cat/Belt-Sanders/A.E.G.%20Power%20Tools/278/191 Supreme Stationery | Stationery for Schools | Stationery Supplier. homepage; hardback range; spiral range; copybook range; display books; button wallets/mesh bags. product code: hbs-0523. http://www.tuugo.info/Redirect?nextPage=http://www.supremestationery.com/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=17

Related Content:

Source: #ID:
http://www.tuugo.info/Companies/hbs-dublin/0340001138875 0340001138875

3 SpolaoreandWacziarg(2006)haveafascinatingexplorationoftheeffectofgeneticdistanceonlogincome distance.Theytakegeneticdistanceasadifferencebetweenallcharacteristicsverticallytransmittedfromparentsto children(notonlygenetic,butevenmoreimportantlycultural),andsuggestthatdifferencesinthesecharacteristics actasabarriertotechnology/developmentdiffusion.Theyfindthatcountriespopulatedbymoregeneticallydistant culturesalsohavemoredifferentpercapitaincomes.Thisfindingiscomplementarytooursbecausegeneticdistance isverypersistentandwasdeterminedinadistantpast.Itdiffers,however,inatleasttworespects.First,weexplore theeffectsoftechnologyadoptionhistoryoncurrentdevelopment.Ourlefthandsidevariablehasadirecteffecton development,whilegeneticdistancesurelydoesnothaveadirecteffectondevelopment.Itisaproxyforcostsof transferringtechnology.Second,byexploringarelationshipinlevelsweareabletopreservethetransitivityofour measures.Thisisnotthecasewhenlookingatdistances.AshrafandGalor(2008)haveanotherinterestinggenetic story,stressingthedifferencesingeneticdiversityacrossregionsoftheworldasadeterminantofcomparative economicdevelopment,throughthebeneficialimpactofdiversityontechnologicalcreativity.
Insummary,whatourfindingsteachusisthattechnologyisremarkablypersistentoverthevery longrun,andthatverysignificantinputsthatshapethecurrentcrosscountrydistributionofper capitaincomeweredeterminedalongtimeagoandwerelikelytobepropagatedintothe currenttimesbythedynamicsoftechnologyadoption. OurpaperisclearlyrelatedtotheinfluentialbookbyJaredDiamond(1997)Guns,Germs,and Steel.OneimportantthesisinDiamondsbookisthatcurrentdevelopmentistiedtoancient technologies.Diamond,however,doesnotsystematicallytesttheeffectofancienttechnologies onmodernincomesorstudiesthepropagationmechanismsaswewilldohere.Perhapsforthat reason,theDiamondworkdidnotchangemuchthetendencyofdevelopmenteconomicsto focusonthemodernperiodoratmostthecolonialperiod. Inasimilarvein,economichistorianshavebeendebatingtheimportanceofpasttechnology adoptionfortheadoptionofsubsequenttechnologies,especiallywhattriggeredtheIndustrial RevolutioninEurope.Mokyr(1990,p.169)andRosenbergandBirdzell(1987)arguethat technologicalexperienceisalongwayfrombeingasufficientconditionfortheEuropean miracle,stressingtheearliertechnologicalleadofChina.Greene(2000),instead,arguesthat,in theWest,GrecoRomandynamismwaspartofalongcontinuumfromtheEuropeanIronAgeto medievaltechnologicalprogressandtheindustrialrevolution.Mokyr(1990,p.164)alsonotes howmanytechnologicaladvancespeteredoutthroughouthistorywithoutleadingtoa permanentstreamofinnovation. However,whileeconomichistoriansdisagreeonaninitialtechnologyadvantageasasufficient causeoftheindustrialrevolution,theirdescriptionoftechnologyhistoryreachesaconsensuson manymechanismsthatcausepasttechnologytohaveaneffectonfuturetechnology.(Thereis nocontradictionherepasttechnologycouldmatter,andyetnotbesufficienttoexplainwhy EuropeandnotChinaexperiencedtheindustrialrevolution,whichcouldalsodependonother factorssuchasinstitutionsandvalues).Specifically,theyprovidemanycasestudiesof technologicalinnovationtodocumentmechanismsthatsupporttheassumptionofourmodel thatahigherinitialtechnologylevellowersthecostofadoptingnewtechnologies(orinafew cases,raisesthebenefitsofnewtechnologies). INSERTTBLE1HERE InTable1,welistthesurprisinglylonglistofsuchmechanismsdetailedbyeconomichistorians (althoughsomeofmechanismsarerelatedtoeachother),alongwithmanyoftheillustrative exampleshistorianshavegivenfromtechnologyhistory.Theexamplesareskewedtowardsthe IndustrialRevolutionandaftersincethatiswherehistorianshavefocusedmostoftheirenergies andthehistoricalrecordismostcomplete(althoughmanyGreek/Romanandmedieval examplesdoappear).Itispossiblethatsomeofthemechanismsonlystartedtooperateatthe timeoftheIndustrialRevolution.However,wethinkitisplausiblethattheIndustrialRevolution wasonlyaspeedingupoftechnologydynamics(whichwewilldiscussbelow),andthatmanyof thesedynamicmechanismswillapplytoearliertechnologicaleras.Ifso,thenwehaveastronga prioricaseforthepersistenceoftechnologyoverlongperiods,whichwecantestagainstour longrundataset.

