Dr. Oasis Kodila-Tedika on the Relationship between Intelligence & Economic DevelopmentLipton Matthews
Dr. Oasis Kodila-Tedika is an economics lecturer at the University of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). As a trailblazing researcher he has authored several landmark papers on intelligence, economic development, and institutions. This Congolese economist is also a multitalented professional whose expertise has benefited institutions such as the World Bank, the United Nations, and PriceWaterhouse Coopers.
Intelligence is a primary theme in your research on development, so could you explain how it affects governance?
My own research in this area complemented a wave of research that wanted to understand the effect of human capital, by using human capital as a proxy for intelligence. This relationship is not obvious theoretically. But here are some of the reasons for the positive relationship between the two that we have found.
First, intelligence is positively related to patience that accompanies the learning process and that allows players in the institutions to have a better understanding of the principles and rules that govern them.
Second, as group cognitive skills have more meaningful effect on national outcomes than individual intelligence, national IQ captures the level of cooperation within the institutions in order to produce the outcomes that are nationally efficient. In fact, one of the aims of modern institutions is to support pro-market policies. In this vein, high IQ levels are expected to have a positive effect on institutions since intelligent people appear more likely to support pro-market and pro-trade policies that are implemented within the national institutions.
Thirdly, if all highly educated people productively use their intelligence in the economy, chances are that society will benefit from a more productive labor force at all levels of governance, state or local. This in turn enables society to take advantage of the Gerschenkron effect, or of the advantages of imitation and innovation predicted in theories of endogenous growth, which in turn leads to a virtuous circle of development. However, the opposite effect should not be ignored. If the standard deviation of the distribution of intelligence is close to zero, the effects of intelligence will depend on its absolute level. If all the population enjoys higher intelligence, it is likely that political equilibrium will be optimal, with a positive consequence on governance.
Furthermore, smarter people are likely to mimic the positive experiences of successful nations, including in the area of governance. Under the assumption that the level of intelligence is lower, social equilibrium will be very low, with probable “capture” of society by the dominant coalition.
Economic diversification creates more opportunities for innovation by preventing an economy from becoming dependent on a specific sector. Would you say that intelligence determines the level of economic diversity?
In effect, diversification is having several products to export, to put it simply. Each product is a concentration of intelligence. Second, intelligence allows a more fluid and faster combination of several goods to produce a new one likely to meet the market need. Moreover, we are convinced that human capital is very useful when considered from an “economic structure” perspective. Hence, economic sectors should be attracted by more qualified human capital. This could be the basis for labor reallocations from the agricultural sector to more productive sectors.
However, human capital could also be associated with low economic diversification when an economy that is substantially focused on a certain brand reduces competition and interaction between persons. Conversely, an economy with multiple brands is more likely to be associated with higher levels of human capital that are essential for economic sophistication.
I co-wrote with Simplice Asongu a paper which precisely proves this relationship. Before this paper, to my knowledge there was no article in economics that clearly showed this link in a factual way.
Is the underdevelopment of financial systems in some parts of the world explained by intelligence?
The same reasoning of the Gerschenkron effect applies here as well. But there is also the fact that a strong intelligence innovates by proposing new products. A case in point is the work of Ariell Reshef and his various co-authors showing that the financial sector captures better brains. Moreover, high levels of human capital enable access to better information, thereby mitigating risk.
Human capital is also positively related to savings. This could be explained by the fact that developed intelligence is associated with long-term horizon planning. It is within this framework that Jones and Podemska (2010) have established a link between Intellectual Quotient (IQ) and savings.
Finally, human capital in the financial sector indicated by the competence of skilled banking professionals contributes to enhancing the stability of banks.
You have argued that intelligence is associated with institutional quality, innovation, and productivity, so can you explain your findings?
Everything I said above precisely allows innovation and productivity. For example, a more developed financial sector allocates resources more efficiently, which manifests itself in greater productivity.
