GEOG20110
Political Economy 2: State, Economy and Society
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol
Autumn 2011
Unit Convenor
Dr Malcolm Fairbrother
Lecturer in Global Policy and Politics
http://seis.bris.ac.uk/~ggmhf/
Contact Information
Office: 2.21n
E-mail: m.fairbrother@bristol.ac.uk
Tel: (0117) 92 88303
Lecture Schedule
Mondays and Wednesdays 10.00-11:00,
Hepple Lecture Theatre (G1s)
Office Hours
Wednesdays 11.00-12.00, or by
appointment
Unit Overview and Goals
“Political economy” is a field of academic research whose members come from a
variety of disciplines: geography, international relations, politics, economics, sociology,
history, legal studies, area studies, anthropology, and perhaps others. Although the precise
definition of the field is not a settled issue, in general political economy is the study of the
economics of politics, and the politics of economics—that is, of the myriad ways that
economics and politics affect each other. In this unit, we will approach political economy
from a specifically spatial and historical perspective: we will investigate how, why, when, and
with what consequences different places in the world have found themselves in different
economic and political circumstances. In particular, we will examine the three related issues
of (economic) development, (political) democracy, and (social) in/equality.
The primary goals of the unit are:
1. to introduce you to the definition, measurement, importance, and spatial and
historical variability of development, democracy, and in/equality;
2. to familiarise you with key determinants and consequences of differences in
development, democracy, and in/equality across space and time—that is, key
causes and effects of development (versus underdevelopment), democracy
(versus authoritarianism), and equality (versus inequality);
3. to expose you to political economy as a field of scholarly research;
4. to demonstrate to you methods by which scholars try to build explanations of
cross-nationally and temporally variable macro-social phenomena;
5. to deepen your understanding and knowledge of some of the biggest political,
economic, and social challenges confronting the world;
6. and for you to learn about the economic, political, and social conditions of a wide
range of countries, including some very different from the UK.
You will pursue these aims, in large part, by writing a research paper on the
development, democracy, and equality of a country of your choice—with the only restrictions
that no two of you will be allowed to choose the same country, and it must not be a highincome, long-standing democracy.1 The remainder of the unit—the lectures, readings,
assignments—will give you the tools needed to write the paper, and will explore the unit’s
three core topics in a variety of ways and contexts and at a variety of spatial scales.
Assessments
There are three compulsory assignments for the unit:
(1) Midterm Assignment (worth 10%; 600-800 words; due November 10th)
In the Week 2 you and your colleagues will get to choose “your” countries, in randomly
selected order. The prohibited countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
1
2
Suppose one day you acquired the supernatural power to take a poor, undemocratic,
unequal country, and instantaneously make it wealthy (with a high GDP/capita), democratic,
or very equal (with a low Gini coefficient). You can only choose one of these three potential
transformations, and you have benevolent goals (i.e., you want the best for the people of this
country). Which of the three transformations would you choose, and why? Address how the
transformation you impose in one area may have ramifications for the others. You may
briefly refer to the specific circumstances of a real country, if you wish, or you may choose
not to. You are not expected to do any outside reading for this assignment, but you should
make explicit reference to the readings described in the unit syllabus. Your aim should be to
demonstrate your understanding of the arguments we have been considering about the
relationships among development, democracy, and equality. This assignment’s primary
purpose is to assess how well you have grasped these arguments, and to give you some
feedback about your work, so you understand better what is expected from your research
paper.
(2) Research Paper (worth 40%; 3,250 words; due January 19th)
In Week 2, you will select a country about which to write. Your paper should (i) describe,
clearly and comprehensively, the current state of your country’s development, democracy,
and in/equality, and should (ii) provide an overview of the key economic, political, and social
conditions and transformations over time that have led it to become how it is today. You
should then (iii) seek to explain this history, and (iv) make an argument about how the case
of your country validates or contradicts (i.e., is consistent or inconsistent with) one or more
important theories we will cover in the readings and lectures. For a good example of this
kind of essay, see pp. 685-690 from Acemoglu and Robinson (2006); try to do something
similar. I will assess your paper according to how well it fulfils these four tasks, plus (v) its
overall clarity, structure, and presentation, and (vi) the appropriateness of the sources
(books, articles, etc.) you use/cite as the basis for the historical account you provide. The
essay should not dwell on current affairs in your country, but attempt to explain how its
affairs have come to be the way they currently are.
