Economic and Demographic Transition,
Mortality, and Comparative Development
Matteo Cervellati
Uwe Sunde
DESA UN New York
November 2008
Economic and Demographic Development: Main Patterns
Economic and Demographic Development: Main Patterns
Economic Transition:
I
GDP per capita take-off after stagnation;
I
Human capital formation: drastic change in the “education
composition” of the population (from below 20 percent of
individuals with some education to about 90 percent in few
generations);
I
(Structural Change: Agriculture-Industry)
Economic and Demographic Development: Main Patterns
Economic Transition:
I
GDP per capita take-off after stagnation;
I
Human capital formation: drastic change in the “education
composition” of the population (from below 20 percent of
individuals with some education to about 90 percent in few
generations);
I
(Structural Change: Agriculture-Industry)
Demographic Transition:
I
Increase in adult longevity (50-70 in few generations)
I
Reduction in infant mortality (250 to 4 per thousand in few
generations)
I
Gross and net fertility (eventually) drop
(from 6 child per woman to 2)
I
Population growth despite decreases in fertility
Some Facts
I
In 1970 half of the countries had:
1. Life expectancy at birth below 55 years;
2. Average total fertility around 6 children per woman;
3. Share of population with at least completed secondary
education below 20 percent.
Some Facts
I
In 1970 half of the countries had:
1. Life expectancy at birth below 55 years;
2. Average total fertility around 6 children per woman;
3. Share of population with at least completed secondary
education below 20 percent.
I
In 2000 40 percent of these countries had not exited the
development trap yet.
Some Facts
I
In 1970 half of the countries had:
1. Life expectancy at birth below 55 years;
2. Average total fertility around 6 children per woman;
3. Share of population with at least completed secondary
education below 20 percent.
I
In 2000 40 percent of these countries had not exited the
development trap yet.
I
Most of these are countries in regions with large extrinsic mortality
(due to e.g. tropical diseases, high density of pathogen species etc.)
Research Questions
I
What are the underlying forces behind transitions out of the
development trap in these different dimensions?
I
No available theory allows to analyze the economic and
demographic dimensions in a unified framework delivering an
endogenous transition.
Research Questions
I
What are the underlying forces behind transitions out of the
development trap in these different dimensions?
I
I
No available theory allows to analyze the economic and
demographic dimensions in a unified framework delivering an
endogenous transition.
Why do some developing countries remain trapped in poor living
conditions?
I
Since 1970 only a bit more than half of the developing
countries have undergone the transition
Research Questions
I
What are the underlying forces behind transitions out of the
development trap in these different dimensions?
I
I
Why do some developing countries remain trapped in poor living
conditions?
I
I
No available theory allows to analyze the economic and
demographic dimensions in a unified framework delivering an
endogenous transition.
Since 1970 only a bit more than half of the developing
countries have undergone the transition
What is the role of mortality?
I
Ongoing empirical debate: we separately consider the
implications of exogenous improvements (shocks) and
structural differences in extrinsic mortality environment;
Contribution of this Paper
I
Theory of Economic and Demographic Transition:
I
I
Endogenous change in mortality, fertility, education structure
in population, gdp.
rationalize “difficult evidence”: e.g. role of longevity for
fertility, dynamic change in fertility and net fertility drop.
Contribution of this Paper
I
Theory of Economic and Demographic Transition:
I
I
I
Endogenous change in mortality, fertility, education structure
in population, gdp.
rationalize “difficult evidence”: e.g. role of longevity for
fertility, dynamic change in fertility and net fertility drop.
Theoretical investigation of the role of mortality for comparative
development:
I
I
exogenous “shocks” to mortality (e.g. introduction of
penicillin)
permanent differences in the mortality environment (e.g.
tropical diseases)
Contribution of this Paper
I
Theory of Economic and Demographic Transition:
I
I
I
Theoretical investigation of the role of mortality for comparative
development:
I
I
I
Endogenous change in mortality, fertility, education structure
in population, gdp.
rationalize “difficult evidence”: e.g. role of longevity for
fertility, dynamic change in fertility and net fertility drop.
exogenous “shocks” to mortality (e.g. introduction of
penicillin)
permanent differences in the mortality environment (e.g.
tropical diseases)
Compare theoretical implications with evidence from time series and
cross-country panel data
Related Literature
Unified Growth Theories
I
Change in fertility with quantity-quality trade-off [Galor and Weil,
aer 2000, Galor and Moav, qje 2002] (technical problems in
including mortality)
I
Exogenous mortality decline [Boldrin and Jones red 2002,
Boucekkine, de la Croix and Licandro, jet 2002, Soares, aer 2005]
I
Endogenous mortality decline [Lagerlöf, ier 2003, Cervellati and
Sunde, aer 2005, de la Croix and Licandro, mimeo 2007].
