IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277219.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The agricultural root of innovation in China

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, J.

Abstract

This paper presents evidence in favor of the hypothesis that agricultural legacy matters for shaping the equilibrium level of current innovations. The rice theory (Talhelm et al., 2014) provided a micro foundation for the proposition that people in rice cultivating areas are more inclined toward holistic thinking while wheat cultivating biases one toward analytical thinking. By taking advantages of homogeneity among Han Chinese, this paper proposes and tests the hypothesis that regions that grow rice (the suitability of land for rice production is used as a proxy) tend to inculcate values which promote weak innovations. Using multilevel (province, prefecture, county, and individual level) data within China, the results lend strong support to the proposed idea. Our findings are robust with alternative measures of rice cultivation, with alternative estimation strategies, and with the inclusion of various geographical, socioeconomic, and potentially confounding correlates. Acknowledgement : The authors thank Tang Zhong, Thomas Talhelm, and Ng Yew-Kwang for helpful discussions and comments, and Liu Meng and Aatishya Mohanty for providing competent research assistance. The usual disclaimers apply.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, J., 2018. "The agricultural root of innovation in China," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277219, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277219/files/1387.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oded Galor & Ömer Özak, 2016. "The Agricultural Origins of Time Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(10), pages 3064-3103, October.
    2. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2017. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," CEP Discussion Papers dp1519, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Alessandra Fogli & Laura Veldkamp, 2012. "Germs, Social Networks and Growth," NBER Working Papers 18470, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Mayshary, Joram & Moav, Omer & Neeman, Zvika & Pascali, Luigi, 2015. "Cereals Appropriability and Hierarchy," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 238, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    5. Julia I. Lane & John C. Haltiwanger & James Spletzer, 1999. "Productivity Differences across Employers: The Roles of Employer Size, Age, and Human Capital," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 94-98, May.
    6. Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Gerard Roland, 2011. "Which Dimensions of Culture Matter for Long-Run Growth?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 492-498, May.
    7. Temin, Peter, 1997. "Two Views of the British Industrial Revolution," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(01), pages 63-82, March.
    8. Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Gerard Roland, 2017. "Culture, Institutions, and the Wealth of Nations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 402-416, July.
    9. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    10. Luca Pieroni & Fabrizio Pompei, 2008. "Evaluating innovation and labour market relationships: the case of Italy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 325-347, March.
    11. Jeanet Sinding Bentzen & Nicolai Kaarsen & Asger Moll Wingender, 2017. "Irrigation and Autocracy," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 1-53.
    12. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    13. Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
    14. Calabuig, Vicente & Gonzalez-Maestre, Miguel, 2002. "Union structure and incentives for innovation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 177-192, March.
    15. Sakakibara, Mariko, 2001. "The Diversity of R&D Consortia and Firm Behavior: Evidence from Japanese Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(2), pages 181-196, June.
    16. Easterly, William, 2007. "Inequality does cause underdevelopment: Insights from a new instrument," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 755-776, November.
    17. Popp, David, 2006. "Innovation in climate policy models: Implementing lessons from the economics of R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 596-609, November.
    18. Josh Lerner, 2002. "150 Years of Patent Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 221-225, May.
    19. Ruan, Jianqing & Xie, Zhuan & Zhang, Xiaobo, 2015. "Does rice farming shape individualism and innovation?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 51-58.
    20. Hujer, Reinhard & Radić, Dubravko, 2005. "Evaluating the Impacts of Subsidies on Innovation Activities in Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 05-43, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    21. Casper Hansen & Peter Jensen & Christian Skovsgaard, 2015. "Modern gender roles and agricultural history: the Neolithic inheritance," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 365-404, December.
    22. Branstetter, Lee G., 2001. "Are knowledge spillovers international or intranational in scope?: Microeconometric evidence from the U.S. and Japan," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 53-79, February.
    23. R. C. Allen, 2011. "Why the industrial revolution was British: commerce, induced invention, and the scientific revolution," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 64(2), pages 357-384, May.
    24. Reinhard Hujer & Dubravko Radic, 2005. "Evaluating The Impacts Of Subsidies On Innovation Activities In Germany," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 52(4), pages 565-586, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Institutional and Behavioral Economics;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277219. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.