4 ItiswelldocumentedthattheChinesewereusingironfortoolsby0A.D;whatismoredifficulttoassessistheshare oftoolsconstructedfromironatthetime. 5 Anargumentinlinewiththeappropriatetechnologyliteratureisthatitisoptimalthatsometechnologiesarenot presentinsomeregions.Diamond(1997)forexample,arguesthathorseswereineffectiveinthetropics.Giventhe
Arelatedissueisthatsomesectorsaremoredenselycoveredthanothers(i.e.for1500ADwe have8technologiesinmilitarybutonly2inmetalworking).Toavoidoverweightingsectors wherewehavebeenabletocollectdataonmoretechnologies,wecomputetheaverage adoptionrateineachsectorandthencomputetheoveralladoptionlevelbyaveragingthe sectoraladoptionlevels.Wehavealsoexperimentedwithalternativeaggregationapproaches obtainingverysimilarresults. Sinceourmainobjectiveistoanalyzetheeffectsthathistorictechnologyadoptionhasonthe currentstateofeconomicdevelopment,ourdatasetsarepartitionedusingmoderndaynation states.WeusethemapsfromtheCIAsTheWorldFactbook(2006)toputintoconcordancethe bordersofpresentdaynationswiththeculturesandcivilizationsin1000B.C.,0A.D.and1500 A.D.Forexample,thetechnologiesusedbytheAztecsandtheirpredecessorsduringpre colonialtimesarecodedastheonesusedbyMexicoin1500A.D.Incaseswhereacountryhad multiplecultureswithinitsbordersduringacertaintimeperiod,wetaketheculturewiththe highestleveloftechnologyadoptiontorepresentthatcountry.Thistechniqueisadirect consequenceofourgoalofmeasuringtheextensivemarginoftechnologyadoptionina country.Forexample,in1000B.C.thereweremultipleculturesresidingwithinCanadas moderndayborders.TheInitialShieldWoodlandwasthemosttechnologicallysophisticatedof theseculturesandwethereforeuseitsleveloftechnologyadoptiontorepresentCanadain 1000B.C. Theuseofthemostadvancedculturewithinaterritoryforacountrysleveloftechnologycould induceamechanicalcorrelationbetweentechnologyandcountrysize(asmeasuredeitherby populationorlandarea).Thelargerthesize,themoreculturesarebeingsampled,whichmakes themaximumofallcultureshigher.Forpopulation,thismechanicaleffectisreallythe KuznetsSimoneffectofpopulationontechnologymentionedintheintroduction,ifthemost advancedtechnologiesdoindeeddisseminatewithinthebordersofwhatistodaymeasuredas acountry.Wewilltestforthiseffectinourempirics.Forlandarea,thisalsocouldreflectareal economicphenomenonforthesamereasons,butitwouldinducereversecausalitybetween landareaandtechnology.Wewillexaminesomesimpletestsastowhetherthisaffectsour resultsintheempiricalsection. EachdatasetisconstructedfollowingthemethodologyusedbyGeorgeMurdockandother ethnologists(Murdock1967;Carneiro1970;TudenandMarshall1972;BarryandPaxson1971). Eachdatasetiscodedbyateamofresearcherssurveyingmultiplesourcesreducing,inthisway, thelikelihoodofmeasurementerror.Researcherstakedetailednotesincludingdirect quotationsandusing,whenappropriate,twoinferencetechniques:technologicalcontinuity (Basalla1988)andtemporalextrapolation(Murdock&Morrow1970:314).
technologiesinoursample,weviewthisargumentasveryannecdotal.Itisquiteclearthatvirtuallyallofthe technologiesinthethreehistoricaldatasetshavea(large)positiveeffectonlaborproductivityinvirtuallyall countries.Arelatedpointisthatourempiricalexplorationdoesnottrytoestablishthereasonsforthefailureto adoptatechnology.Rather,whetherthisfailurehadconsequencesinthe(very)longrun.Inasense,ifinhistorical timesitwasoptimalnottoadoptatechnology,itisevenmoresurprisingtofindnegativeeffectsinthe(very)long run.

inperspectivetherelativedynamicsoftechnologyintheempires.Inparticular,thelevelsof historicaltechnologyadoptionreportedfortheempiresinTable5until1500A.D.areallfairly high.Giventhecrosscountrydistributionoftechnologyreportedabove,thisimpliesthat whetherEuropeisaheadofChinaorviceversaissecondordercomparedtothetechnological advantageofthehistoricalempirescomparedtomostoftherestofthecountriesintheworld. Underneaththeoveralltechnologyadoptionmeasuresthereissignificantcrosssectoral dispersion.Toexplorethis,wesubtractthecountrysoveralltechnologyadoptionfromits adoptionlevelineachofthefivesectors.Then,wecomputethecrosscountrystandard deviationofthisvariabletomeasurethewithinsectorvariationintechnologyadoption.Table6 comparesthesemeasurestothecrosscountrydispersionintheoveralltechnologyadoptionfor eachofthethreeperiodswestudy. __________________INSERTTABLE7HERE_______________________ Themainfindingisthatthewithinsectorvariationintechnologyadoptionisapproximatelytwo thirdsofthecrosscountrydispersioninoveralltechnology.Insection4.3,weexplorefurther theimplicationsofthisstrikinglylargeheterogeneityinsectoraltechnologyadoption. Afinalcheckweconducttoshowthatourtechnologyadoptiondatasetsaresensibleisto correlatethemwiththecontemporaneousurbanizationrate.Severalauthors12haveusethe urbanizationrateasaproxyfordevelopmentlevelspeciallyforpremodernperiodssuchasthe onescoveredbyourtechnologyadoptiondataset. __________________INSERTTABLE8HERE_______________________ Theurbanizationratefor1000B.C.and0A.D.comefromPeregrinesACE,13whilethe urbanizationratefor1500A.D.comefromAcemoglu,JohnsonandRobinson(2002).Table8 reportstheestimatedcontemporaneouseffectofoveralltechnologyadoptiononthe urbanizationrate.Wefindthatthereisastrongandpositivecontemporaneousassociation betweentechnologyadoptionhistoryandthecontemporaneousurbanizationrates.This providesfurthersupportforthequalityofourmeasuresoftechnologyadoptioninprecolonial times.14
3.2Technologyhistoryandcurrentdevelopment
Weturnnexttostudyingwhethercenturiesold,precolonialtechnologyhistoryiscorrelated withdevelopmenttoday.Toanswerthisquestion,weestimatethefollowingregression
Acemoglu,JohnsonandRobinson(2002),forexample. Peregrine(2003)constructsameasureoftheurbanizationratethatcantakethreevalues.1ifthelargest settlementissmallerthan100persons.2ifitisbetween100and399persons.3ifitislargerthan400persons. 14 Theworkingpaperversionofthisarticleshowsthatthepositivecontemporaneousassociationbetweenoverall technologyadoptionandtheurbanizationrateisrobusttocontrollingfordistancetotheEquator.

