Is Poverty in the African DNA (Gene)?

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/saje.12165
• Author: Oasis Kodila‐Tedika,Simplice A. Asongu
• Date: 01 December 2017
• Published date: 01 December 2017

IS POVERTY IN THE AFRICAN DNA (GENE)?

SIMPLICE A.ASONGU*

†

AND OASIS KODILA-TEDIKA

‡

Abstract

A 2015 World Bank report on attainment of Millennium Development Goals concludes that the

number of extremely poor has dropped substantially in all regions with the exception of Sub-

Saharan Africa. We assess if poverty is in the African gene by revisiting the findings of Ashraf

and Galor and reformulating the “Out of Africa Hypothesis” into a “Genetic Diversity Hypoth-

esis” for a “Within Africa Analysis.” We motivate this reformulation with five shortcomings

largely drawn from the 2015 findings of the African Gerome Variation Project, notably: limita-

tions in the conception of space, an African dummy in genetic diversity, linearity in migratory

patterns, migratory origins and underpinnings of genetic diversity in Africa. Ashraf and Galor

have concluded that cross-country differences in development can be explained by genetic diver-

sity in a Kuznets or inverted U-shaped pattern. Our results from an exclusive African perspective

partially confirm the underlying hypothesis in a contemporary context, but not in the historical

analysis. From a historical context, the nexus is U-shaped for migratory distance, mobility index

and predicted diversity while for the contemporary analysis; it is hump shaped for ancestry-

adjusted predicted diversity. Hence from a within-Africa comparative standpoint, poverty is not

in the African gene.

JEL Classification: N10, N30, N50, O10, O50, Z10

Keywords: Africa, genetic diversity, comparative economic development

1. INTRODUCTION

The findings of Ashraf and Galor (hence AG) in what is now known as the “Out of

Africa Hypothesis” (OAH) postulate that “in the course of the prehistoric exodus of Homo

sapiens out of Africa, variation in migratory distance to various settlements across the globe

affected genetic diversity and has had a persistent hump shaped effect on comparative economic

development, reflecting the trade-off between the beneficial and the detrimental effects of diver-

sity on productivity. While the low diversity of Native American populations and the high

diversity of African populations have been detrimental for the development of these regions,

the intermediate levels of diversity associated with European and Asian populations have been

conducive for development”(p.1).

Interestingly, the findings of AG have received many commentaries and criticisms in

academic and policy-making circles. We present them in terms of direct and indirect

responses. First, on indirect responses, the following are apparent. (i) Ager and Bruckner

(2013) have investigated the impact of genetic diversity on economic development in the

United States. (ii) Campbell and Pyun (2017) have examined why societies are poor to

* Corresponding author: Lead Economist, African Governance and Development Institute,

P. O. Box 8413, Yaounde, Cameroon. E-mail: asongusimplice@yahoo.com

†

Department of Economics, University of South Africa, P.O. Box: 392, UNISA 0003, Preto-

ria, South Africa.

‡

Departement d’Economie, RDC, Universite de Kinshasa.

V

C2017 Economic Society of South Africa. doi: 10.1111/saje.12165

533

South African Journal of Economics Vol. 85:4 December 2017

South African Journal

of Economics

find that contrary to the mainstream narrative, the relationship between GDP per capita

and “genetic distance from the US” disappears after controlling for geography. (iii) Indi-

rect and direct relationships between economic growth and ethnic fragmentation have

been examined by Papyrakis and Mo (2014). (iv) Cook (2013) establishes that prior to

popular usage of effective vaccines and medicines, cross-country genetic disparities are

linked to positive aggregate health effects and the nexus between ancestral genetic diver-

sity. (v) Human capital is examined by Sequeira et al. (2013) who conclude on a strong

hump-shaped nexus.

Second, on direct responses, the following studies are worthwhile. (i) The study of

Williams (2013) is positioned on testing the validity of the OAH from a net productivity

perspective. (ii) Ashraf et al. (2014) have reinvestigated the relationship using “nigh time

light intensity.” (iii) Pickrell and Reich (2014) have argued that it is high time to crit-

ically engage the relevance of natural selection and current models of genetic diversity.

(iv) Cardella et al. (2015) have extended AG by investigating the effect of genetic diver-

sity on financial development to confirm the OAH. (v) Guedes et al. (2013) posit that

the arguments presented by AG are substantially flawed on both methodological and fac-

tual grounds.

Guedes et al. (2013) have expressed substantial doubts about the conclusions, pointing

to serious issues in the underlying study, among others: deficiencies in the construction

of the diversity indicator, concerns in the measurement of development and the abusive

use of terminology. Another worry from the critique is the attempt by authors of the

underlying study to associate poverty to genes. The present line of inquiry builds on this

concern.

Without undermining the criticisms of Guedes et al. (2013) on the underlying study,

we think their critic provides a perspective from researchers who are not economists for

the most part and hence, may have limited familiarity with the universe of the economic

discipline. In accordance with Gelman (2013), authors of the study have been quite

lucky with their critics because they have been attacked by anthropologists who have pre-

sented criticisms on scientific and political grounds. This tendency has provided econo-

mists a higher platform because, unlike their antagonists, they have the sentiment of

being more critical scholars.

A natural criticism of the above positioning may be that the underpinning for the

OAH, while unrestricted in time, is limited in space and therefore a line of inquiry

within Africa is not theoretically feasible. To address this issue, we reformulate the “Out

of Africa Hypothesis” into the “Genetic Diversity Hypothesis” for a “Within Africa Ana-

lysis.” This reformulation has a fivefold motivation: limitations in the conception of

space; African dummy in genetic diversity; linearity in migratory patterns; migration ori-

gin and underpinnings of genetic diversity in Africa. The last-three are motivated by

recent findings from the African Genome Variation Project (Gurdasani et al., 2015).

1

First, on the shortcomings in the conception of space, in spite of the short migratory

distance from East Africa to other regions in the continent (Figure 1, p. 3), the distance

from Addis Ababa to intermediate waypoints is also significantly long within Africa. For

instance from Figure 2 (p. 15), the following observations are worthwhile. (i) The

1

The Journal Nature in January 2015 published a study by Gurdasani et al. (2015) on African

Genome Variation which isthe first comprehensive study of genetic diversity on the continent.

534 South African Journal of Economics Vol. 85:4 December 2017

V

C2017 Economic Society of South Africa.