I
Differential fertility and heterogenous human capital [de la Croix
and Doepke, aer 2003, jde 2004]
Related Literature (2)
Underdevelopment Traps and Comparative Development
I
Poverty Traps [Azariadis and Stachurski, handbook eg 2005],
Mortality Traps [Bloom and Canning, pnas 2007]
Related Literature (2)
Underdevelopment Traps and Comparative Development
I
Poverty Traps [Azariadis and Stachurski, handbook eg 2005],
Mortality Traps [Bloom and Canning, pnas 2007]
I
Role of Mortality for development [Shastry and Weil, jeea 2003,
Soares, aer 2005, Weil, qje 2007, Lorentzen et al., jeg 2008,
Acemoglu and Johnson, jpe 2007];
I
Debate “Geography vs. Institutions” [Acemoglu, Johnson and
Robinson, aer 2001, Glaeser et al., jeg 2004, Rodrick et al., jeg
2004, Sachs, nber 2003, (..)]
Set up
I
Time is continuous, τ ∈ R+
I
Overlapping Generations of individuals t ∈ N+
I
Frequency of Births kt .
I
Individual - generation specific - life expectancy Tt of adults, and
child mortality (1 − πt )
I
Heterogeneous agents i with uniform ex ante distribution of abilities
with ai ∈ [0, 1]
Timing of Events
t +3
t +2
t
τ0
t +1
Tt
Tt+2
Tt+1
(τ0 + k)
(τ0 + 2k)
(τ0 + Tt )
(τ0 + 3k)
(τ0 + 4k)
(τ0 + k + Tt+1 )
τ
(τ0 + 2k + Tt+2 )
Preferences and Production Function
I
Utility from own lifetime consumption cti and well-being (potential
i
income) of offspring yt+1
I
Preferences
i
u(cti , yt+1
πt nti ) = cti
(1−γ)
i
yt+1
πt nti
γ
with γ ∈ (0, 1)
(1)
Preferences and Production Function
I
Utility from own lifetime consumption cti and well-being (potential
i
income) of offspring yt+1
I
Preferences
i
u(cti , yt+1
πt nti ) = cti
(1−γ)
i
yt+1
πt nti
γ
with γ ∈ (0, 1)
I
Unique consumption good produced with (vintage) aggregate
production function.
I
Aggregate production function:
η
η
(1)
1
Yt = At [xt (Htu ) + (1 − xt ) (Hts ) ] η
with η ∈ (0, 1) and the relative production share xt ∈ (0, 1) ∀t.
(2)
Production of human capital
hj ai , rt−1 , et = αj et − e j f (rt−1 , ·) mj (ai )
(3)
with hj = 0 ∀e < e j and e s > e u ≥ 0, αj > 0, j = u, s.
I
Education time (intensive margin) et ;
I
Investment of parents:
f (rt−1 , ·)
(4)
with fr (.) > 0 and frr (.) < 0.
I
Ability:
m j ai
with mrj a
i
≥ 0 [simplify: ms (a) = a and mu (a) = 1].
(5)
Individual Decision Problem
I
Total lifetime income of individual i with ability a choosing
human capital type j
i
i
, eti,j = wtj hj ai , rt−1
, eti,j Tt − eti,j
(6)
yti,j ai = ytj ai , rt−1
Individual Decision Problem
I
Total lifetime income of individual i with ability a choosing
human capital type j
i
i
, eti,j = wtj hj ai , rt−1
, eti,j Tt − eti,j
(6)
yti,j ai = ytj ai , rt−1
I
Individual Problem: Choose type j = u, s and time of own
education eti,j , gross fertility ni , and time spent in raising children rt :
j
i,j
{j ∗ , eti,j∗ , nti,j∗ , rti∗ } = arg max ut cti , πt nti,j yt+1
ai , rti , et+1
{nt ,rt ,,etj ,j=u,s }
(P1)
subject to:
i
cti = wtj htj ai , rt−1
, eti,j Tt 1 − rti πt nti,j − etj
and to (6) for j = u, s.