yc = + Tc + uc

wherecurrentdevelopment,yc,ismeasuredeitherbythelogofPPPadjustedpercapitaincome in2002A.D.orbycurrenttechnologyadoption,Tcisthemeasureofhistoricaltechnology adoptionanducistheerrorterm. ___________INSERTTABLE9HERE_______________ ThefirstthreecolumnsofTable9reporttheestimatesofregression(1)whenycispercapita incomein2002andTcismeasuredsuccessivelybytheoveralladoptionlevelin1000B.C.,in0 andin1500A.D.(Tstatisticsareinparentheses.)Thetechnologyadoptionlevelin1000B.C.is positivelyandsignificantlyassociatedwiththelogofpercapitaGDPin2002.Technology adoptionin0A.D.isnotsignificantlycorrelatedtocurrentdevelopment.Theoveralltechnology adoptionlevelin1500A.D.ispositivelyandsignificantlyassociatedwithcurrentincomeper capita.Thismeasureoftechnologyin1500A.D.explains18percentofthevariationinlogper capitaGDPin2002. Inadditiontobeingstatisticallysignificant,theeffectisquantitativelylarge.Changingfromthe maximum(i.e.1)totheminimum(i.e.0)theoveralltechnologyadoptionlevelin1500A.D.is associatedwithareductioninthelevelofincomepercapitain2002byafactorof5. ___________INSERTTABLE10HERE_______________ ThefirstthreecolumnsofTable10showthatcurrenttechnologyisassociatedwithhistorical technologyadoptionverymuchinthesamewayascurrentpercapitaincome.Theassociation betweencurrenttechnologyandtechnologyin1000B.Cor0A.D.isinsignificant.However,there isastrongandsignificantassociationbetweentechnologyin1500A.D.andcurrenttechnology. Inparticular,changingfromthemaximum(i.e.1)totheminimum(i.e.0)theoveralltechnology adoptionlevelin1500A.D.isassociatedwithanincreaseinthetimelagintheintensityof adoptionwithrespecttotheUSof22percentoftheyearssincetheinventionofthetechnology. Figure2presentsthescatterplotbetweenoveralltechnologyadoptionlevelin1500A.D.and currentdevelopment.Thepositiverelationshipbetweenthesetwovariablesisquite transparent.Itisclearlynotdrivenbyoutliers.Inthebottomleftquadrantoftheplotwecan seemanyAfricancountriesthathadadoptedveryfewofthetechnologiesinour1500sample andthatarequitepoortoday.Europeancountriesareinthetoprightcorner. CountriesthatroughlycorrespondtoancientempiressuchasEgypt,Iran,China,India,and Pakistanweremiddleincomecountriesin2002andhadadoptedbetween70and90percentof thetechnologiesinour1500A.D.sample.Thesecountriesareslightlybelowtheregressionline inthebottomrightquadrantofFigure2.Thispaperdoesnotaddresssomewellknownpuzzles, suchasthefailureofChinatocapitalizeearlieronitstechnologicalprowess,orthestagnation followingtheearliertechnologicalprowessoftheIslamicempire.Theseareveryimportant puzzlesthatdeserve(andhavealreadyattracted)theirownliterature,butweareconcerned herewiththeglobalcrosscountryaveragerelationshipbetweenoldtechnologyandmodern income,andthesecounterexamplesarenotnumerousenoughtooverturntheaverageglobal relationship.

TableA1showstherobustnessofthisfindingtousingasendogenousvariablepercapitaincomeinearlierpointsin time.Inparticular,thetableuses1913,1960and1990.
technologiesarealsodramatic.Forexample,movingfrom0to1intheadoptionlevelin1500 A.D.isassociatedwithareductionintheadoptionlagwiththeUSequivalentto45percentof theyearssincethetechnologyhasinvented.Thisismorethantwiceasmuchastheobserved crosscountrystandarddeviationincurrenttechnologyadoption. Similarly,20percentoftheincomedifferencebetweenEuropeandAfricaisexplainedby Africaslaginoveralltechnologyadoptionin1000B.C.,8percentisexplainedbythetechnology distancein0A.D.,and78percentisexplainedbyAfricaslaginoveralltechnologyadoptionin 1500A.D.ThisgivesaverydifferentperspectiveonAfricaspovertycomparedtotheusual emphasisonmoderngovernments.Italsoshiftsbackwardintimethehistoricalexplanationsfor Africaspoverty,comparedtotheusualemphasisofhistoriansontheslavetradeand colonialism.20 Figures3through8displaythescatterplotsofthetwomeasuresofcurrentdevelopment(i.e. percapitaincome3through5andtechnologyadoption6through8)andoverallhistorical technologyadoptionafterregressingthesevariablesontheEuropeaninfluencedummies.These figuresconfirmthesignificantassociationbetweencurrentdevelopmentandhistorical technologyafterconditioningontheEuropeaninfluencedummies.Clearly,thestrongest relationshipholdsbetweenoveralltechnologyadoptionin1500A.D.andcurrentdevelopment measures.

3.3Robustness

Weexploretherobustnessofthefindingsencounteredsofar.Westartbyexploringwhether weareidentifyingtheeffectofhistoricaltechnologyoncurrentdevelopmentthroughthecross continentvariationoralsothroughthewithincontinentvariation.Toanswerthisquestion,the firstthreecolumnsofTable11andTable12reporttheestimatesofregression(2)whenthe dependentvariableispercapitaincome(Table11)andcurrenttechnologyadoption(Table12) andweaddfourcontinentdummiestothecontrolset. Weextracttwomainconclusionsfromcolumns1through3.First,muchoftheeffectof technologyhistoryisdetectedfromthecrosscontinentvariation.Addingthecontinent dummieseliminatestheeffectofoveralltechnologyadoptionin1000B.C.oncurrent development(column1),andreduces,approximately,by60percenttheeffectoftechnology adoptionin0A.D.(column2)andin1500A.D.(column3)oncurrentdevelopment.Only1500 ADisstillsignificant.Theflipsideofthisisthatasignificantfractionoftheeffectsoftechnology adoptionhistoryin0A.D.and1500A.D.oncurrentdevelopmentisdrivenbythewithin continentvariation.Inparticular,thewithincontinentvariationinoveralltechnologyadoption in1500A.D.canstillaccountforcrosscountryvariationincurrentincomepercapitabyafactor of4.5andforaboutonestandarddeviationoftheobservedcrosscountrydispersionincurrent technologyadoption.21Insum,thepersistenceoftechnologyacrossthelast500years,orthe last2000years,isnotjustduetodifferencesbetweencontinents.

