Workshop in Warsaw

On May 12-18, 2019 in Warsaw, Poland, the Ronald Coase Institute held a workshop on institutional analysis. The Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw; the Rector of the University of Warsaw; and the University of Warsaw Foundation were co-sponsors.

Workshop faculty included Robert Aliber (University of Chicago), Ido Baum (Haim Striks School of Law), Alexandra Benham (Ronald Coase Institute), Lee Benham (Ronald Coase Institute), Lukasz Hardt (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw), P.J. Hill (Wheaton College), Philip Keefer (Inter-American Development Bank), Katrina Kosec (International Food Policy Research Institute), John Nye (George Mason University), Dominic Parker (University of Wisconsin – Madison), Maroš Servátka (Macquarie Graduate School of Management), Mary Shirley (Ronald Coase Institute), Agnieska Slomka-Golebiowska (Warsaw School of Economics), and Chenggang Xu (Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business).

2019 Panel at SIOE Conference

ALUMNI PRESENT PANEL AT CONFERENCE OF
SOCIETY FOR INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMICS
June 28, 2019
Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

Workshop alumni Alessandro Belmonte, Wentian Diao, Egor Lazarev, and Maiting Zhuang presented papers at a session on facets of autocracy at the 2019 SIOE conference. Mary Shirley was the organizer and chair, and Konstantin Sonin was the commentator.

ABSTRACTS BY THE PANEL

The Political Economy of Collective Memories:
Evidence from Russian Politics
Alessandro Belmonte
IMT Lucca & University of Warwick
Michael Rochlitz, University of Bremen

How do political elites reactivate salient collective memories to entrench their power? We study this question using data from the Russian Federation under Putin. We document a substantial recollection campaign of the traumatic transition the Russian population experienced during the 1990s, starting with the year 2003. We combine this time discontinuity in the recollection of negative collective memories with regional-level information about traumatic experiences of the 1990s. Our results show that Russians vote more for the government, and less for the liberal political opposition, in regions that suffered more during the transition period, once memories from the period are recalled on state-controlled media. We then provide additional evidence on the mechanism and find, using a text analysis of 3,832 local newspapers, that recollection of the chaos of the 1990s in local newspapers is associated with higher electoral support for the government.

Do “Stationary Bandits” Promote Economic Growth?
Evidence from Warlords in Early Twentieth Century China
Wentian Diao
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Do warlords, as substitutes for the state or “stationary bandits” in the sense of Mancur Olson, promote economic growth? This paper provides evidence on the warlords’ significant positive effect on China’s economic growth in the early twentieth century. By treating the sudden death of Yuan Shikai (1859-1916), “the Father of Warlords”, as a quasi-natural experiment, I find that firms in counties occupied by warlords (i.e., with at least one garrison there) grew faster than counties without such warlords during the succeeding Warlord Era (1916-1927). To exclude potential reverse causality I use the distribution of the New Army garrisons, the national military forces in the previous empire, as an instrumental variable. The results of the instrumental variable estimation are consistent with the baseline results. The evidence supports the positive effect of warlords, both directly through investment and indirectly through the provision of public goods, reduction of the tax burden, and maintenance of social stability. These results are consistent with Mancur Olson’s argument that stationary bandit has an encompass interest to provide a peaceful order and other public goods in exchange for taxation. The heterogeneous effects of warlords are also examined. The empirical results suggest that the positive effect of warlords is weakened in those counties that (1) were more easily attacked by others, causing warlords to become short-sighted and less likely to promote growth, as Olson argued, and (2) had abundant mineral resources that could be easily exploited without the need to promote broader development, consistent with the resource curse argument.