Partial Equilibrium: Individual Education and Fertility
Proposition
n
o
[Individual Education and Fertility] For any wtj , Tt , πt , the
vector of an individual’s
optimal
education, fertility and time devoted to
n
o
his children, etj∗ , ntj∗ , rt∗ , given that the individual acquires human
capital of type j = {u, s}, is given by,
Tt (1 − γ) + e j
,
(2 − γ)
γ Tt − e j
=
and
2 − γ Tt rt∗ πt
eti,j∗
= etj∗ =
(7)
nti,j∗
= ntj∗
(8)
with rt∗ solving,
εf ,r
∂f rti , ·
rti
=1
≡
∂rti
f rti , ·
(9)
General Equilibrium (Intra-generational)
=⇒ Wages?
I
Aggregate levels of human capital supplied by generation t:
Htu (e
at ) =
Z eat
htu (a)d(a)da
and
Hts (e
at ) =
0
I
Z
1
eat
hts (a)d(a)da
(10)
Wage rates are determined on competitive labor markets:
wts =
∂Yt
∂Hts
and
wtu =
∂Yt
∂Htu
with,
wtu
xt
=
wts
1 − xt
Hts (e
at )
Htu (e
at )
1−η
(11)
General Equilibrium (Intra-generational)
Proposition
[Human Capital Investment in Equilibrium] For any generation
t, and for any given {Tt , πt , At , xt } there exists a unique
λt ≡ 1 − e
at∗
o
n
and accordingly a unique vector, Htj∗ , wtj∗ , rt∗ , etj∗ , ntj∗ , hj∗ (a) for each
a ∈ [0, 1] and i = u, s, which solves the individual problem (P1) for each
individual, consistent with wages given in (11), where
λt = Λ(Tt , xt ) ,
(12)
is an increasing, S-shaped function of expected lifetime duration Tt , with
zero slope for T −→ 0 and T −→ ∞.
Dynamics: Mortality
I
Child Survival Rate (Child Mortality)
+
+
s
πt = Π Ht−1 , yt−1
(13)
with Π (0, H0s ) = π.
I
Adult Longevity
Tt = Υ
+
+
s
Ht−1
, yt−1
(14)
with Υ(0) > 0 and Υ(1) < ∞ and limyt →∞ ∂Tt /∂yt−1 = 0 where
yt−1 = Yt−1 /Nt−1 .
Dynamics: Technological Progress
Skill-biased technical change
gt =
At − At−1
s
s
= F (e
at∗ , At−1 ) = δHt−1
(Ht−1
)At−1
At−1
(15)
where δ > 0, and
xt = X (At ) with
−→ instrumental assumption!
∂X (At )
<0
∂At
(16)
Development Dynamics of the Economy
Evolution of the non linear dynamic system:

λt



Tt
πt



xt
= Λ(Tt , xt )
= Υ(λt−1 )
= Π(λt−1 , Tt−1 , xt−1 )
= X (λt−1 , Tt−1 , xt−1 )
(17)
Evolution of Conditional Dynamic System
Evolution of Conditional Dynamic System
λ
16 -
?
?
0
es
Λ(x)
Υ
6
-T
T
(a)
λ
16 -
Λ(x)
?
λ
16 -
?
Λ(x
6
Υ
0
es
6
-T
T
0
es
T
(b)
Figure 3: The Process of Development
model. The main results would be reinforced by the presence of a change in r∗
in the spirit of Galor and Weil (2000), while leaving the qualitative dynami
unchanged. In particular, r∗ would be low before the take-off but would a
and after the transition due to the larger technological change. This would
Evolution of Conditional Dynamic System
λ
λ
16 - 16 ?
?
0
λ
λ
0
es 0T
λ
λ
0
es 0T
16 - 16 16 - 16 ? ?
?
? ?
Λ(x)
Λ(x)
Λ(x
6
6
Λ(x)
Λ(x)
Υ Υ
Υ
Υ
6
6
6
6
-T -T
-T -T
es 0T
es T
(a)
(a)
es T
(b)
(b)
The Process
of Development
Figure Figure
3: The3:Process
of Development
Theresults
main results
would
be reinforced
the presence
of a chang
model.model.
