The Ethics of Genetic Engineering

This paper was written for Economics 1339: Generating Wealth of Nations, a Harvard undergraduate course taught by visiting professor Jeffrey Borland.

Introduction

While there exists substantial literature regarding the application of Malthus’s economic model to European countries prior to and following the Industrial Revolution, little effort has been spent applying the model to Europe’s neighbors in the east. South Korea in particular seems to be a compelling subject, insofar as its meteoric rise to economic power in the 20th century remains largely unprecedented and a fairly complete data set exists for many of its economic indicators. Dubbed the “Miracle on the Han River” by some economists, South Korea’s recent history has seen the country’s per capita national income increase 80-fold from US $125 in 1966 to over US $10,000 in 1995. Like Europe prior to the Industrial Revolution, Korea prior to the Korean War followed the Malthusian economic hypothesis of rising populations preventing sustained increases in standards of living. Statistics from the post-Korean War era up to the present day, however, indicate that South Korea (hereinafter as “Korea”) has since broken free of the Malthusian trap, thanks in large part to a series of government-endorsed economic development plans and also to cultural shifts like the rise in family planning.

Read more…

This term paper was written for Economics 1776: Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, an undergraduate course taught at Harvard College by Benjamin Friedman.

Introduction

Hinduism has no single authoritative scripture from which its believers derive meaning. Unlike the Christian and Jewish traditions, its history does not begin at a singular point or event in history (á la “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”). Neither does there exist in the religion a single mode of worship or even a single object of worship. Its disciples draw upon numerous canons, and as a result, within the umbrella term of Hinduism myriad contrasting schools of thought have existed. For this reason, if it hopes to reach meaningful conclusions, an analysis of Hinduism’s effect on India’s economic development must refrain from a holistic study and must focus on specific components of the greater religion. Vikas Mishra writes of this intricacy, “It is almost naïve to treat Hinduism as one entity. For instance, the economic implications of the ‘Dayabhag’ School of Hindu Law are vastly different from those of the ‘Mitakshara’ School.” Polarizing features can also be discovered in countless other comparisons of Hindu belief sets. For example, the Carvaka school championed materialism while the Ascetic tradition emphasized an aversion toward physical comforts. Interestingly, both beliefs find basis in Hindu scriptures. This disparity between schools of thought in Hinduism complicates the issue at hand.

This study attempts to establish an analysis of the correlations and possible causations regarding certain Hindu beliefs and India’s economic history. It seeks not to make sweeping generalizations about Hinduism, but rather to concentrate on specific aspects of the religion as they relate to the nation’s secular development. To that end, this paper will examine various attitudinal and institutional characteristics of Hinduism and will be generally structured by the enumeration and discussion of these concepts. In doing so, it may be enlightening to also examine within this context other closely related religions such as Buddhism and Jainism. This is by no means an all-encompassing study, but it does address many important connections between Hindu beliefs and structures and India’s economic development.

Read more…

This paper was written for Economics 1339: Generating Wealth of Nations, a Harvard undergraduate course taught by visiting professor Jeffrey Borland.

Introduction

The United States during the later part of the 20th century experienced a reversal in the pattern of decreasing income inequality that had slowly been establishing itself since the end of the Great Depression. Indeed, by 1982, inequality in the distribution of American family incomes had eclipsed the same figure measured in 1950, the year that had seen the highest level of inequality since record keeping began in 1947.

Figure 1 (above) depicts the top ten percent income share in the United States during the decades between World War I and present day. The data points are logically separated into three discrete periods – The Great Depression (characterized by high inequality), the Great Compression (a decrease in inequality), and the Great Divergence (a return to higher inequality). This last period came as a surprise to many who had previously studied income inequality in America. At the time, the prevailing school of thought regarding the mechanics of economic inequality was one first proposed by Simon Kuznets in his 1955 paper entitled “Economic Growth and Income Inequality”. Kuznets hypothesized that as economies matured in less developed regions, certain emergent factors like industrialization and urbanization would increase income inequality. Then, as those economies continued to develop, social and political forces would come into play to relieve the poorest in society while the upper income group would experience slower growth than under early industrialization. These two observations produced an inverted-U curve of inequality as a function of development, a model that had been supported by empirical evidence from the first half of the 20th century. Around the 1980s, however, income inequality began a steady climb that has carried through to present day. Furthermore, a closer look at family incomes during this time reveals that the income gap has increased the most between the top and the middle of the distribution, while it has remained fairly stable between the middle and bottom. The search for causes of this upward trend in income inequality has been the topic of much research, though a consensus has hardly been reached. Truly, pinpointing a cause would help address inequality in the real world and its associated negative effects, such as increased rates of mortality and obesity. This paper presents a survey of the most compelling theories for income inequality in America and seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Read more…