You should aim to test one or more theories with your country case. If the historical
record proves consistent with what a given theory predicts for a country like yours, then that
theory helps explain the case, and the case validates the theory. If the record is inconsistent,
you will need to develop some other explanation of the case, and you may argue that the
case is evidence against the theory—or perhaps that the theory needs to be qualified in
some way. Note, however, that testing a theory with a case used originally to develop the
theory is circular, and therefore not useful—unless you can demonstrate that the theorist
somehow misunderstood the case. If you can identify theories which make contradictory
predictions about your country, then, logically, the historical record should refute one or the
other.
(3) Final Unseen Examination (worth 50%; January date TBA)
You will have 90 minutes in which to answer two of four possible essay questions. The
questions will cover the entire unit, but give slight emphasis to content from the second half
of the unit. You will be able to answer them effectively using only what you learn from the
required readings, the lectures, and your country-specific essay. Note that the exam will be
in January; your exam and unit marks will be reported back to you in June.
Schedule of Topics and Required Readings2
Week 1: Overview of the Unit: Comparing States, Economies, and Societies
* film excerpt: “Zulu”
Required:
 Diamond 1997 (Chapters 3 and 4)
2
I recommend you try to do the required readings before the associated lecture.
3
 Mellinger et al. 2000
Recommended
 Nordhaus 2006
We will start with an overview of the unit, and by talking about the assignments. We will then
begin our investigation of political economy with a discussion of the key questions and
themes of the unit, and a brief review of the circumstances of humanity from prehistory to
the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (ca. 1800, also roughly the dawn of capitalism). This
review will emphasise 1500 as an important turning point (with the ascendancy of Europe),
and address natural geography as a basic conditioning influence on human history. Next, we
will consider what has happened since 1800. Some countries have grown fantastically
wealthy, while the wealth of others has hardly changed. In some countries, governments
have been made accountable to the populations they govern, via the mechanism of free and
fair elections; in others, autocrats and authoritarian regimes of various kinds rule with
impunity. In some societies, wealth and freedoms are distributed relatively evenly across the
population, while in others, a small minority possess almost everything. This week will
provide an overview of these historical trends and international differences, setting the stage
for more detailed accounts in the weeks to come.
Week 2: Economies, Development, and Underdevelopment
* selection of countries for student research papers (Wednesday)
Required:
 Romer 2007
 Acemoglu and Robinson 2006 (* model for research paper)
 Sokoloff and Engerman 2000
 Sen 2001
Recommended:
 Diener and Seligman 2004
 Houle 2009
 Iliffe 2007 (Chapter 7)
 Lange et al. 2006
 Nunn 2010
This week, we focus on economic development—the process and outcome of economic
growth. We start from the observation that, by world historical standards, most residents of
countries like the United Kingdom currently enjoy phenomenal levels of material comfort. But
such comfort is a recent phenomenon, and the vast majority of the world’s people possess
far less. Why then have some countries witnessed such dramatic economic development,
while others have stagnated? The answer, in a sentence, is that some countries have
established the right kinds of institutions—political and economic rules and procedures—and
others never have. As a consequence, for the most part, countries that were wealthy in 1800
(by the standards of the time) remain wealthy today (by our standards). In some instances,
peoples have had institutions foisted upon them rather than built their own, such as African
societies under European colonial rule. To address scepticism about the benefits of rising
economic output, we will consider arguments about the relationship between development
and human well-being, and empirical evidence about the question of whether money makes
people happy.