1 0.9995. 1

Wealsoobservethishighpersistenceoftechnologyadoptionforthesectorlevelmeasures. Theaveragecorrelationcoefficientbetweenthetechnologyadoptioninasectorinoneperiod andinthesubsequentperiodisaround0.5.Technologyadoptionismostpersistentinmilitary, industryandtransportation.Thelowestcorrelationisincommunicationsbetween1000BCand 1500AD.Thislattercorrelationisstillstatisticallysignificantatthe5percentlevel.Alltheother correlationsreportedinTable14aresignificantatthe1/10000level. ________________INSERTTABLE15HERE_________________ AsshowninTables12and15,thispersistenceoftechnologyadoptionisnotdrivenbythe geographicalvariablessinceitholdsoncewecontrolforthecontinent,thelatitudeandwhether thecountryislandlocked. ________________INSERTTABLE16HERE_________________ Weconcludethisexplorationofthemodelpredictionsbyinvestigatingthethirdprediction, namelythattheeffectofhistoricaltechnologyadoptiononcurrentdevelopmentoperates throughcurrenttechnologyadoption.Table15showsthestrongpositiveassociationbetween currenttechnologyandpercapitaincomein2002.TheR2inthisregressionis80percent.The
Thereisafourthinterestingpredictionwhichwecannottestduetolackofdatawhichisthat,iftechnologyisso

persistentthat

1 1,factorsthataffectthehistoricalreturntoadoptingthetechnology(i.e.institutions)may 1
alsoaffectcurrentdevelopmentevenifinstitutionsarenotpersistentandevenaftercontrollingforhistorical technology.Thisisthecasebecausesuchfactorsaffectthechangeintechnologyattime0,henceaffectthelevelof technology(atleastshortly)after0andhenceaffectsubsequenttechnologyadoption.
importanceandsignificanceofthisvariableisrobusttocontrollingforthedistancetothe equatorandforthecontinentdummies. Incolumns4through8ofTable16weincludeourmeasureofoveralltechnologyadoptionin 1500ADasanadditionalcontrol.However,itsassociationwithcurrentdevelopmentbecomes insignificantoncewecontrolforcurrenttechnology.Thisisthecaseevenafterincludingthe Europeaninfluencedummies(columns7and8).Sincetechnology1500ADwasrobustand significantinourpreviousregressions,weinterpretthisfindingasevidencethattheeffectof historicaltechnologyoncurrentdevelopmentoperatesmostrobustlythroughtheeffectthat historicaltechnologyadoptionhasoncurrenttechnologyadoption.

4.2Population

Oneinterpretationofthefindingssofaristhattechnologyisaverypowerfulpropagation mechanism.Thatis,avarietyoffactors(e.g.institutions,geographyshocks,luck,.)affectthe returntoadoptingtechnologyinthedistantpastandthosehistoricaltechnologyadoption levelsarepropagatedintothepresentthroughtheeffectthattechnologyhasontheagent's incentivestoadoptsubsequenttechnologies. Analternativeview,alsoconsistentwiththemodelpresentedabove,isthatthepowerful propagationmechanismisnotthedynamicsoftechnologyadoptionbutthedynamicsofthe returntoadoptingtechnology( ct ).Thatis,ratherthanhaving