Besides studying the importance of intelligence in modern societies, you also submit that regions with lower intelligence were more susceptible to the slave trade. Could you comment on your findings?
This research was poorly received when the press came across it, yet the intuitions behind it are obvious. I would first like to clarify one thing: I do not believe in the dominance of a “race” a priori or race superiority, whatsoever. The idea is simple: When Africa came into contact with the settlers, particularly for the slave trade, it is because the settlers had already developed a technology superior to what Africa had at that time. I do not leave a continent to arrive in my country, the DRC, by magic. This technology is the reflection of the intelligence and human capital of the time. I can also see behind the idea of better organization, which is easier with higher human capital.
It has been theorized that disparities in development are a consequence of genetic distance. Based on your findings, is there any merit to this theory?
Empirical evidence points in this direction. I found with my co-author Simplice Asongu, for example, that genetic distance explained current human capital. We concluded that countries that are genetically far from leading nations tend to have lower levels of human capital with negative correlation from the United States frontier higher relative to the United Kingdom frontier.
The fundamental idea here is to say: genetic distance contains a legacy, a cultural heritage. Thus, I transmit my values to my child. This can be the valuation of education. This may explain our results.
Some posit that ethnic tribalism is hindering Africa’s development, but do you have evidence to corroborate this assertion?
I have proof. I found this in my paper titled, “Tribalism and Finance.” This is because tribalism hinders the creation of trust networks that are crucial to the development of financial institutions and participation in the formal economy. Additionally, because of monetary tribalism resources circulate primarily within a tribe or predominantly among a group of tribes. This allocation, which is sub-optimal, substantially inhibits financial development. Consequently, tribalism diminishes financial development by limiting money supply; financial depth; liquid liabilities, or the proportion of money circulating within the banking sector; and bank efficiency, when credit is restricted within certain tribal confines. This is also the case in stock market development, because businesses avoid stock market capitalization due to the fear of losing tribal control over their assets, since the buying of shares is normally associated with voter rights.
Economists argue that trust matters for development. Is this assumption justified by evidence?
Indeed, this is proven in much academic literature. I don’t think anyone can doubt that today. Economic development is notably the consequence of entrepreneurs. My findings suggest that about half of the variation in entrepreneurial spirit across countries in the world is driven by trust considerations. This result is robust.
Studying how leadership styles promote development is becoming quite popular, and you have explored the link between a country’s long-term vision and development. Are your findings compatible with this line of research?
Recently, economists have begun to question the place of leaders, particularly in development. And I strongly believe in doing so. Inspired in particular by what is happening in my country and African countries in general, I began the reflection with my co-author Sherif Khalifa. One of the things that was evident was the lack of vision of African leaders. But no one had ever taken this problem seriously to test it. It was therefore necessary to find the data on vision. We therefore mobilized data from the Institutional Profiles Database. It was just the beginning, because the most difficult thing was to resolve the question of endogeneity: As much as long-term vision can influence the level of living standards, economic development can have an effect on whether agents and agencies in a country adopt a long-term vision as well. In more developed countries, agents are more likely to be forward-looking and to plan ahead to preserve their high living standards, and authorities are more likely to take that into consideration in their policymaking. So, we had to find a way to solve the problem. Then we found the solution: The results show that the adoption of a long-term vision has a statistically significant positive association with economic development.
Thanks for your time. In the future, will you produce studies relating to the deep roots of development hypothesis?