Week 3: States, Democracy, and Authoritarianism
* film: “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”
Required:
 Corrales 2006
 O’Loughlin 2004
 Markoff 1996 (Chapter 3)
 Przeworski and Limongi 1997
 Haber 2006
4
 Lindblom 1982
Recommended:
 Freedom House 2005, website (www.freedomhouse.org)
 Huntington 1991-92
 Markoff 1999
 Markoff 2005
 Przeworski et al. 2000 (especially Chapter 1)
This week we examine the phenomenon of states (roughly meaning “governments”). States
emerged historically, above all, as means for rulers to make war and collect taxes: rulers
consolidated their control of territory, and built armies and bureaucracies to control and
defend those territories. Colonists established states and quasi-states to produce and
extract wealth from their colonies. Over time, more and more people began questioning the
legitimacy of unaccountable rulers, and demanding civil, political, and eventually social
rights. The result—in some but by no means all countries—has been the gradual, hardfought extension of the right to vote to more and more people, as well as other legal rights
and freedoms. Although far from perfect, such rules give ordinary people more control over
their lives. Some countries, on the other hand, are still far from democratic today, and many
more are only partly democratic: elections may be held, for example, but the rules or
government-controlled news media give some candidates clear advantages vis-à-vis others.
Even in countries widely regarded as fully democratic, difficult questions can be asked about
how well actual democratic practice approximates principled democratic ideals.
Week 4: Societies, Equality, and Inequalities
* film excerpt: “Cry Freedom”
Required:
 Firebaugh 2003 (Chapter 1)
 Glaeser 2006
 Htun and Weldon 2010
 Willetts 2010 (Chapter 4)
Recommended:
 Brady et al. 2009
 Chakravorty 2006 (Chapter 2, except appendix)
 Gilbert 2007
 Korpi 2000
 World Bank 2001
This week we turn to the issue of (in)equality. Because of different rates of national
economic growth over the last couple of centuries, much of total global inequality is between
rather than within nations. But within countries there are still massive inequalities in the
ownership of wealth, the earning of income, the enjoyment of health and longevity, access to
education, etc. And countries differ substantially in these levels of internal social inequality.
In some national contexts, various “goods” are distributed relatively evenly, while in others
their distribution is extremely skewed towards a privileged minority. Frequently, the members
of these minorities share distinct social characteristics—above all, they are often older men
from the dominant ethnic group. How and why, then, do countries vary in their degree of
equality? We will begin to consider the role of the welfare state, and market regulations, in
determining the level of inequality in society, a theme we will revisit next week.
Week 5: Marxism, Communism, and Regulated Capitalism
* film excerpt: “The Lives of Others”
Required:
 Marx and Engels 1848
 Marx 1859
 Briggs 2006
 Esping-Andersen 1990 (Chapter 1)
5
Recommended:
 Kornai 1992
 Koven and Michel 1990
 Silver 2004
 Usui 1994
Last week we discussed the welfare state as a key influence on the level of inequality in a
given country. The welfare state is the product of a dramatic transformation between about
the late 19th and mid-20th centuries. On top of their long-standing military and legal roles,
states began to take far greater responsibility for societal well-being—providing old age
pensions, free health care, education, unemployment insurance, subsidised housing, etc.
This week we will extend our examination of welfare states, by considering their historical
emergence, and arguments about why they have taken different forms in different national
contexts. One important influence on the formation of the welfare state was Marxism, a body
of thought which emerged out of 19th century capitalism. We will unpack the content of
Marxist theory, and link that theory to the emergence and growth of the labour and socialist
movements that helped generate many of the social welfare schemes that still exist today.
We will also consider Marxism’s other—more infamous—legacy: authoritarian communism.
How was it that many countries’ political economic systems were radically transformed by
communist revolutions, with direct authority over the economy handed over to state
bureaucracies? And with what consequences?
Week 6: The Political Economy of Development in the 20th Century
* film excerpt: “Gandhi”
Required:
 Ferguson 2009
 Chang 2007 (Chapter 1, pp. 1-12)
 Frieden 2006 (Chapters 13 and 18)
 Lange 2004
 Evans 1989
Recommended:
 Neumayer 2003
 Rudra 2007
While acknowledging that developing countries have followed a wide range of trajectories,
this week will discuss some of the general patterns in their political economic trajectories in
the 20th century. First, after peaking in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth,
colonialism came to an end after World War II—and scores of new developing nations came
into being. Second, although few countries that were economic laggards by 1800 have now
caught up to the early industrialisers, there have been notable exceptions, particularly
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the city-states of Singapore and Hong Kong. Several other
Asian countries have also grown fast in recent decades (most notably China and India).