1 1,thepersistenceof 1

historicaladoptionresultsfrom1. Onevariablethathasbeenlinkedtoimprovedtechnologyispopulation.Kremer(1993) developsmodelswherethisisthecasebecausemorepopulationmeansmoreinventorsof ideas.Similarly,semiendogenousgrowthmodels(e.g.Jones(1995,1999,2001,2005),Kortum (1997),Segerstrom(1998))alsohavethefeaturethattheforcethatultimatelykeepstechnology improvingisthecontinuousexpansionofthescaleintheeconomythroughpopulationgrowth. Thereducedformofthesemodelsintechnologyalonewouldalsopredicttechnological persistence,andsothisfactaloneisnotenoughtoassesstheweighttobeattachedtodifferent models. Thesemodelsstresstheeffectofpopulationthroughthesupplyofideaswiththeincreased numberofthinkers.Wecangenerateasimilarpopulationeffectbyhavingpopulationaffectour returntoideas(asitobviouslydoeswithnonrivalideas).Oursimplemodelcanaccommodate theseinsightsbyassumingthat ct = lct ,where lct isthelogpopulationandevolvesaccording to lct = nc + lct 1 + lct , E0 lct = 0, fort>0.Then,actcanbeexpressedas:
t + 1 a ct = nc (t + 1) + l c 0 + lcq + ac 0 1 1 q =1 =1 t t
Overthelonghorizonsweconsiderinthispaper, nc
lct lc 0. Hence,(12implies) t
t 1 t (t + 1) 1 1 l ac 0 + E 0 (a ct ) = (l ct l c 0 ) + c0 1 1 t = Expression(13)impliesthatif
1 <1,historicaltechnologyshouldnotpredictcurrent 1
technologyoncewecontrolforhistoricalandcurrentpopulation.Further,failingtocontrolfor currentandpastpopulationinourregressionsmaycauseanupwardbiasinourestimateof
1 1 ifthereturntoadoptingtechnology, ct ,is higherinlargercountries.
Toidentifywhethertheobservedpersistenceoftechnologyisdrivenbytheomissionof populationinourregressionsorbecausetechnologyhasadirectpropagationmechanism,we controlforhistoricalandcurrentpopulationinourbaselineregression(2).Asweshowinthe appendix,thisidentificationstrategyisvalidregardlessoftheinfluencefromothercountries technologyintheadoptioncost.Table17and18reporttheestimationresults. ________________INSERTTABLE17HERE_________________ ThefirstthreecolumnsofTable17reporttheeffectoftechnologyandpopulationin1500AD oncurrentpercapitaincome(column1),currenttechnology(column2)andcurrentpopulation (column3).Themainfindingisthattheobservedeffectofhistoricaltechnologyoncurrent developmentandcurrenttechnologyisrobusttocontrollingforhistoricalpopulation.Indeed, theeffectofhistoricalpopulationoncurrentdevelopmentisnegativeandsignificant.Both historicaltechnologyandpopulationhavepositivesignificanteffectsoncurrentpopulation, althoughthesignificanceofhistoricalpopulationismuchhigher. Weconductsimilarexerciseswithtechnology(column4)andpopulation(column5)in1500AD asdependentvariablesandtechnologyandpopulationin0asindependentvariables.Our findingsareverysimilartothosereportedinthefirstthreecolumnsofTable17.Forexample, theeffectoftechnologyadoptionin0ontechnologyin1500persistsaftercontrollingfor populationin0. ________________INSERTTABLE18HERE_________________ Expression(13)impliesthattoidentifythepropagationmechanismthatgeneratesthe persistenceoftechnology,weshouldcontrolbothforhistoricalandforcurrentpopulation. Table18conductsthismorepropertestbyincludingcurrentpopulationascontrol.Regardless ofwhetherweusecurrentdevelopment(column1)ortechnology(column2)asdependent variables,westillfindthattechnologyin1500ADhasastrongandsignificanteffectoncurrent outcomes.Currentpopulationhasanegativeandsignificanteffectoncurrentdevelopmentand technology.Populationin1500hasaninsignificanteffect.Ashortcomingofthisexerciseisthe endogeneityofcurrentpopulation,whichwedonothaveagoodmeansofaddressingbecause ofalackofanyobviousinstrument.

1 . 1

Similarly,theforcesbywhichcultureandgenesaffecttechnologyadoption(e.g.higherwillingnesstoexperiment orhigherI.Q.)arerelevanttoallthesectorscoveredinourdatasets.

C cst = bcst

(Acst ) Acst 1
Notethatinthisformulation,thecostofadoptiondeclinesintheleveloftechnologyadoptedin thesector.Thentheoptimaladoptionoftechnologyinsectorsandcountrycimpliesthe followinglawofmotionfortechnology.
Acst cst Acst 1 = 1 Acst 1 Acst 1
cst I S S = ct * cs * cst bcst
I I I S S Let cst log( cst ) beazeromean,iid,term, ct log( ct ) = ct 1 + Ict ,where E 0 Ict = 0 fort>0and
I S S cs log( cs ).Notethat,inthisformulation, ct captures(potentiallytimevarying)factorsthataffectthe
S returntoadoptingtechnologyinallsectors, cs reflectsfixedfactorsthataffectthereturntoadopting
S technologyinsectorsofcountryc,and cst capturesotherfactorsthataffectthereturntoadopting technology.

a cst =

I ct +1

S ct +1

1 1 1 + 1 a cs 0
t 1 t 1 t 1 t 1 I + 1 S + 1 a E (a ) = cs cst c0 cs 1 1 1 1 1
Theempiricalcounterparttoequation(19)is
(20) Thisregressionincludesacountryeffect(ct1)thatcouldbetimevaryingandacountrysector fixedeffect(cs).Theidentificationof presentsthewellknownchallengeoftenencountered inconvergenceregressionsofalaggeddependentvariable.Tosolvethisproblemwefirst differenceequation(20)obtaining
acst = ct 1 + cs + * acst 1 + ucst
acst acst 1 = ct 1 ct 2 + * (acst 1 acst 2 ) + u cst
andinstrumenting acst 1 acst 2 with acst 2.If acst 2 isuncorrelatedwith u cst ourestimateof
willbeunbiased.Wearegoingtoimplementregression(21)witht=2000AD,t1=1500AD
andt2=0AD.Wefinditsensiblethat u cst u cs 2000 u cs1500 isuncorrelatedtothetechnology adoptionlevelin0AD(i.e.1500yearsbefore). Inourlistofcurrenttechnologieswehavenomilitarytechnology.Hence,weestimate(21)using dataontheotherfoursectorsinourdataset.Since,fromourpreviousresults,theEuropean influencewillhaveaneffectonthegrowthoftechnologybetween1500and2000,wecontrol forthetwoEuropeaninfluencedummieswhenestimating in(21).
________________INSERTTABLE19HERE_________________ Table19reportstheestimatesof with(column1)andwithout(column2)thecountryfixed effectsinthegrowthrates.Themainfindingisthatweobserveverylargeandsignificant estimatesof inbothspecifications.Thereareseveralimportantimplicationsfromthese estimates.Recallthatbothoftheseregressionsincludecountryfixedeffectsinlevelsand countrysectorfixedeffectsinlevels.Thisissuggestivethatpersistentfactorsthathave remainedconstantoverthelast500yearsandwhichmayormaynothaveaffected asymmetricallytechnologyadoptioninthecountrysuchasgenesorgeographyarenotthe primarydriversoftheestimatesofthepersistenceoftechnology(i.e. ). Asecondinterestingobservationisthattheestimatesof arevirtuallyunaffectedbythe inclusionofthecountry(timevarying)effects.Thesetermscapturechangesatthecountrylevel between1500and2000whichaffectsymmetricallytheadoptionoftechnologyacrosssectors (withinthecountry),suchasanimprovementininstitutions(seeJones2001).Includingthese countryeffectsintheregressionsdoesnotaffectthesizeofourestimateof (indeedit increases).Ourresultssaythatifatechnologyinonesectorinonecountryimprovesmorethan averagecountrywidetechnologicalimprovementin1500,thattechnologicalimprovement showsupinbettertechnologyinthatsector(relativetothecountrywideaverage)in2000.This issuggestivethatomittedtimevaryingfactorsthataffecttheadoptionoftechnologyinmany sectorsintheeconomysuchasanimprovementininstitutionsarenotsolelyresponsiblefor theobservedhighpersistenceintechnologyadoption.34Notethatthisargumentstandsevenif theomittedvariablehasadifferentialeffectacrosssectorsaslongasithasasignificant commoncomponent.Wetakethisasverysupportiveofourhypothesisthatthereisadirect effectofoldtechnologyonnewtechnologyadoption,evenifinstitutionalandothercountry widefactorsalsomatter. Becauseofpotentialcrosstechnologydifferencesindiffusionnotcapturedbyourmodel,we exploretherobustnessofourestimatesof toincludingtechnologyspecificintercepts.Asis clearfromcolumns(3)and(4)ofTable19,thesignificanceof isunaffected.Interestingly,the similarityofthepointestimateswithandwithoutcountry(timevarying)effectsalsopersists afterincludingtechnologyspecificintercepts. Weconcludeourempiricalexplorationofthesourcesofpersistenceintechnologyadoptionby showingthatthesignificanceof isnotdrivenbyanysinglesector.Incolumns5through8of Table19wereporttheestimatesof aftereliminatingsuccessivelyoneofthefoursectors coveredinourdatasetrecallthatwehaveexcludedthemilitarytechnologiesfromthis analysis. Twoobservationsemergefromthisexercise.First,thesignificanceoftheestimateof isnot drivenbyanyspecificsector.Second,whencomparingtheestimatesof obtainedby exploitingthesectoralvariationintechnologyadoption(e.g.columns38ofTable19)withthe estimatesweobtainedwhenusingthecrosscountryvariation(e.g.columns3,6,9and12of Table12)itturnsoutthattheformerarenotsmallerthanthelater.