The main
would be
reinforced
by the by
presence
of a change
in r∗
the of
spirit
of and
GalorWeil
and(2000),
Weil (2000),
while leaving
the qualitative
in the in
spirit
Galor
while leaving
the qualitative
dynamid
unchanged.
In particular,
r∗ would
low before
the take-off
but w
unchanged.
In particular,
r∗ would
be lowbebefore
the take-off
but would
a
andthe
after
the transition
the larger
technological
This
and after
transition
due to due
the to
larger
technological
change.change.
This would
Evolution of Conditional Dynamic System
λ
λ
16 - 16 ?
?
0
0
es 0T
es T
(a)
λ
16 -
?
λ
λ
0
es 0T
λ
λ
0
es 0T
16 - 16 16 - 16 ? ?
?
? ?
Λ(x)
Λ(x)
Λ(x
6
6
Λ(x)
Λ(x)
Υ Υ
Υ
Υ
6
6
6
6
-T -T
-T -T
(a)
es T
(b)
(b)
The Process
of Development
Figure Figure
3: The3:Process
of Development
λ
61
?
Λ(x)
Λ(x) model.
Theresults
main results
would
the presence
of a chang
model.
The main
would be
reinforced
by the by
presence
of a change
in r∗
- be reinforced
6
6
Υ
in
the of
spirit
of and
GalorWeil
and(2000),
Weil
(2000),
while leaving
the qualitative
in the
spirit
Galor
while leaving
the qualitative
dynamid
Υ
∗
∗
r would
unchanged.
In particular,
low before
the take-off
but w
unchanged.
In particular,
r would
be
before
the take-off
but would
a
lowbe
6
6
and after
due
andafter
the transition
the-larger
technological
This
the
due to
the to
larger
technological
change.change.
This would
T transition
T
es T
0
es T
Time Series Predictions
Proposition
[Economic and Demographic Transitions] The economy is
characterized by the following phases in the process of development:
(i) A (potentially very long) phase of stagnant development with little
technological change, low longevity, T0 ' T , large child mortality
π0 = π, very few individuals acquiring human capital hs , λ0 ' 0 and
large gross and net fertility rates;
Time Series Predictions
Proposition
[Economic and Demographic Transitions] The economy is
characterized by the following phases in the process of development:
(i) A (potentially very long) phase of stagnant development with little
technological change, low longevity, T0 ' T , large child mortality
π0 = π, very few individuals acquiring human capital hs , λ0 ' 0 and
large gross and net fertility rates;
(ii) A rapid transition involving rapid increase in Tt , πt , λt income per
capita yt and technological level At and a reduction in net fertility
(possibly following an initial temporary increase);
Time Series Predictions
Proposition
[Economic and Demographic Transitions] The economy is
characterized by the following phases in the process of development:
(i) A (potentially very long) phase of stagnant development with little
technological change, low longevity, T0 ' T , large child mortality
π0 = π, very few individuals acquiring human capital hs , λ0 ' 0 and
large gross and net fertility rates;
(ii) A rapid transition involving rapid increase in Tt , πt , λt income per
capita yt and technological level At and a reduction in net fertility
(possibly following an initial temporary increase);
(iii) A phase of significant permanent growth in technology and income
with large life expectancy T∞ ' T + ρ, negligible child mortality π∞ ' 1
all population acquiring hs human capital λ∞ ' 1 and low gross and net
fertility rates.
1600
1800
Year
1900
1
1600
2000
1700
(b)
log GDP per capita (ln y )
1800
Year
1900
2000
1700
(c)
1800
Year
1900
2000
1.6
Share Skilled (λ)
1
1
.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
.3
Child Mortality
.2
1600
Adult Life Expectancy (T )
1.6
.4
(a)
1700
0
0
50
.2
55
Share Skilled
.4
.6
Adult Longevity
60
65
.8
70
log Income per capita (1900=100)
100
200
75
300
Time Series Predictions: A Simulation of the Development Process
1700
1800
Year
0
1600
1600
1700
(d)
1800
Year
1900
Child Mortality
2000
Gross Fertility
(e)
1900
2000
Gross and Net Reproduction
Rates (n, πn)
1600
Net Fertility
1700
Fertility Skilled
(f)
1800
Year
1900
2000
Fertility Unskilled
Differential Fertility (nH , nL )
90
1850
1900
1950
2000
.4
.6
.8
45
1800
.2
30
35
40
Life Expectancy at Age 30
1750
0
25
30
Life Expectancy at Birth
40
50
60
log GDP per capita (1900=100)
100
110
70
120
1
Time Series Data: Long-Run Development for Sweden
1750
1800
1850
year
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
Life Expectancy at Birth
year
(a)
(b)
log GDP per capita
Primary School Enrolment
Life Expectancy at Birth and at
250
1
1.5
2
Infant Mortality (/1000)
100
150
200
.5
50
0
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
year
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
Gross Replacement Rate
year
(d)
Infant Mortality Rate
(e)
Rates
(c)
1950
2000
Net Replacement Rate
Gross and Net Reproduction
Secondary School Enrolment
Primary and Secondary School
Enrolment
2.5
Age 30
1750
1900
year
Life Expectancy at Age 30
1800
Year
1900
1800
Year
Life Expectancy at Birth
(h)
1900
2000
20
1700
2000
log GDP per capita (U.K.)