Today we consider the strategies these states employed, along with ultimately less
successful efforts by other developing countries, such as in Latin America. What was the
recipe followed by the Asian success stories, and what lessons can be derived for other
countries?
Week 7: Globalisation, Neoliberalism, and International Institutions
* film excerpt: “Precious”
Required:
 Fourcade-Gourinchas and Babb 2002
 Harvey 2005 (Chapter 4)
 Brune and Garrett 2005
Recommended:
 Williamson 1993
 Coe, Dicken, and Hess 2008
6
 Prasad 2005
 Rudra 2002
This week concentrates on two major political economic transformations since about the
1980s: the dramatic acceleration of globalisation (in the sense of the increasing integration
of national economies) and the diffusion of neoliberal (roughly meaning “free-market”)
economic policies. Both transformations have been contentious, with heated debates about
their benefits and costs. This week we consider the arguments typically presented for and
against these transformations, many of which imply (positive or negative) consequences for
development, democracy, and/or inequality. We will also review political analyses of how
advocates have succeeded in imposing these changes, including claims about influence of
democracy versus authoritarianism. And we will examine some of the evidence about what
the costs and benefits have actually turned out to be.
Week 8: Governance, Conflict, and Human Rights
* film excerpt: “Hotel Rwanda”
Required:
 Birdsall et al. 2005
 Goldstein 2011
 Fearon 2010
 Wotipka and Tsutsui 2008
Recommended:
 Buhaug and Rød 2006
 Montalvo and Reynal-Querol 2005
This week we revisit the issues of institutions and the state, and consider the prospects for
the world’s most marginalised peoples. On the plus side, in recent decades, international
normative influences have led many states to provide services and protections to their
citizens, even at low levels of development and democracy. And the economies of many
poor countries are growing, with encouraging implications for the incomes of people in these
countries. But some countries are not growing, and in many of these countries a key
restraint on growth is violent conflict. We therefore consider the distribution and
determinants of such conflicts, and reflect on the question of what the rest of the world can
do—and what it is doing, for better or for worse—to support the world’s most deprived
peoples. This week’s lecture and readings will show how the “theoretical” debates we have
been studying in this unit can have very practical consequences for the real world.
Week 9: The Political Economy of Environmental Degradation
* small group discussions of research projects
Required
 Lambin et al. 2001
 Bättig and Bernauer 2009
 Rudel et al. 2011
 Torras and Boyce 1998
Recommended:
 Boyce 2007
 Diamond 2010
 Neumayer 2002
 Ward 2008
We began the unit talking about how natural geography and the environment have affected
differences in human life around the globe. In these last two weeks, we investigate the
opposite relationship: the impacts of human life—and development, democracy, and
inequality specifically—on the natural environment. More generally, we consider the
contemporary drivers of environmental degradation, judging by both statistical and casebased evidence. What are the characteristics of countries and communities that tend to do
more or less damage to the environment, and through what channels does this damage
7
occur? We start from the premise that, because degradation occurs as a side-effect of
activities that people want to undertake for other reasons, protecting the environment often
entails costs: activities and goods foregone. The unequal distribution of the costs of
environmental degradation (or of protection)—to say nothing of differences in people’s
values and beliefs—means that environmental protection is typically contentious and
political. The distribution of decision-making power can therefore affect what protections are
undertaken, just as we saw earlier that it can have big consequences for development.
Week 10: Policies, Politics, and Economics of Environmental Protection
* unit evaluations
Required:
 Krugman 2010
 McCormick 2002
 Ostrom 1990 (Chapter 1)
 United Nations Development Programme 2007 (Chapter 3)
Recommended:
 Emerson et al. 2010 (Chapter 3)
 Keohane et al. 1993
 Stern 2008
Having considered environmental degradation in general terms last week, we now examine
environmental policies in finer detail. What measures can be taken to mitigate environmental
degradation? What do we know about the advantages and disadvantages of different
measures, including their ability to get the most environmental protection for the least cost?
