Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson state that "It is undoubtedly true that colonial relations with the New World and Asia contributed to European growth." They go on to acknowledge that profits from these trades directly could not have accounted for much growth. How, then, can they, or anyone (i.e. the other readings), so confidently assert that the intercontinental trades caused "European growth." Does the answer depend on the definition of growth, or on a more complex model of the relationship of trade to growth?
Recent Comments