1600
Life Expectancy at Age 30
Life Expectancy at Birth and at
2.5
150
.5
1
1.5
2
Infant Mortality (/1000)
50
100
0
1600
(j)
1700
1800
Year
1900
Infant Mortality Rate
2000
1700
1800
Year
Gross Replacement Rate
(k)
(i)
1900
2000
Net Replacement Rate
Gross and Net Reproduction
Rates (England and Wales)
1700
1800
Year
1900
2000
Literacy Levels (England and
Wales)
3
Age 30
1600
100
40
55
30
(g)
1700
80
70
60
65
Life Expectancy at Age 30
Life Expectancy at Birth
40
50
60
70
120
log GDP (1900=100)
80
100
60
40
1600
1600
Literacy
60
80
140
Time Series Data: Long-Run Development for England
Cross-Sectional Predictions
I
The transition is driven by, and leads to, a change in “education
composition” in the population;
Corollary
There is a positive contemporaneous correlation between λt and life
expectancy (Tt and πt ) over the course of development, and overall a
negative contemporaneous correlation of λ with gross and net fertility.
Cross-Sectional Predictions:
0
.2
.4
.6
Share Skilled
Life Expectancy at Birth
(a)
.8
1
.2
.4
.6
Share Skilled
.8
1
Share Skilled
.4
.6
0
.2
.4
.6
Share Skilled
.8
1
0
.2
.4
.6
Share Skilled 30 years earlier
.8
1
Adult Longevity
Adult Longevity (x),
LEB (o), λ
0
0
.95
0
30
40
.2
.1
1
50
60
Child Mortality
.2
Gross Fertility
1.05
.3
70
.8
1
1.1
.4
80
Simulated data (reinterpreted cross-sectionally) and Data
(b)
Child Mortality, λ
(c)
Av. Fertility, λ
(d)
λt , λt−n (n=30 yrs.)
Cross-Sectional Predictions:
0
.2
.4
.6
Share Skilled
Life Expectancy at Birth
(a)
.8
0
1
.2
.4
.6
Share Skilled
.8
1
Share Skilled
.4
.6
0
.95
0
30
40
.2
.1
1
50
60
Child Mortality
.2
Gross Fertility
1.05
.3
70
.8
1
1.1
.4
80
Simulated data (reinterpreted cross-sectionally) and Data
0
.2
.4
.6
Share Skilled
.8
1
0
.2
.4
.6
Share Skilled 30 years earlier
.8
1
Adult Longevity
Adult Longevity (x),
(b)
(c)
Child Mortality, λ
(d)
Av. Fertility, λ
λt , λt−n (n=30 yrs.)
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
Population share with some formal education (Barro−Lee)
Life Expectancy at Birth
(e)
1
Population share with some formal education (Barro−Lee)
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
8
Total Fertility Rate
4
6
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
Population share with some formal education (Barro−Lee)
Infant Mortality
Life Expectancy at Birth
LEB, λ , 1970 (o) and
2000 (x)
0
0
30
40
50
2
Infant Mortality
100
150
Life Expectancy at Birth
50
60
70
200
80
250
LEB (o), λ
(f)
1
0
Infant Mortality
Child Mortality, λ ,
1970 (o) and 2000 (x)
.2
.4
.6
.8
Population share with some formal education (Barro−Lee)
Total Fertility Rate
(g)
1
TFR, λ , 1970 (o) and
2000 (x)
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
Population share with some formal education in 1970 (Barro−Lee)
Total Fertility Rate
(h)
λ 1970 and 2000
1
Role of Mortality:
Adult Longevity and Changes in Education Composition
I
The change in education composition depends on the “initial
level” of longevity:
Corollary
I
Along the development path, the correlation between
longevity and the subsequent change in the education
composition is hump-shaped.