And which countries have adopted the most effective measures? We consider in particular
the possible roles of privatisation, state regulation, and self-governance in protecting natural
resources, and the use of taxes, regulations, legal liability, and other instruments in
mitigating pollution. We also confront the challenges of implementing, enforcing, and
assessing environmental policies, and the barriers to international environmental
cooperation. Finally, we conclude with a very brief review of the entire unit.
Reading References (note the hyper-links)
Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. 2006. “Paths of Economic and Political
Development.” Pp. 673-692 in Barry R. Weingast and Donald A. Wittman (eds.) The
Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bättig, Michèle B., and Thomas Bernauer. 2009. “National Institutions and Global Public
Goods: Are Democracies More Cooperative in Climate Change Policy?” International
Organization 63: 281-308.
Birdsall, Nancy, Dani Rodrik, and Arvind Subramanian. 2005. “How to Help Poor Countries.”
Foreign Affairs 84[4]: 136-152.
Boyce, James K. 2007. “Inequality and Environmental Protection.” Pp. 314-348 in JeanMarie Baland, Pranab Bardhan, and Samuel Bowles (eds.) Inequality, Cooperation,
and Environmental Sustainability. New York: Russell Sage.
Brady, David, Andrew S. Fullerton, and Jennifer Moren Cross. 2009. “Putting Poverty in
Political Context: A Multi-Level Analysis of Adult Poverty across 18 Affluent
Democracies.” Social Forces 88[1]: 271-299.
Briggs, Asa. 2006. “The Welfare State in Historical Perspective.” Pp. 18-29 in Christopher
Pierson and Francis G. Castles (eds.) The Welfare State Reader. 2nd edition.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brune, Nancy, and Geoffrey Garrett. 2005. “The Globalization Rorschach Test: International
Economic Integration, Inequality, and the Role of Government.” Annual Review of
Political Science 8: 399-423.
Buhaug, Halvard, and Jan Ketil Rød. 2006. “Local Determinants of African Civil Wars, 19702001.” Political Geography 25: 315-35.
8
Chakravorty, Sanjoy. 2006. Fragments of Inequality: Social, Spatial, and Evolutionary
Analyses of Income Distribution. New York: Routledge.
Chang, Ha-Joon. 2007. Bad Samaritans: The Guilty Secrets of Rich Nations and the Threat
to Global Prosperity. London: Random House Business Books.
Coe, Neil M., Peter Dicken, and Martin Hess. 2008. “Global Production Networks: Realizing
the Potential.” Journal of Economic Geography 8: 271-95.
Corrales, Javier. 2006. “Hugo Boss.” Foreign Policy: 32-40. January/February.
Diamond, Jared. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York:
Norton.
Diamond, Jared. 2010. “Intra-Island and Inter-Island Comparisons.” Pp. 120-141 in Jared
Diamond and James A. Robinson (eds.) Natural Experiments of History. Cambridge:
Belknap.
Diener, Ed, and Martin E.P. Seligman. 2004. “Beyond Money: Toward an Economy of WellBeing.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5[1]: 1-31.
Emerson, Jay, Daniel C. Esty, Marc A. Levy, Christine H. Kim, Valentina Mara, Alex de
Sherbinin, and Tanja Srebotnjak. 2010. 2010 Environmental Performance Index.
New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Evans, Peter. 1989. “Predatory, Developmental, and Other Apparatuses: A Comparative
Political Economy Perspective on the Third World State.” Sociological Forum 4[4]:
561-87.
Fearon, James D. 2010. “Governance and Civil War Onset.” World Development Report
2011 Background Paper.
Ferguson, Niall. 2009. “A World on the Brink of Violence.” The Guardian. 5 September.
Firebaugh, Glenn. 2003. The New Geography of Global Income Inequality. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
Fourcade-Gourinchas, Marion, and Sarah Babb. 2002. “The Rebirth of the Liberal Creed:
Paths to Neoliberalism in Four Countries.” American Journal of Sociology 108[3]:
533-79.
