English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

It has long been realised that factor accumulation and technologicaldevelopment are only proximate causes of economic development, and focushas now shifted to investigating the ‘deeper determinants’ of economic growth.Two such forces are highlighted in literature: institutions and geography.However, it remains controversial as to which of these two is the moreimportant. The “Institutions school” assigns primal importance to institutions,whereas the “Geography school” considers geographical factors as the primarydeterminant of economic performance of countries. This paper reviews thedebate surrounding these “deeper determinants” of economic performance. Itreviews the work of these two schools of thought and their interpretation of thelong-run development. The paper then examines the evidence provided by therespective schools in favour of their hypotheses. It concludes in favour of theInstitutions hypothesis as the Geography school does not provide a consistentstory of long-run development.

Myths and Realities of Long-run Development: A Look at Deeper Determinants