I
The longer the time horizon for subsequent changes in the
education composition, the more pronounced is the hump and
the lower is the longevity associated with the largest
subsequent changes (the peak in the hump).
Role of Mortality:
50
(a)
55
60
65
Adult Longevity (5 yrs. lagged)
70
Change in λ over 5 years
75
.6
−.1
Change in Share Skilled (over 40 years)
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
−.1
−.1
Change in Share Skilled (over 5 years)
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
Change in Share Skilled (over 20 years)
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
Adult Longevity and Changes in Education Composition
50
(b)
55
60
65
Adult Longevity (20 yrs. lagged)
70
Change in λ over 20 years
75
50
(c)
55
60
65
Adult Longevity (40 yr. lagged)
70
Change in λ over 40 years
75
Role of Mortality:
55
70
75
.6
50
55
(b)
60
65
Adult Longevity (20 yrs. lagged)
70
75
40
50
60
Life Expectancy at Birth in 1960
70
Change in population share with some formal education (Barro−Lee)Fitted
(5 yrs.
values
lagged
(d)
1965)
Change in λ over 5 years(1960-
55
(c)
60
65
Adult Longevity (40 yr. lagged)
70
75
Change in λ over 40 years
.5
−.1
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
−.1
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
−.1
30
50
Change in λ over 20 years
.6
Change in λ over 5 years
.6
(a)
60
65
Adult Longevity (5 yrs. lagged)
.6
50
−.1
Change in Share Skilled (over 40 years)
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
−.1
−.1
Change in Share Skilled (over 5 years)
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
Change in Share Skilled (over 20 years)
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
Adult Longevity and Changes in Education Composition
30
40
50
60
Life Expectancy at Birth in 1960
70
30
40
Change in population share with some formal education (Barro−Lee)Fitted
(20 yrs.
values
lagge
(e)
Change in λ over 20 years
(1960-1980)
50
60
Life Expectancy at Birth in 1960
delta8_lambda
(f)
70
Fitted values
Change in λ over 40 years (1960-
2000)
Role of Mortality:
Exogenous Improvements and Shocks
Corollary
The effect on education of an exogenous increase in longevity has
an inverse U-shape.
I
Data from Acemoglu and Johnson (2007) on predicted
mortality changes following the “epidemiological” revolution
in the 1940’s.
Role of Mortality:
0
−.1
−.1
0
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.5
.5
.6
.6
Exogenous Improvements and Shocks
30
40
50
Life expectancy at Birth 1940
60
70
Change in population share with some formal education (Barro−Lee)Fitted
(20 yrs.
values
lagge
(a)
LEB (1940) andchange in λ (1960-1980)
−1.2
(b)
−1
−.8
−.6
−.4
Predicted Mortality Change 1940−1980
−.2
Change in population share with some formal education (Barro−Lee)Fitted
(20 yrs.
values
lagge
Pred Mortality change 1940-1980 and
change in λ (1960-1980)
Role of Mortality:
Permanent differences in Extrinsic Mortality Environment
I
“Extrinsic” Mortality varies substantially across countries and
is related to geographical characteristics [Brown
macroecology(1995), Gallup et al. irsr (1999), Guernier
et al plos Biology (2004)]
Corollary
A lower baseline adult longevity, T implies (ceteris paribus:
I
a later onset of the transition;
I
a higher level of economic development in terms of income or
productivity at the onset of the transition.
Role of Mortality:
Permanent differences in Extrinsic Mortality Environment
(T ∈ {46, 47, 48, 49, 50})
0
30
40
.1
Child Mortality
.2
.3
Life Expectancy at Birth
50
60
70
.4
80
Cross-sectional implications
0
.2
.8
1
0
.2
(b)
Adult Life Expectancy and λ
.4
.6
Share Skilled
.8
1
Child Mortality and λ
0
1
.2
Share Skilled
.4
.6
Gross Fertility
1.2
1.4
.8
1
1.6
(a)
.4
.6
Share Skilled
0
.2
(c)
.4
.6
Share Skilled
.8
Average Fertility and λ
1
0
(d)
.2
.4
.6
Share Skilled 30 years earlier
.8
λt and λt−n (n=30 yrs.)