Wedonotknowwhethertheaspectsofculturewhicharerelevantforadoptionoftechnologyarefixedovera500 yearperiodortimevarying,butineithercase,theyarealsolikelytobetakencareoffbyoneofthetwoarguments posedabove.
Asarguedabove,thisishardtoreconcilewiththeorieswheretheONLYmechanismthatinduces thepersistenceoftechnologyoperatesatacountrywidelevel.Instead,thisobservationcanbe accountedfornaturallybyoursimpletheorysincetheknowledgecreatedwhenadoptinga technologyinagivensectorislikelytoreducethecostsofadoptingsubsequenttechnologiesin thesectorbutnotsomuchinothersectors. Hence,weareinclinedtoconcludefromthefindingspresentedinthispaperthatthedynamics oftechnologyadoptionareadirectpropagationmechanismthattransmitssignificant technologyshocksofverydiversenatureintothedistantfuture.Theprimaryfeatureofour modelthatpredictsthisresultisthatthecostoftechnologyadoptionislowerthehigheristhe previousstockoftechnology.

5.Conclusions

Themainfindingofthispaperisasimpleone:centuriesoldtechnologicalhistoryisassociated withthewealthofnationstoday.Thisislargelyrobusttoincludingcontinentdummiesand geographiccontrols,soitisnotjustdrivenbyEuropevs.Africaortropicalvs.temperate zones.Therearetwosurprisingpartsofthefinding.Thefirstisjusthowoldthehistorycanbe andstillbecorrelatedwithmodernoutcomes.Ourmostrobustfindingisthattechnologyin 1500ADiscorrelatedwithdevelopmentoutcomestoday,itselfremarkablyoldwhenwe considerthatmosthistorydiscussionsofdevelopingcountriesstart(atmost)withEuropean contactandcolonization.Thesecondsurprisingaspectofourfindingishowlargeisthe magnitudeoftheassociationbetweenhistoricaltechnologyadoptionandcurrentdevelopment. Inourbaselinespecification,goingfromhavingnonetohavingadoptedallthetechnologies availablein1500ADisassociatedwithanincreaseincurrentpercapitaGDPbyafactorof17. Evenafterincludingabatteryofcontrols,thisfactorisover5. Inanefforttowardsunderstandingwhatdrivesthissurprisingcorrelation,wehavefound suggestiveresultsthattechnologyisverypersistent,thatthispersistenceisnotdrivenonlyby thepersistenceofpopulation,andthatitdoesnotdiminishwhenexploitingthesectoral variationintechnologyadoptionafterremovingthecountryaverageadoptionlevelinthe periodandcountrysectorfixedeffects(hencecontrollingforanyfactorsthatoperateata countrywidelevelsuchasinstitutions).Thisevidenceprovidessupporttothehypothesisthat thetechnologyadoptiondynamicsinwhichthecostofadoptingnewtechnologyfallswiththe stockofprevioustechnologyarethemechanismthatgeneratesthepropagationuncoveredin thedata.

Figure8:(Conditional)overalltechnologyadoptionin1500A.D.and(conditional)current technology
FIN CHE NOR SWE.4 DNK NLD FRA DEU GBR IRL AUT JPN BEL SGP ITA HKG ESP EST HRV PRT GRC.2 SVK
URY ZAF USA CRI ROM SAU CHL RUS LTU ARG VEN COL BRA THA GAB CAN MEX NZL TUR AUS BIH IRN TUN PAN BWA ECU PHL IRQ MNG EGYUKR MAR MRT BOL CUB PNG PER ZWE ZMB GNQ GUY COG NIC HND DZA GTM NAM CMR CIV KEN SEN PRY BLR IDN PAK MDA CHN SLV IND SYR GHA LAO MMR AFG LBRZAR BENCAF MDG BGD TCDNGA YUG TZA VNM UGA SDN UZB KHM SLE AGO GNB NER ETH NPL GIN BFA LSO MLI

CZE LVA HUN LBY POL

-.5 0.5 Residual overall technology adoption level in 1500AD
Figure 9: Simulated Growth Rate of Technology 0.03

0.025 0.02

g advanced initial technology
g backward initial technology

0.015 0.01 0.005

FigureA1:Technologyin1500andcurrenttechnology
USA CAN NZL AUS FIN CHE NOR SWE DNK NLD FRA DEU GBR IRL AUT.8 BEL JPN ITA HKG ESP EST HRV PRT GRC SVK
1 Current Overall Technology Adoption
MYS CZE LVA HUN ZAF LBY POL CRI CHL ROM RUS SAU ARG VEN LTU COL BRA MEX THA TUR GAB PAN ECU BIH IRN BOL CUB HND TUN PER ZWE NIC GTM BWA PHL IRQ MNG EGYUKR MAR MRT PNG COG GNQ GUY SLV DZA PRY NAM ZMB MDA CHN CMR CIV KEN SEN IDN PAK IND BLR SYR GHA LAO MMR AFG LBRZAR BENCAF MDG BGD TCDNGA YUG VNM LSOTZA UGA SDN UZB KHM SLE AGO GNB NERBFA NPL GIN ETH URY MLI
Table 1: Mechanisms for persistence of technology from economic history literature Mechanism for technology persistence Examples from economic history literature Cement masonry CT roads and aqueducts under Romans Complementarities between existing (Mokyr 1990, pp. 19-20), Roman water lifting CT power technology and new technology (CT is transmission ( gears, cams, chains) (Mokyr 1990, p. 21), complementary to) If a new technology is medieval waterwheels CT grain mills (Rosenberg and complementary to an old technology, then the Birdzell 1986, p. 154), medieval heavy plow CT fallow cost of adopting the new technology is lower. system CT draft animals feeding on fallow and fertilizing The more technologies in the initial technology set, the more new technologies there will be that field CT horse collar and nailed horseshoe (Mokyr 1990 pp. 32-35), compass CT astrolabe CT advances in astronomy are complementary. CT oceangoing ships in 15th century (Mokyr 1990, p. 47, Rosenberg and Birdzell pp. 72, 84), metallurgy CT Gutenberg press (Mokyr 1990, p. 48), new crops alfalfa and clover CT stall feeding of livestock CT animal fertilizer and abandonment of fallow system 1500-1750 (Mokyr 1990, p. 58) Chain mail CT breastplates and armor for soldiers (Rosenberg and Birdzell 1986, p. 58), Textile machinery CT Chemical innovation on detergents, bleaches mordants, and dyes (Landes 1969, p. 108) the lever , the wedge and the screw , the ratchet , the Recombination of old technologies to make new technology. Many new technologies are pulley , the gear , and the cant used to make Greek/Roman novel combinations of old technologies. The war machines (Mokyr 1990, p. 21), salt preservation of meat greater the number of old technologies, the and improved transportation in 15th century = long distance greater the number of possible combinations to trade in cattle from rural areas to cities (Rosenberg and make new technologies. Birdzell 1986, pp. 75-76), steam power + iron and steel metallurgy = factory machines (Rosenberg and Birdzell 1986, p. 146), steam engine + rails = railroad, refrigeration + steamships = long distance meat exports to Europe, electricity generation + conductors + meters + lamps = electric light (Rosenberg 1982, pp. 58-59), germ theory+ bactericidal molds + mass chemical production = penicillin (Mokyr 2002, p. 107) internal combustion engine + glider + propeller=airplane (Mokyr 2002, p. 114) Working machines to Galileos general theory of machine Feedback from technology to science. When principles (Mokyr 1990, p. 75), Steam engine to techniques work, this gives new evidence to thermodynamics (Mokyr 1990, p. 90; Rosenberg 1982, p. scientists to test theories why they work. 14), food canning to bacteriology and germ theory of disease Science will in turn be used to make further (Rosenberg and Birdzell 1986, p. 245), Wright brothers to innovations in technique. Science should be aerodynamics (Mokyr 2005, Mokyr 2002, pp. 96-97) defined very broadly beyond formal science to Rosenberg 1982, p. 157), discovery of transistor to field of include general understanding of laws of solid-state physics (Rosenberg 2000, p. 33), telegraph to nature or the way the world is, making mathematical physics (Mokyr 2002, p. 90) statements that are true or false. Technology is defined as the toolkit of techniques, which are not true or false, but simply work. Greek/Roman alphabetization, Arabic numerals, Gutenberg Feedback from technology to lower access printing, 19th century innovation in paper and printing, lower costs for knowledge. The more advanced are transport costs for people and books, postal services, certain access technologies, the easier it is to obtain general scientific knowledge, which then standard weights and measures, encyclopedias, ICT revolution (Mokyr 2002) lowers the cost of innovation and adoption.

Table 1 (continued): Mechanisms for persistence of technology from economic history literature Clockmaking and watchmaking beginning with Spillover of technology from one sector to medieval town clocks spillover to precision another. Technological ideas from one sector machining for factories in industrial revolution inspire new approaches to problems in other (Rosenberg and Birdzell 1986, pp. 148-150), sectors. Steam engine inventor Watts background was in mining industry, which required knowledge of metallurgy, chemistry, mechanics, and civil engineering (Mokyr 1990 p. 162); spillover from petrochemical industry for auto fuel to plastics and synthetic fibers (Rosenberg 2000 p. 92) Larger oceangoing ships and expanding world Economies of scale. Some technologies have fixed costs or internal economies of scale such trade in 15th century (Rosenberg and Birdzell that it is only worth adopting them at higher 1986, pp. 82-83), Mechanical reaper (David scale of operation of the economy. The greater 1975), Assembly line and interchangeable parts is initial technology, the greater the scale of (Mokyr 2002) operation of the economy. Gutenberg printing press, Ocean-going ships in Economies of scope of General Purpose 15th century, Electric engine for factories in Technologies. When a GPT is invented, its payoff is greater, the more technologies in virtually all sectors and multiple home which it can be used. Hence the greater is appliances (Rosenberg 1982, pp. 78-79), ICT initial technology, the greater the payoff to a (Mokyr 2002, pp. 112-113) GPT. Medieval optics made possible telescope and Feedback from technology to improved lab microscope (Rosenberg and Birdzell 1986, p. equipment. Improved lab equipment lowers 58), instruments measuring time, distance, the cost of scientific discovery, innovation, or adoption. The better is existing technology, the weight, pressure, temperature, Voltas battery, Petri dish (Mokyr 2005) advances in lens better the lab equipment. grinding to make better telescopes and microscopes (Mokyr 2002, pp. 97-100) Ocean-going ships since 15th century improved Learning by doing. Much of technological progress consists of learning how to make old sailing efficiency and ship design until advent techniques work better through small of steam power (Rosenberg and Birdzell p. adjustments, minor innovations, and adaptation 263), coal required to generate kilowatt-hour of to local circumstances. electricity fell drastically over the decades; semiconductors moved from a single transistor on a chip to more than a million such components (Rosenberg 1994, pp. 14-15), high pressure steam engine design and transmission (Mokyr 2002, p. 84); transition from Bessemer to Siemens Martin steelmaking process (Mokyr 2002, pp. 86-87)

