This is a statistical study of the regression between the number of slaves removed from a given country and the subsequent economic growth.
NB: no need to edit the capitalisation of the title, as the english way is to keep capitalised words.
13 Comments
Tell a friend
Bury
NB: no need to edit the capitalisation of the title, as the english way is to keep capitalised words.
13 Comments
Tell a friend
Bury
Like-minded friends share share and discuss their best current news and analysis links here...
Pour Paris, voir
On first try, I scored 14036 at level 9... Perfect while the pasta is...Just finding that it was featured on LWN in November 2009 at En passant, les mémoires, thèses et notes d'alerte de I'm only now discovering that this was on /. a few hours earlier......Il sera en place sur Kivu dès la disponibilité du paquet Debian....And with a thousand views, this is the most read story on this site in...Posted by @skasriel and @inliner...A mon avis, le meilleur choix c'est n'importe quoi qui illustre que la...Pour moi ce fut Logo puis Basic. Mais quand on voit le résultat on se...Human Rights Watch affirms that Guinea forces planned crackdown was...Le plus drôle c'est que cet article fait partie de la revue de presse du...
We are the Grabeuh team and its friends :
Comments
Last saturday I read an article by the same author summarizing his findings : http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/779
I find the correlation quite weak, especially in comparison to such important factors as deaths and other burdens caused by the direct and indirect effects of war - to which slavery is partly linked. It also only casually addresses correlations with climate and maturity of social organization and does not weight data points by country population or land area. I am somewhat personally biased against the fashionable self-flagellation that appears every time slavery is mentioned, but still I think that this study is too narrow to produce solid conclusions.
Last figures I read (trying to remember the source), trans-Atlantic slavery was not first (in quantity).
He does not talk about intra-Africa slavery (which was not neglictable).
He does not talk about north-Africa which did not suffer but, instead, did use slavery.
His point seems to be that internal slavery (such as serfdom which he does not mention) is not as damaging to development as external slavery which deprives an area of a resource. But still, as you say, those internal modes of enslavement should be mentioned.
But he does mention the Indian ocean trade although with a reduced sample compared to the Atlantic one.
He does indeed write about trans-saharan slavery with north africa benefiting from it.
In fact, I did not have the time to read this in details, just browsed through it, but infotain is a good place for me to store "reading-pending" articles ...
Read it. Indeed pretty disappointing !
> infotain is a good place for me to store
> "reading-pending" articles ...
It is supposed to be the place where you put articles you really want to share and that you think are worth your friend's time. So you should only put things you have read and liked.
I really thought I would like it, and that it would interest others.
I was wrong, but I cannot "bury" it.
Vador, arrêtes l'auto-flagellation ! Vue la discussion qu'a suscité l'article ça valait le coup de le poster !
Jim, d'un autre côté c'est toi aussi qui lui tape dessus
"It is supposed to be the place where you put articles you really want to share and that you think are worth your friend's time. So you should only put things you have read and liked"