Freedom House. 2005. How Freedom is Won: From Civic Resistance to Durable
Democracy. New York: Freedom House.
Frieden, Jeffry A. 2006. Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century. New
York: Norton.
Gilbert, Alan. 2007. “Inequality and Why It Matters.” Geography Compass 1[3]: 422-447.
Glaeser, Edward L. 2006. “Inequality.” Pp. 624-641 in Barry R. Weingast and Donald A.
Wittman (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Goldstein, Joshua S. 2011. “Think Again: War.” Foreign Policy. September/October.
Haber, Stephen. 2006. “Authoritarian Government.” Pp. 693-707 in Barry R. Weingast and
Donald A. Wittman (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Houle, Christian. 2009. “Inequality and Democracy: Why Inequality Harms Consolidation but
Does Not Affect Democratization.” World Politics 61[4]: 589-622.
Htun, Mala, and S. Laurel Weldon. 2010. “When and Why do Governments Promote Sex
Equality? Violence Against Women, Reproductive Rights, and Parental Leave in
Cross-National Perspective.” Unpublished manuscript.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1991-92. "How Countries Democratize." Political Science Quarterly
106[4]: 579-616.
Iliffe, John. 2007. Africans: The History of a Continent. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
9
Keohane, Robert O., Peter M. Haas, and Marc A. Levy. 1993. “The Effectiveness of
International Environmental Institutions.” Pp. 3-24 in Peter M. Haas, Robert O.
Keohane., and Marc A. Levy (eds.) Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective
International Environmental Protection. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kornai, János. 1992. The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Korpi, Walter. 2000. “Faces of Inequality: Gender, Class, and Patterns of Inequalities in
Different Types of Welfare States.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender,
State & Society 7[2]: 127-191.
Koven, Seth, and Sonya Michel. 1990. “Womanly Duties: Maternalist Politics and the Origins
of Welfare States in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States, 18801920.” American Historical Review 95[4]: 1076-1108.
Krugman, Paul. 2010. “Building a Green Economy.” The New York Times. April 7.
Lambin, Eric F., et al. 2001. “The Causes of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Moving
Beyond the Myths.” Global Environmental Change 11: 261-269.
Lange, Matthew K. 2004. “British Colonial Legacies and Political Development.” World
Development 32[6]: 905-22.
Lange, Matthew, James Mahoney, and Matthias vom Hau. 2006. “Colonialism and
Development: A Comparative Analysis of Spanish and British Colonies.” American
Journal of Sociology 111[5]: 1412-62.
Lindblom, Charles E. 1982. “The Market as Prison.” The Journal of Politics 44[2]: 324-36.
Markoff, John. 1996. Waves of Democracy: Social Movements and Political Change.
Thousand Oaks, CA.: Pine Forge.
Markoff, John. 1999. “Globalization and the Future of Democracy.” Journal of WorldSystems Research 5[2]: 277-309.
Markoff, John. 2005. “Transitions to Democracy.” Pp. 384-403 in Thomas Janoski, Robert R.
Alford, Alexander M. Hicks, and Mildred A. Schwartz (eds.) The Handbook of Political
Sociology: States, Civil Societies, and Globalization. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1848. Manifesto of the Communist Party. London.
Marx, Karl. 1859 (1977). “Preface” in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.
Moscow: Progress Publishers.
McCormick, John. 2002. “Environmental Policy in Britain.” Pp. 121-147 in Uday Desai (ed.)
Environmental Politics and Policy in Industrialized Countries. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mellinger, Andrew D., Jeffrey D. Sachs, and John L. Gallup. 2000. “Climate, Coastal
Proximity, and Development.” Pp. 169-194 in Gordon L. Clark, Maryann P. Feldman,
and Meric S. Gertler (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Montalvo, Jose G., and Marta Reynal-Querol. 2005. “Ethnic Diversity and Economic
Development.” Journal of Development Economics 76: 293-323.
Neumayer, Eric. 2002. “Do Democracies Exhibit Stronger International Environmental
Commitment? A Cross-Country Analysis.” Journal of Peace Research 39[2]: 139164.
Neumayer, Eric. 2003. “Beyond Income: Convergence in Living Standards, Big Time.”
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 14: 275-296.
Nordhaus, William D. 2006. “Geography and Macroeconomics: New Data and New
Findings.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103[10]: 3510-3517.
Nunn, Nathan. 2010. “Shackled to the Past: The Causes and Consequences of Africa’s
Slave Trades.” Pp. 142-184 in Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson (eds.) Natural
Experiments of History. Cambridge: Belknap.
O’Loughlin, John. 2004. “Global Democratization: Measuring and Explaining the Diffusion of
Democracy.” Pp. 23-44 in Clive Barnett and Murray Low (eds.) Spaces of
Democracy: Geographical Perspectives on Citizenship, Participation and
Representation. London: Sage.
10
OECD. 2011. “Growing Income Inequality in OECD Countries: What Drives It and How Can
Policy Tackle It?” OECD Forum on Tackling Inequality, Paris, 2 May.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prasad, Monica. 2005. “Why Is France so French? Culture, Institutions, and Neoliberalism,
1974-1981.” American Journal of Sociology 111[2]: 357-407.
Przeworski, Adam, and Fernando Limongi. 1997. “Modernization: Theories and Facts.”
World Politics 49: 253-273.
Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 2000.
Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World,
1950-1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Romer, Paul M. 2007. “Economic Growth.” In David R. Henderson (ed.) The Concise
Encyclopedia of Economics. Liberty Fund.
Rudel, Thomas K., Roberts, J. Timmons, and JoAnn Carmin. 2011. “Political Economy of the
Environment.” Annual Review of Sociology 37: 221-38.
Rudra, Nita. 2002. “Globalization and the Decline of the Welfare State in Less-Developed
Countries.” International Organization 56[2]: 411-445.
Rudra, Nita. 2007. “Welfare States in Developing Countries: Unique or Universal?” Journal
of Politics 69[2]: 378-396.
Sen, Amartya K. 2001. “What Is Development About?” Pp. 506-513 in Gerald M. Meier and
Joseph E. Stiglitz (eds.) Frontiers of Development Economics: The Future in
Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Silver, Beverly J. 2004. “Labour, War and World Politics: Contemporary Dynamics in WorldHistorical Perspective.” Pp. 19-38 in Berthold Unfried, Marcel van der Linden, and
Christine Schindler (eds.) Labour and New Social Movements in a Globalising World
System. Leipzig: ITH and Akademische Verlagsanstalt.
Sokoloff, Kenneth L., and Stanley L. Engerman. 2000. “History Lessons: Institutions, Factor
Endowments, and Paths of Development in the New World.” The Journal of
Economic Perspectives 14[3]: 217-232.
Stern, Nicholas. 2008. “The Economics of Climate Change.” American Economic Review:
Papers & Proceedings 98[2]: 1-37.
Torras, Mariano, and James K. Boyce. 1998. “Income, Inequality, and Pollution: A
Reassessment of the Environmental Kuznets Curve.” Ecological Economics 25: 147160.
United Nations Development Programme. 2007. Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity
in a Divided World. Human Development Report 2007/2008. New York: UNDP.
Usui, Chikako. 1994. “Welfare State Development in a World System Context: Event History
Analysis of First Social Insurance Legislation Among 60 Countries, 1880-1960.” Pp.
254-277 in Thomas Janoski and Alexander M. Hicks (eds.) The Comparative Political
Economy of the Welfare State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ward, Hugh. 2008. “Liberal Democracy and Sustainability.” Environmental Politics 17[3]:
386-409.
Willetts, David. 2010. The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future—And
Why They Should Give it Back. London: Atlantic.
Williamson, John. 1993. “Democracy and the ‘Washington Consensus’.” World Development
21[8]: 1329-36.
World Bank. 2001. Engendering Development: Through Gender Equality in Rights,
Resources, and Voice. New York: Oxford University Press and the World Bank.
Wotipka, Christine Min, and Kiyoteru Tsutsui. 2008. “Global Human Rights and State
Sovereignty: State Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties, 1965-2001.”
Sociological Forum 23[4]: 724-754.