1
Role of Mortality:
Permanent differences in Extrinsic Mortality Environment
(T ∈ {46, 47, 48, 49, 50})
40
50
Adult Longevity
60
70
80
Timing of Transition
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
Year
Delay in onset of transition
due to differences
inLongevity
baseline longevity.
Adult Longevity
Adult
Adult Longevity
Adult Longevity
Adult Longevity
30
30
Life Expectancy at Birth 2000
40
50
60
70
Life Expectancy at Birth 1960
40
50
60
70
80
80
Geography and Mortality: Latitude
0
.2
(a)
.4
Absolute Latitude
.6
LEB and latitude (1960)
.8
0
.2
(b)
.4
Absolute Latitude
.6
LEB and latitude (2000)
.8
Geography and Mortality: Infectious Disease Richness
Multi-host vector-transmitted infectious agents are very localized and
little affected by globalization and development
(Smith et al., Ecology 2007).
Geography and Mortality: Infectious Disease Richness
0
2
4
6
8
10
Multi-host vector-transmitted infectious agents are very localized and
little affected by globalization and development
(Smith et al., Ecology 2007).
0
.2
.4
Absolute Latitude
.6
.8
Infectious Agents: Multi−host with Vector−bound Transmission Fitted values
(a)
Infectious Disease Richness and latitude
[Multi-Host Vector Transmitted Diseases: Angiomatosis, Relapsing Fever, Typhus-epidemic, Trypanosomiasis
(sleeping sickness), Filariasis, Leishmaniasis, Yellow Fever, Dengue, Onchocerciasis, (...)]
Geography and Mortality: Infectious Disease Richness
30
40
40
50
50
60
60
70
70
80
Multi-host vector-transmitted infectious agents
and Life Expectancy at Birth 1960-2000
0
2
4
6
8
Infectious Agents: Multi−host with Vector−bound Transmission
Life Expectancy at Birth
(a)
10
0
Fitted values
Infectious Disease Richness and LEB (1960)
2
4
6
8
Infectious Agents: Multi−host with Vector−bound Transmission
Life Expectancy at Birth
(b)
10
Fitted values
Infectious Disease Richness and LEB (2000)
Cross-Sectional Predictions over Time:
Bi-modal world distributions of mortality, fertility and education
Corollary
The cross-sectional distributions of adult longevity, child mortality,
fertility and education are bi-modal, unless all countries are trapped or
have completed the transition.
Cross-Sectional Predictions over Time:
Share of agents with Some Education
(81 countries, T ∈ [46, 50])
Kernel density estimate
Density
0
.4
.6
.5
Density
.8
1
1
1.5
1.2
Kernel density estimate
0
.5
Share Skilled
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.1373
(a)
Share Skilled (λ) (1950)
1
0
.5
Share Skilled
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.1252
(b)
Share Skilled (λ) (2050)
1
Cross-Sectional Predictions over Time:
Share of agents with Some Education
(81 countries, T ∈ [46, 50])
Kernel density estimate
Density
0
.4
.6
.5
Density
.8
1
1
1.5
1.2
Kernel density estimate
0
.5
Share Skilled
1
0
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.1373
(a)
.5
Share Skilled
1
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.1252
(b)
Share Skilled (λ) (1950)
Kernel density estimate
Share Skilled (λ) (2050)
0
0
.5
.5
Density
Density
1
1
1.5
1.5
Kernel density estimate
0
.5
1
Share of 20−24 age cohort with at least secondary education
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.1134
(c)
Share with at least some schooling 1970
0
.5
1
Share of 20−24 age cohort with at least secondary education
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0972
(d)
Share with at least some schooling 2000
Cross-Sectional Implications:
Life Expectancy at Birth
(81 countries, T ∈ [46, 50])
Kernel density estimate
.005
.005
.01
.01
Density
.015
.02
Density
.015
.02
.025
.025
.03
.03
Kernel density estimate
20
40
60
Life Expectancy at Birth
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 6.0025
(a)
Life Expectancy at Birth (1950)
80
20
40
60
Life Expectancy at Birth
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 6.2874
(b)
Life Expectancy at Birth (2050)
80
Cross-Sectional Implications:
Life Expectancy at Birth
(81 countries, T ∈ [46, 50])
Kernel density estimate
.005
.005
.01
.01
Density
.015
.02
Density
.015
.02
.025
.025
.03
.03
Kernel density estimate
20
40
60
Life Expectancy at Birth
80
20
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 6.0025
(a)
40
60
Life Expectancy at Birth
80