Table 2: Coding Concordance Between ACE and the Technology Adoption Dataset ACE Dataset Technology Dataset for 1000 B.C. & 0 A.D. ( 0 = indicates absence of technology, 1 = presence of technology) Communication 0,1 0,1 Industry 0,1 0,1 Transportation 0,1 0,1 Agriculture 2 Military Bronze weapons: 0,1 Iron weapons: 0,1
Writing & Records 1 = None 2 = Mnemonic or nonwritten records 3 = True Writing Technological Specialization 1 = None 2 = Pottery 3 = Metalwork (alloys, forging, casting) Land Transport 1 = Human Only 2 = Pack or draft animals 3 = Vehicles Agriculture 1 = None 2 = 10% or more, but secondary 3 = Primary Military 1 = Stone Tools 2 = Bronze Tools 3 = Iron Tools
Table 3: Variables in the 1500 A.D. dataset Variable Description Military Standing Army Cavalry Firearms Muskets Field Artillery Warfare capable ships Heavy Naval Guns Ships (+180 guns), +1500 ton deadweight An organization of professional soldiers. The use of soldiers mounted on horseback. Gunpowder based weapons The successor to the harquebus (the common firearm of European armies) was larger and a muzzle-loading firearm. Large guns that required a team of soldiers to operate. It had a larger caliber and greater range than small arms weapons. Ships that were used in battle are considered "warfare" capable. Ships required significant advances in hull technology before they were capable of carrying heavy guns. Large warships that only state navies had the capability of building. Agriculture Hunting & Gathering Pastoralism Hand Cultivation Plough Cultivation The primary form of subsistence. The primary form of subsistence. The primary form of subsistence. The primary form of subsistence. Transportation Ships Capable of Crossing the Atlantic Ocean Ships Capable of Crossing the Pacific Ocean Ships Capable of Reaching the Indian Ocean Wheel Magnetic Compass Horse powered vehicles Any ship that had successfully crossed the Atlantic Ocean. Any ship that had successfully crossed the Pacific Ocean. Any ship that had reached the Indian Ocean from either Europe or the Far East. The use of the wheel for transportation purposes. The most common use was for carts. The use of the compass for navigation. The use of horses for transportation. Communications Movable Block Printing Woodblock or block printing Books Paper The use of movable block printing. The use of woodblock printing. The use of books. The use of paper. Industry Steel Iron The presence of steel in a civilization. The presence of iron in a civilization. 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 Values
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of Overall Technology Adoption Period 1000BC 0 1500AD Current Number Obs. Average 0.45 0.73 0.48 0.45 Std. Dev. 0.28 0.28 0.32 0.2 Min 0 0.15 Max 1 1

Note: Overall technology adoption measure in a country results from ave adoption across tecnologies in the sector and then averaging sectoral adoption measures across the sectors.
Table 5: Descriptive statistics of Overall Technology Adoption by Continent Period 1000BC Europe Africa Asia America Oceania 0AD Europe Africa Asia America Oceania 1500AD Europe Africa Asia America Oceania Current Europe Africa Asia America Oceania 3 0.63 0.31 0.41 0.47 0.73 0.19 0.08 0.15 0.17 0.32 0.27 0.13 0.23 0.34 0.36 0.87 0.54 0.0.0.86 0.32 0.66 0.14 0.12 0.07 0.2 0.19 0.07 0.04 0.69 0.1 0.0.78 0.88 0.26 0.0.88 0.77 0.88 0.33 0.17 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.17 0.11 0.7 0.6 0.0.0.6 0.0.66 0.36 0.58 0.24 0.2 0.16 0.31 0.25 0.12 0.14 0.0.0.0.4 0.3 Continent Number Obs. Average Std. Dev. Min Max
Table 7: Average Overall Technology Adoption in Advanced Civilizations
Civilization 1000BC 0.65 0.9 0.67 0.0.7 0.43 0.9 0.7 0.0.88 0.33 0.96 0.94 0.AD 1500 AD Current

W. Europe

Indian
Note: W. Europe includes Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium and Netherlands. Indian Empire includes India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Arab Empire includes Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Oman, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco
Table 7: Cross-country variation in overall technology vs. sectoral technology Std Std. of deviations from overall tech. Agriculture 0.35 0.25 0.2 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.2 0.2 0.12 0.26 0.24 0.18 0.26 0.32 0.18 0.16 0.22 0.23 Industry Military Transport. Comm. Overall 0.28 0.28 0.32 0.2

Period

1000BC

1500AD

Current
Note: Std. Overall is the cross-country standard deviation in overall level of technology adoption. Std of deviations from overall tech. is the cross-country standard deviation in technology adoption level in the sector after removing for each country the overall technology adoption level
Table 8: Urbanization rate and technology adoption history
Dependent Variable: Urbanization rate in 2.08 (10.48) 1.69 (6.99) 8.04 (2.57) 0.39 (1.25) 113 0.0.0.0.48 0.16 (0.84) 126 0.59 1.68 (7.39) 1.96 (15.21)

1000 B.C.