Authoritarian Pluralism: Why Does the Chechen Government
Promote Customary Law and Sharia?
Egor Lazarev
University of Toronto

When and why do authoritarian governments in the post-colonial states promote non-state legal orders, such as customary law and Sharia, that seemingly undermine state monopoly on rule-making and enforcement? The conventional wisdom is that non-state legal orders persist in post-colonial settings due to weak state capacity, path dependency, or culture. In contrast, I argue that promotion of non-state legal orders is a rational political strategy pursued by political leaders who aim for 1) gaining additional legitimacy; 2) increasing discretion; 3) coalition-building, and 4) signaling autonomy vis-à-vis the metropole. If the benefits are so appealing, why then do some political leaders pursue this strategy, while others don’t? I assume that the major costs for a ruler are that non-state legal forums might be hijacked by the challengers to their rule and that the metropole might punish the peripheral leaders for undermining the established legal order. Therefore, I argue that the promotion of non-state legal orders depends on the relative strength of the authoritarian ruler vis-à-vis the potential local opposition and the metropole. I develop this argument with an in-depth analysis of Chechnya under Ramzan Kadyrov’s rule (2007-present). I put contemporary Chechnya in historical and comparative perspectives with the de facto independent Chechnya (1991-1999) and the neighboring region of Ingushetia. The analysis highlights the political logic of informal institution-building.

Economic Performance, Land Expropriation
and Bureaucrat Promotion in China
Paul Dutronc-Postel, Paris School of Economics/ENS
Maiting Zhuang
Paris School of Economics/EHESS

We assess the effectiveness of using career incentives to motivate bureaucrat performance. We collect data on the career history of all Chinese Communist Party (CCP) secretaries, who were in power in any of China’s 334 prefectures between 1996 and 2014. We identify the causal effect of career incentives on performance by exploiting variation in the competitiveness of promotions. We find that increased promotion incentives cause bureaucrats to adopt a strategy that relies on real estate investment and rural land expropriation, resulting in faster overall GDP growth; but also suggestive evidence that they lower investment in education and health. We corroborate our findings using survey and remote sensing data, and present evidence that expropriations are positively correlated with adverse individual outcomes, with arrests of local officials, and with the emergence of “ghost cities”.

What happens during the workshop?

Want to know more about what goes on during
the workshops, or wondering whether to apply?
Read this description by a recent workshop graduate.

The RCI workshop is a great place to field ideas and research questions, no matter at what stage your research is in. You learn how to ask the right questions and how to present your research effectively. Your ideas will be tried, in a civilized manner, before a diverse jury of accomplished economists in various fields. Most of the time, after consultation with faculty, you retain your topic, but the thrust evolves in such a manner that institutions are more deeply examined. However, it is not rare for people to be forced to think of an entirely new question in the aftermath of various group discussions. The important thing is that you undergo the process with honesty and an open mind.

One of the things that impressed me was that in this workshop, faculty and your co-participants listen intently and offer sincere suggestions for improvement of your work, rather than politely acknowledge the end of your discussion. Since most of you are from different fields, you will learn a lot just by listening to all the presenters, even if it takes some effort to truly understand their work. Everyone gets a turn at being the main presenter and the discussant. In fact, just conversing with your discussant and the one whose paper you’ll discuss, opens new doors in your mind. You just might find yourself going home with a new research interest.

While listening to the various presenters, you realize that all over the world, people are grappling with the same kinds of research problems that you face. This is both comforting and interesting. In line with making friends with your discussant and the one who will discuss your paper, the RCI is a great place for forming lasting friendships that transcend time zones. You’ll find that there are common interests that bind you with the rest of the participants. You pick up a new word or two in different languages. You may get lost with them in some adventure while exploring the city. These things, you will never forget.

Lastly, going through the workshop triggers an internal transformation. Being immersed in a foreign country with new ideas and new companions enriches your mind. It has spillover effects in life that are very difficult to quantify. You’ll find that it creeps up on you, hazily at first, invading your dreams. Then, it manifests in more concrete ways, changing the way you do simple things like reading the news, or what you think about upon hearing your colleagues talk about a new research proposal, or even the way you teach your students. Lastly, it causes you to critically evaluate your life choices, which is always a good thing.

by Stephanie L. Chan
2009 workshop, Xiamen, China