Yes, I am working on these questions. My future goal is to first test some theories at the sub-national level to explain realities inside African countries. But I will also evaluate the consequences of certain diseases on informal institutions.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
IQ Doesn’t Matter
The Future’s So Dumb, I Gotta Wear Shades
Žluté vesty zviditelnily tu nejfrancouzštější část Francie
The Reality of the Black-White IQ Gap Is Undeniable
IQ Is a Phenotype
Personal Finance Tips for Dissidents
Survival of the Fittest: Interview with Alexander Deptolla of Kampf der Nibelungen
Dr. Roger Pearson on His Life & Work
The idea that ‘capitalism’ is on the side of ‘race realism’ might be seductive, but it’s also a dead-end for White Identity Nationalism. White Identitarian economics is not necessarily ‘capitalist’ economics. The economy of a White Nationalist territory is one that suits the Whites in that territory and can be made to ‘work’ on the basis of the needs of the Whites in that territory. WIN economics is neither socialist or capitalist, it’s pro-White economics.
I recommend scrutinizing every word of someone who would say, without caveat, ‘[A] more developed financial sector allocates resources more efficiently, which manifests itself in greater productivity.’
This is the repetition of dogma for which no empirical support exists that isn’t tautological in it’s assumptions.
You can have banking with private banking.
You can have banking without banks having the authority to allocate resources.
You can have an economy without a private ‘financial sector’ that controls the allocation of resources.
The idea that private, profit-seeking entities know best how to allocate resources is dogma, not fact.
If you give money the power to decide how things will be, then money will decide what’s best for itself at the expense of all other factors and interests.
That’s how we live now and the US is falling apart at the seams while the wealth of the ‘financial sector’ grows and grows.
Capitalism allows anyone and everyone to accumulate assets to give them security — that is where ‘securities’ get their name and function. Anyone too stupid or too lazy or not ‘forward-thinking’ enough to do that ends up ‘poor’. That is the very basis of capitalism, and for some reason, Marxists rail against that simple rule over and over again.
I don’t have the education of this writer, nor obviously, his IQ, because I can’t follow a lot of what he says, but I worked 53 years in offices as a secretary, put my money into an IRA and 401K, as well as ‘dabbling’ in the stock market, and I am now financially stable, but certainly not ‘rich’. And frankly, folks, that is all you need to know individually about economics to add to world stability — you’re one less mouth that has to be fed by governments or charities. Now, send a donation to Counter Currents.
Alexandra, you think you don’t have a high IQ but you are wrong, maybe you were not formally educated. But your financial acumen indicates intelligence because long-term planning and investing are associated with high IQ
You are correct. In a free market economy, which is by far the most efficient and prosperous economic system (the level of prosperity a nation attains is, of course, also subject to its particular genetic, environmental, geographical, and institutional-historical characteristics), with stable and legally upheld private property rights (which includes inter alia no, or at least a low level of, inflation, which is a government policy-generated monetary phenomenon, as well as functionally a type of taxation), anyone with basic good health (and thus the ability to work) can, over a sufficient period of time, accumulate assets which will enable them to be self-supporting in old age (apart from any level of Social Security receipt).
The free market is not only the most efficient economic arrangement, it is also, I argue, the only fully ethical one, as well as the only one compatible with the basic ethnopsychological and historical character of the traditional (white) American people. I think every form of socialism is inherently evil, but also that economic collectivism just doesn’t come naturally to our people (here understood not as whites, but white Americans, especially of Old Stock heritage), which is yet another reason (from my conservative perspective) why demographically dilutionary immigration is so awful. If we had never had mass immigration post-1865 (yes, eighteen-sixty-five), I do not believe that any type of FDR/LBJ-welfare state socialism would have taken root here.
I’d have to say it’s unfortunate that he put himself in service to globalism. Surely that’s what the World Bank and the UN want, of course. Still, neoliberal free trade isn’t the only way to run a market economy. Distributism has a lot of promise both for revitalizing blighted parts of the First World as well as promoting growth in the developing world.
He saw a short term view of siding with globalism as preferable, which helps himself, to a long term view of being antiglobalist. It’s kind of a meta-irony given what he says here.
Please outline what you mean by “distributism”.
