LEADER 04046nam  22006375  450 
001 9910255030903321
005 20200702150109.0
010   $a3-319-54127-7
024 7 $a10.1007/978-3-319-54127-3
035   $a(CKB)3710000001127314
035   $a(DE-He213)978-3-319-54127-3
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC4829426
035   $a(EXLCZ)993710000001127314
100   $a20170323d2017      u|         0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aurnn|008mamaa
181   $ctxt$2rdacontent
182   $cc$2rdamedia
183   $acr$2rdacarrier
200 10$aColonial Theories of Institutional Development $eToward a Model of Styles of Imperialism /$fby Daniel Oto-Peralías, Diego Romero-Ávila
205   $a1st ed. 2017.
210  1$aCham :$cSpringer International Publishing :$cImprint: Springer,$d2017.
215   $a1 online resource (X, 146 p. 27 illus.) 
225 1 $aContributions to Economics,$x1431-1933
311   $a3-319-54126-9 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references.
327   $aChapter 1: Introduction -- Chapter 2: Views Linking Colonialism with Institutions -- Chapter 3: A Model of Two Styles of Imperialism -- Chapter 4: Empirical Methodology and Baseline Regression Results -- Chapter 5: Sensitivity to Alternative Theories -- Chapter 6: Further Sensitivity Analyses -- Chapter 7: Exploring the Mechanism of Colonial Rule -- Chapter 8: The Legacy of European Colonialism on Relevant Determinants of Institutional Development -- Chapter 9: Conclusions.
330   $aThis book analyzes the role played by initial endowments and colonizer identity in seeking to explain institutional development in former colonies. It presents a model of two styles of imperialism that integrates the colonial origin and endowment views explaining current institutions. The authors argue that Great Britain and Portugal adopted an ?economically-oriented? style, which was pragmatic and sensitive to initial conditions. For this style of imperialism the endowment view is applicable. In contrast, France employed a ?politically-oriented? style of imperialism, in which ideological and political motivations were more present. This led to a uniform colonial policy that largely disregarded initial endowments. In turn, the case of Spain represents a hybrid of the two models. The empirical analysis presented here reveals a remarkable degree of heterogeneity in the relationship of endowments and colonizer identity with current institutions. .
410  0$aContributions to Economics,$x1431-1933
606   $aDevelopment economics
606   $aInternational economics
606   $aEurope?Economic conditions
606   $aEvolutionary economics
606   $aEconomic development
606   $aDevelopment Economics$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/W42000
606   $aInternational Economics$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/W33000
606   $aEuropean Economics$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/W45030
606   $aInstitutional/Evolutionary Economics$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/W53010
606   $aDevelopment Studies$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/913000
615  0$aDevelopment economics.
615  0$aInternational economics.
615  0$aEurope?Economic conditions.
615  0$aEvolutionary economics.
615  0$aEconomic development.
615 14$aDevelopment Economics.
615 24$aInternational Economics.
615 24$aEuropean Economics.
615 24$aInstitutional/Evolutionary Economics.
615 24$aDevelopment Studies.
676   $a338.9
700   $aOto-Peralías$b Daniel$4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut$0914223
702   $aRomero-Ávila$b Diego$4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910255030903321
996   $aColonial Theories of Institutional Development$92048320
997   $aUNINA