EH.Net Mailing List Archive: EH.Teach

Let me extend my thanks for suggestions posted on EH.Teach and for a  
number of off-list suggestions. 
 
 
Special thanks to Brian A'Hearn for reminding me about Eric Jones's  
chapter in The European Miracle.  Jones argues that Asia is much more  
disaster prone than Europe and that this played an important role in  
Asians' strategy of "maximizing family size."  Europe's smaller family  
sizes "subtly improved the quality of human capital" and help explain  
why it was the first to achieve modern economic growth. 
 
Frederic Pryor criticized this argument in a September 1985 comment in  
the JEH, which Jones somewhat tartly rebutted.  If anyone has thoughts  
on whose ideas won this debate, please send them. 
 
I also found very useful John Post's 1974 JEH article on the impact of  
the 1815 Tomboro volcano.  He makes a strong case that this volcano,  
which caused an unusually cold summer, led to soaring food prices and a  
widespread economic crisis, with economic reverberations lasting for years. 
 
Finally, I found a more recent article, "Do Natural Disasters Promote  
Long-Run Growth?" by Mark Skidmore and Hideki Toya.  Long-run here  
equals 1960-1990.  Surprisingly, the authors find that during this  
period climatic disasters (hurricanes etc.) are (ceteris paribus)  
associated with more RAPID economic growth, while geological disasters  
(earthquakes etc.) are insignificantly negatively related to economic  
growth rates.  I approached the article with some skepticism but was  
impressed by the robustness of the findings.  The authors find evidence  
that suggests the positive link may work via increasing the relative  
return to human capital, which they suggest has more positive  
externalities than investments in physical capital.  In essence,  
Skidmore and Toya turn Jones's argument on its head. 
 
 
Following Robert Wright's suggestion, I've made an assignment which will  
require students to do some digging and write a short paper on the  
historical economic impact of natural disasters.  Tentatively, the  
assignment goes like this -- please offer suggestions for improvements. 
 
"Nobel-winning economist Gary Becker wrote in the Wall Street Journal  
(January 4, 2005): "John Stuart Mill ... optimistically, but I believe  
accurately, remarked on the 'great rapidity with which countries recover  
from a state of devastation, the disappearance in a short time of all  
traces of mischief done by earthquakes, floods, hurricanes ...."  The  
history of both natural and man-made disasters during the subsequent  
century-and-a-half generally support Mill." 
a) Do you agree with Becker/Mill's point?  What evidence supports it?  
Does any evidence refute it? 
b) What historical natural disaster has been the most economically  
important?  What impacts did it have on the economy?  Explain. 
Length = about two pages" 
 
I've purposely left the assignment fairly open-ended and will tell the  
students that I'm not looking for a particular answer to either part,  
but want them to use their skills as economists and historians. 
 
Thanks again, 
 
Robert 
 
--  
Robert Whaples 
Department of Economics 
Wake Forest University 
Winston-Salem, NC   27109-7505 
336-758-4916