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 6.2874
(b)
Life Expectancy at Birth (1950)
Life Expectancy at Birth (2050)
Kernel density estimate
.05
0
0
.01
.01
Density
.02
Density
.02
.03
.03
.04
.04
Kernel density estimate
30
40
50
60
70
80
40
1965−1970
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 3.5101
(c)
Life Expectancy at Birth 1965-1970
50
60
70
Life Expectancy at Birth
80
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 3.4473
(d)
Life Expectancy at Birth 2000-2005
90
Cross-Sectional Implications:
Child Mortality
(81 countries, T ∈ [46, 50])
Kernel density estimate
1
1
1.5
2
Density
Density
2
2.5
3
3
4
3.5
Kernel density estimate
−.1
0
.1
.2
Child Mortality
.3
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0491
(a)
Child Mortality (1 − π) (1950)
.4
−.1
0
.1
.2
Child Mortality
.3
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0527
(b)
Child Mortality (1 − π) (2050)
.4
Cross-Sectional Implications:
Child Mortality
(81 countries, T ∈ [46, 50])
Kernel density estimate
1
1
1.5
2
Density
Density
2
2.5
3
3
4
3.5
Kernel density estimate
−.1
0
.1
.2
Child Mortality
.3
.4
−.1
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0491
0
.1
.2
Child Mortality
.3
.4
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0527
(b)
Child Mortality (1 − π) (2050)
0
0
kdensity infant_mortality
.005
.01
kdensity infant_mortality
.002
.004
.006
.015
Child Mortality (1 − π) (1950)
.008
(a)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
x
(c)
Infant Mortality 1970
(d)
100
x
150
Infant Mortality 2000
200
Cross-Sectional Implications:
Gross Fertility
(81 countries, T ∈ [46, 50])
Kernel density estimate
Density
1.5
.5
.5
1
1
Density
1.5
2
2
2.5
Kernel density estimate
.8
1
1.2
1.4
Gross Fertility
1.6
1.8
.8
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0963
(a)
1
1.2
1.4
Gross Fertility
1.6
1.8
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0931
(b)
Gross Fertility (1950)
Kernel density estimate
0
0
.05
.1
Density
Density
.1
.15
.2
.2
.3
.25
Kernel density estimate
Gross Fertility (2050)
2
4
6
Total Fertility Rate
8
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.6087
(c)
Total Fertility Rate 1970
10
0
2
4
Total Fertility Rate
6
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.5308
(d)
Total Fertility Rate 2000
8
Cross-Sectional Implications:
Net Fertility
(81 countries, T ∈ [46, 50])
Density
10
0
4
5
6
Density
8
15
20
Kernel density estimate
10
Kernel density estimate
.95
1
1.05
1.1
.95
1
Net Fertility
(a)
1.05
1.1
Net Fertility
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0160
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0122
(b)
Net Fertility (1950)
Kernel density estimate
Density
0
0
.2
.2
Density
.4
.4
.6
.6
.8
Kernel density estimate
Net Fertility (2050)
.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Net Replacement Rate
3
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.1837
(c)
Net Replacement Rate 1970
3.5
.5
1
1.5
2
Net Replacement Rate
2.5
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.1850
(d)
Net Replacement Rate 2000
3
Simulation and Data
Timing of transition
I
Child Mortality improvements are more rapid than in simulation;
I
Exit from trap is “quicker in the data” compared to the simulation
(acceleration of development);
Simulation and Data
Timing of transition
I
Child Mortality improvements are more rapid than in simulation;
I
Exit from trap is “quicker in the data” compared to the simulation
(acceleration of development);
I
Controlled experiment: Only variation in T leading to a constant
speed of exit from trap;
I
I
I
Cross-country spillovers in medical knowledge and technology
Public policies
Institutional change
Summary
I
Unified theory of the economic and demographic transition in line
with historical and cross-country patterns of development that
accounts for changes in education composition and differential
fertility;
I
Endogenous transition (exit from development trap)
I
I
I
requires joint improvements in T , π, A
highlights different roles of adult longevity (composition) and
child mortality (fertility):
Take-off: iff change in λ
I
Predictions on both time series and cross country dimension
I
Study the distinct role of mortality: shocks and extrinsic differences.