I might do a more extensive writeup later, but this should cover the basics:
It’s also surprising to hear a black scholar being so demonstrative about his support for banking and markets. American blacks are pushed to hate Wall Street and all institutions developed by whites. Clearly colonial times in Africa led to some finding success within the capitalist and globalist economy, but does it lead them to happiness or contentedness? Using the term human capital also, by definition, seems dehumanizing as well. Are we pieces of raw material for exploitation by our employers? Of course, but I find it odd that an African would be so comfortable using the term when describing the blacks in Africa. Strip away the colonists from Africa and you would have nothing but tribes still warring. When will blacks acknowledge the great benefits bestowed upon them by white European society? If they have we don’t hear much of it these days.
By the way, Alexandra is a prime example of delayed gratification of saving instead of spending. She must be intelligent to read and post here as well.
Your comment actually implicates a lot of profound issues. European colonialism on balance brought a lot of benefits to Africa – if you assess benefits in white terms and happiness in white psychological categories. I’m sure this black interviewee (and interviewer) do so.
But can we be sure of this? Perhaps Africans would have been happier (a subjective mental state, after all) if modernity (ie, the West) had never imposed itself upon them.
Am I happier because of the invention of modern media technologies? I lived as an adult for nearly 20 years pre-internet (which, for me, only really took off in the late 90s, although I had email by the early 90s). I’m actually really glad that the internet did not exist when I was in high school or college or grad school. I think it would have been a huge distraction, and might have led to an increased volume of work, at least for me (I always preferred conceptual classes – philosophy, intellectual history, even math – to the drudgery of doing research), as I often had difficulty determining when to stop my library research for history papers. The internet arguably makes too much information available, when the real purpose of education should be developing the mental tools to, over a lifetime, acquire wisdom, which in turn requires deep and intensive study of classic texts – the opposite of today’s ubiquitous web-surfing.
The African mind did not develop advanced civilization. As it seems probable that a tribe or nation of terminally depressed people would not reproduce sufficiently to endure, the very fact of continued African racial survival suggests that the African mind evolved in ways presumably suited to find contentment in its environment. The coming of the white man disrupted this ecological/psychological balance. How can we be sure this was a good thing from the African perspective? So much of happiness is subjective.
I agree with the idea that our concept of happiness is exceptionally broad and for good reason. There are enough stories of the children of wealth committing suicide or living down society to know that fiscal well being is never enough. Had there been no whites in Africa would it all end up as a unified tribe? I doubt it would have overcome the tribal methods of fight and enslave and breed. Those lost cannibal tribes in the Indian Ocean or South America are a prime example how life would be in Africa without European influence. And they could all be quite happy living that way, naked and free to live as they have known. I do wish there was more appreciation for us.
Frankly, I do not command much detailed knowledge or acumen in finance and economics, but I could largely understand the contents of this African scholar and expert and failed to detect any originality in it. Mostly a cliched and platitudinous pablum of “academic” bloviations.
“Then we found the solution: The results show that the adoption of a long-term vision has a statistically significant positive association with economic development.”
This is not offering a “solution” in an earnest sense, but plainly stating an easily perceivable fact. Proposing really viable and practical ways to cultivate a “long-term vision” in the governance apparatus of the African continent that is fraught with greed, corruption, and myopia among its ruling “elites” and notoriously devoid of high-caliber human capital constitutes a “solution”. A mission impossible, I guess.
Best take. But the article is still interesting.
Not impossible but a very hard sell. They just lack the European experience of animal domestication and breeding.
We created new rips in beasts and made them into cute pink walking bacon.
I see the most intelligent doing construction work or being a bouncer.
If the average IQ of a country is low (e.g. I live in Romania where current statistics say it has fallen below 85), “intelligence is positively related to patience that accompanies the learning process” is actually counter-productive as this patience is often used to abuse you… which is probably related to other studies, in the field crossing psychology with game theory, that in Romania, the Balkans, and the East-Arabic countries people are getting rewarded by their equals for injust acts and getting punished for just acts.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment