Untroubled by any attempt to find data, I'll note that life expectancy is highly sensitive to infant mortality. *MAYBE* the standard of living for those who survive early childhood is similar in the two countries.
Several differences I haven't seen people talk about.
1. coastal plains. The mountains take up more of Haiti, whereas DR has more coastal plains to allow agriculture.
2. different colonial history. The entire island started out as a Spanish colony then what is now Haiti was handed over to France around 1700. A Spanish speaking country is going to able to have easier economic ties with the primarily Latin American countries that surround it.
3. Tourism could be affected by racism. Are Americans and other countries more comfortable visiting a country that is less black. (Haiti 90%, DR 50%)
"At the end of the colonial era, black slaves made up 90% of Haiti's population, while less than half of Dominicans were Africans in bondage. Both societies were deeply stratified by race, but most of the whites and many of the mixed race people fled Haiti during the Revolutionary era beginning about 220 years ago."
5. For whatever reason, Haiti has been less stable than Puerto Rico through history.
"The problem was compounded by Haiti's ethnically diverse population. "The slaves came from over a hundred different ethnic groups and originally had nothing to do with each other," Oliver Gliech, an expert on Haiti at the Latin America Institute at the Free University in Berlin, says.
"For centuries, they've experienced how power was brutally practiced and legitimized," he says. It's little wonder that the bloody wars in the 19th century were followed by rebellions, political upheaval and coups as well as frequently changing self-proclaimed monarchs and dictators, he adds. That pattern has continued in the country till today."
Your point 1 seems to contradict Noah in the post, where he says Haiti "still has more arable land than the entire Dominican Republic, despite being only about half as large in terms of territory!" Any sense of how that reconciles?
As for geography, Haiti is more mountainous but actually has more arable land than the D.R.
Regarding race, Dominicans have a complex way of thinking about race, but I think Americans will probably tend to see Dominicans as being almost all Black, no?
Yeah... that is a flaw in my theory. I was just sort of shooting ideas. I'm leaning towards a combination of the language combined with a tumultuous history.
"At the end of the colonial era, black slaves made up 90% of Haiti's population, while less than half of Dominicans were Africans in bondage. Both societies were deeply stratified by race, but most of the whites and many of the mixed race people fled Haiti during the Revolutionary era beginning about 220 years ago."
That Americans would think of them the same just says something about how much less sophisticated Americans are than, say, Latin Americans.
Eh. American racial views of Dominicans are going to span a pretty wide range, because skin colors on the island vary a fair bit. You definitely have a significant number of lighter-skinned Hispanic types. I lived with a guy who was an upper-class / educated DR immigrant. (I think currently he's at Dolby Labs, in SF.) He'd probably be considered recognizably Hispanic, but _very_ light-skinned / Euro.
Dunno if you followed The Discourse when In the Heights came out, but colorism _within_ some of these countries is a thing. Upper class Haitians also tend to be much paler shades. :-/
I didnt know that about arable land... I was taking a guess.
Just my opinion... and I am not from East Coast, but I would disagree with Americans viewing Dominicans as black. I think there is a significant number of Dominican diaspora in the country, that Dominicans are viewed as an entity to themselves, or more likely to be associated with Puerto Ricans (Caribbean Hispanics). This is based on working on East Coast, the military and also working in the Dominican Republic.
How about my theory on the language being an advantage with economic ties?
Does Haiti as a francophone country have a disadvantage given its primarily Spanish and English speaking neighbors? (though it doesn't explain why the French West Indies islands have the same problem)
With Haiti there is no possibility of understanding; all the truths of the political and economic sciences crash against this brutal reality. It is a culture of misery, predation and poverty that will inevitably swallow them up unless they put up serious resistance. Close the border or push it back to the fullest. That everything you want is invested, internally in Haiti, but do not bind the peoples because nothing good will come out. Haiti is not a nation, it is a mass of people, and with very sinister intentions towards the Dominicans.
The poet Jose marti seems like a retard. Most of the problems in Haiti is due to them using majority of there resources to help and aide Latin countries freeing themselves, as well as aiding in migrating Americans to samana which was previously Latin Haiti. Haiti been focusing on helping the world and ridding slavery, while deforesting their land and not repopulating and focusing on themselves. If they had a focus where they kept to themselves and just build similar to Christophe maybe Haiti would of had a chance. But also not to forget that the African slaves weren’t in control of the land the leaders were all mix and til this day are running the country to only serve them and not the country as a whole completely different from desaline plan. There is a issue of colorism in Haiti and with their next door neighbor. Those issues need to be addressed while building the country up as future disasters will always come cause of it. They need to reforest their land. Build a military that is effective and not easily corrupted. Focus on education and building the nation. Also redoing the constitution so only Haitians can own land and remove all foreign companies. With those issues addressed Haiti can resolve their issues in 5-40 years with the help of Haitians abroad. But Haiti needs to do something they never did before which is focus on Haiti and it citizens first. Once they have their issues fixed they can maybe lend a hand to others. But that is the best solution at the moment.
To label another as a retard, only exposes your own insecurities and frustrations - which automatically dis credits any points you may make.
Haiti’s troubles are simple. There are more of them ( than thier neighbors )who do not wish to live in a civilized manner and thus work together to build a better society.
The moment anyone points blame at others or circumstances for their current situation is the moment they continue loss .
Not at all calling out someone for what they are with proof isn’t showing any type of insecurities what so ever. I think you only looked at that and passed a judgement maybe cause you felt hurt by it or maybe didn’t like the person being called what they are.
It like what I wrote which was similar to yours our issues are easy to resolve but our issues should only be solved by us and not by someone who has no attachment or investment in our community.
We know what the issues are and Haiti can only be fixed by Haitians and Blacks. With non Blacks and their democracy it has brought Haiti to where they are today. An easy fix to this is simply by removing the elite pedo class that runs the country and either exile them or remove them completely and the rest of the Haitian diaspora can do the rest and fix the country.
But yeah the issues is easy to fix so no hard feelings for you and the retard.
Ah, one of my favorite all time developmental questions. Spent some time in Haiti and DR for extended periods. A Family member fled Baby Doc Duvalier then tried to return under Preval. Both places are stunningly beautiful and the people are warm and friendly.
There is not one thing or even five but a hundred things DR got sort of right. Some highlights: (1) The stability, institutions and reduced corruption (land titles, functioning courts, contract enforcement) that let DR build the Zona Industrial's (ZI) which generated export earnings. 2) The large diaspora of hard workers and political trouble makers (leaving created stability) who send back remittances for school children and housing. 3) The government focused on tourism when China (with US help) began to dominate low wage manufacturing. They attracted foreign investment and created megaresorts and jobs during the 1990-2020. (4) Finally, in the DR, corporate and elite control the state (much like Haiti) but with a voice for the poor. DR also has a "cultural" optimism that drives some of the success. They still are plagued poverty, corruption and human trafficking.
Haiti, if you can imagine, is a completely institution-less country. The major institution are the cellphone company, EDH, the ports and the schools. If you go to a government office there is no one there or no one who can resolve the problem. The politicians do not meet. Rubbish is burned not picked up. Water is spotty. And there are rumors everywhere (often very accurate).
Everything is private: Hospitals, schools, doctors, bodyguards. There is no personal security. If you are elite, you live behind a strong fence with broken glass embedded on top. You have a bodyguard/driver. If you are middle class, you have a personal firearm. And if your poor, you hope you have your community to protect you. It is hard to imagine the level of personal "insecurite." Note: Had an off duty cop flash his fire arm because he want us to move our car so his truck could pass.
Haiti also has resource issues and an exploding population. Much of the country is mountainous with limited rainfall. There is also a limited amount of arable land for farming, primarily in the Artibonite Valley. Haiti grows rice.
In Haiti's case, development, is more of a failure to launch. They could not stabilize their institutions to build the infrastructure needed to attract foreign investment. Haiti started exporting right when the China shock started. So basically, the jobs and development of Haiti took place: But in China. Despite being one of the most interesting places in the Caribbean, Haiti never made the transition to tourism. The Haitian diaspora send back about $3B vs. 9B for DR. Most likely due to US discrimination.
Finally, I would go back in a minute to Haiti (if it was safe) or DR. Two of my favorite places to visit.
The Mystery of Capital's a great book I'd recommend highly if you haven't read it.
I recall folks mentioning after the Hurricane in Puerto Rico there were similarish issues when it came to providing aid. Lots and lots of people lived on property that they practically owned but didn't legally own, which made federal relief effort very difficult. Lots of folks built houses on some boss's land based on unwritten or unrecorded handshake agreements decades prior.
This video starting at around 8 minutes also gets into the issues with Haitian building codes; which (though they don't refer to it) could be tied to lack of state capacity, inability to enforce contracts, no clarity in who owns what, etc.
I vaguely recall that DR had a stronger land titling system going back a while too. At first it was just a tool for the rich people to assert that they owned stuff, but over time the middle class and poor folks got to benefit from it too. It also doesn't hurt that DR's being passed back and forth among colonial powers (including the Haitians conquering them!) meant that its elite weren't a bunch of old-money types going back centuries who thought they had a divine right to rule.
Interesting--there's a similar problem in US among Blacks--a lot of property, both land and houses, are heir property, where title has been passed down without wills, so legal ownership is spread among a lot of cousins.Means it's hard for black farmers to get loans on their land, or for home owners to get FEMA benefits. (There's a recent book, Yellow House, where a minor thread is the difficulty in getting all the cousins to agree to sign for FEMA.) Members of some Native American tribes also own land in common.
It's possible that clear titles have become more and more important in recent decades as the availability of capital becomes more critical to economic development (certainly the case for agriculture, I assume the same applies in other sectors).
With Haiti there is no possibility of understanding; all the truths of the political and economic sciences crash against this brutal reality. It is a culture of misery, predation and poverty that will inevitably swallow them up unless they put up serious resistance. Close the border or push it back to the fullest. That everything you want is invested, internally in Haiti, but do not bind the peoples because nothing good will come out. Haiti is not a nation, it is a mass of people, and with very sinister intentions towards the Dominicans.
Well your blog post is like a Christian fundamentalist trying to cope with evidence that the universe was not created in six days. Everyone who has some knowledge of basic science will smile seeing those cognitive dissonance motivated explanations.
Haiti population DNA is 95% black, Dominican Republic's DNA is 52% European. Charles Murray's last book explains why it matters to IQ and achievement.
There is also a lot to be said about French occupation of various countries. I think they were the worst colonialists - if we are allowed to put colonial powers on a scale :-)
In Africa or Asia, being under french ocuppation yielded much worse results for the natives than British occupation.
Can be worse of course - the Belgian (Congo). Belgians created real hell on earth.
It reminded me of a ranking I saw on Usenet back in the day of colonial regimes in the East Asia/Pacific region: there the conclusion was basically that the British were the best , the Americans and the French were OK, the Dutch weren't so good, the Spanish and Portuguese were awful, and the Japanese started off great but ended up terrible.
So you should compare Jamaica and Haiti and it can be quite interesting. Comparing Hispanic country like DR and a black country like Haiti makes no sense.
So absolutely everything goes - from american tourists being racist to depletion of trees in the hills (rotfl) - everything except history and anthropology?
One country is a usual latin american country, and little intricacies shaped it's destiny little differently than Honduras, Mexico or Guatemala.
The other is a country of rudderless (slavery descending) Africans speaking broken French. That is why it is poor. Just like Mali, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger and so on. Completely chaotic, no meaningful systems, no previous culture to fall back on, shunned by the world. Tribal society with guns instead of spears.
How could you expect it to be managed as well as latin american countries?! What is so surprising here?
It is no more surprising than difference between neighbouring USA and Mexico or Greece and Albania. It's history, anthropology, culture. I would bet the OP was even right about the IQ difference - of course IQ is a western-centered measure and western-oriented culture and education helps with the average level of it. But this is also what it takes to be a sucessful country in the last 500 years.
This is completely different than Nand S Korea. Haiti and DR have nothing important in common.
"At the end of the colonial era, black slaves made up 90% of Haiti's population, while less than half of Dominicans were Africans in bondage. Both societies were deeply stratified by race, but most of the whites and many of the mixed race people fled Haiti during the Revolutionary era beginning about 220 years ago."
DR tried to attract more European immigrants. Trujillo was one of the few leaders to welcome in Jews fleeing the Nazis.
It is possible that DR's poverty in the sixties was the specific legacy of the dictator Trujillo, but I don't know enough about the economic history of DR. Anyway there is no real reason to compare DR with Haiti. The population DNA is just too different.
"Trujillo maybe? Idk" is indeed not an adequate analysis. And just saying "their IQ is low so therefore they can't be rich" isn't enough either. What we're interested in are the specific institutional manifestations that cause the GDP to not grow. If it is because of IQ then that actually has to manifest in something concrete which causes GDP to grow in DR, but not in Haiti. So what is the divergence? What shows up in 1960?
The usual explanation for low IQ mullatto-majority countries being wealthy is "tourism money". This applies here to some extent, though probably not enough to make the decisive difference.
It's puzzling only if you buy in to your "race uber alles" thesis. If you look at the post, you'd see that Argentina has been a basket case politically (and financially and stability-wise) in recent decades as well.
Do you have an opinion on claims that some nations have an *average* IQ around 70? I am no expert on the levels of skill that sub-70 IQs represent, but these figures seem hard to believe.
It's interesting that the four neighboring entities -- Haiti, Jamaica, DR, and Puerto Rico -- form two distinct pairs in terms of economic development (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maddison-data-gdp-per-capita-in-2011us-single-benchmark?time=1900..latest&country=DOM~JAM~HTI~PRI). Obviously there are unique factors for each (e.g., Puerto Rico's high numbers due to its relationship to the US), but I do wonder how much difference the two sets of patterns reflects that one group is Spanish speaking and the other French-Creole/English, given the overall economic growth of the Spanish speaking parts of the hemisphere (most definitely including southern Florida).
Nice article. Wish there was something more definitive in terms of conclusions but I guess it is what it is. Here’s a thought, is there any evidence one way or the other that prior to the divergence DR had better human capital than Haiti? This could be anything ranging from people with more basic education, business or technical experience.
Great comment. I am going to look back at educational institution during Duvalier and Trujillo. My recollection from talking to old educators was they had small, Catholic private schools and colleges. Many Haitians left to pursue advanced degrees in Mexico, Venezuela, and Chile/Argentina. Many older, educated Haitians speak Spanish fluently.
I think there are four factors at play that I can think of.
They might not be the most important but I do think they are relevant.
1. Haiti before it became independent was the sort of society that Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson described in their book "Why Nations Fail" . The French set up extractive institutions whose purpose was to maximize sugar production. As a result Haiti was very important to the French empire.
The side of the island that became the Dominican Republic on the other hand was a backwater of the Spanish empire, undeveloped. The Spaniards were far more interested in exploiting the resources of Peru and Mexico than what would become the DR. Though slavery was legal in what would become the Dominican Republic it was not as central to the economy as it was in Haiti.
These initial difference would affect the development of both countries even after they became independent and even after some of the extractive institutions (i.e. slavery) where abolished. Slavery and the extractive institutions that replaced them in Haiti discouraged savings and investment to a greater extent than in the Dominican Republic.
2. Haiti was an example that potential trading partners of Haiti did not want to encourage. Black slaves rising up, killing their masters and starting a republic...not something that Europe or slave owners in the US wanted to encourage.
Even after slavery was abolished it's not like racism magically disappeared.
In the 20th century there would be more prosperous countries with black majorities but by the time these countries became independent the attitude of European countries and the US had been influenced by the Second World War and the Cold War. Neither Europe nor the US wanted to antogonize the non-white countries of the newly independent Third World.
3. Haiti is a country where the overwhelming majority speak Creole and a small minority speaks French. It's isolated from its neighbors who speak English and Spanish.
4. The Dominican Republic, has followed better policies and has had more stability than Haiti, at least going back to 1960. These is an important factor but it is not isolated from the other three factors.
So I skimmed through it. Interesting that the USA reformed these farm and land issues during the occupation. Yet sounds like there are still issues with clean title.
They changed the law removing citizenship from women who married foreigners, requiring them to sell their land within a certain period of time. But they didn't change laws giving entire families usufruct rights without individuals having a right to alienate property absent the consent of their relatives.
> Haiti is a country where the overwhelming majority speak Creole and a small minority speaks French.
Isn't this situation, where the language of the colonizing country is a prestigious official language used in education, government, &c., but the most commonly spoken language is a creole based on it, common in the Caribbean islands, most of which are doing much better economically than Haiti?
That's not my understanding. The only other country I know of where the common language is a creole is Papua New Guinea with "Tok Pisin" (derived from "pidgin").
I just double-checked (wikipedia) and it seems that many of the countries of the greater Caribbean have a creole as their common language. Suriname has a Dutch-based creole. Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao have a Spanish-based. And Jamaican, Bahamian and Belizean are considered creoles (of English).
But also, isn't it comparatively very easy to learn French, if your native tongue is a related creole?
"But how to get a country to collectively decide to pursue growth — and the political stability and smart policy required for that growth — is a harder question entirely".
I'm kind of surprised you didn't mention Daron Acemoglu's hypothesis from why nations fail. He makes the argument that Haitian colonial rule was more extractive than DR's, and that even after liberation Haiti failed to establish inclusive institutions. Acemoglu contends that extractive institutions can be as efficient, or more efficient, than inclusive institutions up to a point (South America was wealthier than North America 'til 1800 an onwards for example). In the case of Haiti vs DR the 1960s was the point at which the competitive advantage of DR's more inclusive institutions became apparent.
So, in other words: Acemoglu and Robinson's claim that Haiti did not have a strong state while the DR did in the period before 1960—and that this led to anarchy rather than extractive growth—is wrong?
One hypothesis is that individual leadership mattered in the post colonial world. Duvalier was crazy as hell. I can only speak second had for Trujillo. When his son succeeded him and then later, left for France, almost all institutions were completely dysfunctional. When Trujillo left, things continued to function and later governments put the pieces back together.
There is something their I cannot put my finger on: It might be the institutions required for stable tourism like with Costa Rica. I was in a small town in Hatit, Figues, when a truck load of German tourist descended from no where to bathe in the natural spring, buy peanut brittle, see a Voudun ceremony and shop at the local market. Thinking back, the level of institutional function to make that happen was impressive during the early 1900's.
There is a huge market for authentic, adventure tourism especially among young, affluent Europeans.
Having looked some more, I don't really see much of a divergence in 1960. DR's GDP/cap in 1960 was already about 3x that of Haiti, it's just that the handles on the hockey sticks always look small when you zoom out far enough.
DR has just been pulling away from Haiti pretty consistently since 1960, and still are. The difference in 1960 was already quite substantial, in fact it's the same as the difference between Spain and Mexico today. And as Guy mentioned in the comments; DR had 10 years greater life expectancy than Haiti by 1960 - Spain's life expectancy is 8 years greater than Mexico's.
So I'm mostly leaning towards this great divergence between Haiti and DR in 1960 actually not being thing. For all we know it may have taken DR 100 years by 1960 to triple their GDP relative to Haiti, and the true divergence in DR's GDP trajectory was sometime in the 1800s...
I would suggest metals extraction has had an influence. First nickel mining contributed almost 50% of gap as nickel mining declined gold mining began which quickly took over, again contributing almost 50% to the gdp.
I guess my question is more about morality than economics, but it would seem at first blush that France clearly owes Haiti reparations. But if France were to pay such reparations then most or all of it would end up in some gangster’s bank account in the caymans. So France seems to have a duty to pay, but this could easily make the world worse off. What then should France do?
Seems like one option would be giving citizenship to anyone from Haiti who wants it. Unlimited immigration to France would be a real perk for Haitians (I don't know how hard it is to move from Haiti to France now, but I suspect it's not as easy as, say, moving from California to Maine, which should be the goal here).
As an American I have every right to object to an insane immigration policy proposal. Sorry you don’t get to throw open our borders to millions of Haitians to prove how much of a progressive think you are.
Some (like myself) think that France (and the USA) would have a duty to allow mass immigration from Haiti even had they not acted like mafiosi towards them. But this act of brazen extortion would seem to impose a special duty upon France towards Haiti, hence citizenship for Haitians?
France doesn’t owe them a nickel. The payment of debt was sought by the president of Haiti at the time, Boyer. Many other countries recognized Haiti including Russia and Greece. The Haitians did not have to pay, they chose to.
The photo contrasting the two sides of the Haiti-DR border is a really stark contrast. But I'm not sure the deforestation is the biggest difference. The DR side isn't actually that heavily forested either. It's more like savannah or scrubland, like Southern California, with low bushes on the hilltops and sides, and trees in the creases between hills where water flows. Instead, I think the biggest contrast is that the Haitian side appears to be overgrazed (with cattle? I don't know what animals they raise there). Notice all the little paths covering the hillsides on the Haitian side, which I think are probably made by livestock. Notice also that even the grassy or low bush areas on the DR side have more plants growing on them. I bet no one is cutting down grass or bushes for wood or even firewood, and they aren't going around mowing it with a lawnmower either. Again, I think it was livestock that mowed all those bushes down.
You see this contrast in the ranching areas of the Western US too, where low grass on areas used as pasture can contrast with scrub and sagebrush on adjacent lands that aren't grazed by cattle.
Is this representative or related to the growth rates? Maybe DR agriculture was always tilted toward more cash crops and less livestock, which created a virtuous cycle against deforestation and decreasing soil quality.
One thing to consider is that DR basically took over Cuba’s exports after the Cuban revolution. Stealing brand names of cigars and rum fairly flagrantly to exploit the embargo. This was around the time of the divergence. It’ll be interesting to see what happens if embargo ends someday.
Was the “Macroeconomic section” supposed to end mid-sentence after “Personally, I think”? Is this a subtle nod to the lack of definitive answers, or just a snafu?
"As recently as 1960, the two countries had similar standards of living. "
Why did DR have 10 years longer life expectancy then? Similar GDP per capita doesn't necessarily mean similar standards of living.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?locations=DO-HT
Good question
Untroubled by any attempt to find data, I'll note that life expectancy is highly sensitive to infant mortality. *MAYBE* the standard of living for those who survive early childhood is similar in the two countries.
Not true for mortality rate at least: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.AMRT.MA?locations=HT-DO
Perhaps this account from a doctor goes some way to explaining Haiti's life expectancy: https://web.archive.org/web/20150407223525/http://squid314.livejournal.com/297579.html
Probably stability/instability, same root cause
Several differences I haven't seen people talk about.
1. coastal plains. The mountains take up more of Haiti, whereas DR has more coastal plains to allow agriculture.
2. different colonial history. The entire island started out as a Spanish colony then what is now Haiti was handed over to France around 1700. A Spanish speaking country is going to able to have easier economic ties with the primarily Latin American countries that surround it.
3. Tourism could be affected by racism. Are Americans and other countries more comfortable visiting a country that is less black. (Haiti 90%, DR 50%)
"At the end of the colonial era, black slaves made up 90% of Haiti's population, while less than half of Dominicans were Africans in bondage. Both societies were deeply stratified by race, but most of the whites and many of the mixed race people fled Haiti during the Revolutionary era beginning about 220 years ago."
https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-11-14/theres-long-story-behind-anti-haitianismo-dominican-republic
5. For whatever reason, Haiti has been less stable than Puerto Rico through history.
"The problem was compounded by Haiti's ethnically diverse population. "The slaves came from over a hundred different ethnic groups and originally had nothing to do with each other," Oliver Gliech, an expert on Haiti at the Latin America Institute at the Free University in Berlin, says.
"For centuries, they've experienced how power was brutally practiced and legitimized," he says. It's little wonder that the bloody wars in the 19th century were followed by rebellions, political upheaval and coups as well as frequently changing self-proclaimed monarchs and dictators, he adds. That pattern has continued in the country till today."
https://www.dw.com/en/haiti-and-the-dominican-republic-one-island-two-worlds/a-16593022
Note. both articles above are great reading.
Americans seem pretty comfortable visiting Jamaica and Barbados.
Yeah, that is a good point. Does the combination of language factor into it? Arent both those countries English speaking?
Yeah, true. But then again, the Americans just go to the resort towns well away from the cities anyway...
Your point 1 seems to contradict Noah in the post, where he says Haiti "still has more arable land than the entire Dominican Republic, despite being only about half as large in terms of territory!" Any sense of how that reconciles?
Yeah, I missed that. Think of my post as more a random scattering of ideas to add to the conversation. Im not wedded to any of them.
As for geography, Haiti is more mountainous but actually has more arable land than the D.R.
Regarding race, Dominicans have a complex way of thinking about race, but I think Americans will probably tend to see Dominicans as being almost all Black, no?
Oh yeah, and Americans love going to Jamaica.
Yeah... that is a flaw in my theory. I was just sort of shooting ideas. I'm leaning towards a combination of the language combined with a tumultuous history.
Yes, Dominicans are seen as black and mulatto. Because they are.
As someone quoted above:
"At the end of the colonial era, black slaves made up 90% of Haiti's population, while less than half of Dominicans were Africans in bondage. Both societies were deeply stratified by race, but most of the whites and many of the mixed race people fled Haiti during the Revolutionary era beginning about 220 years ago."
That Americans would think of them the same just says something about how much less sophisticated Americans are than, say, Latin Americans.
Eh. American racial views of Dominicans are going to span a pretty wide range, because skin colors on the island vary a fair bit. You definitely have a significant number of lighter-skinned Hispanic types. I lived with a guy who was an upper-class / educated DR immigrant. (I think currently he's at Dolby Labs, in SF.) He'd probably be considered recognizably Hispanic, but _very_ light-skinned / Euro.
Dunno if you followed The Discourse when In the Heights came out, but colorism _within_ some of these countries is a thing. Upper class Haitians also tend to be much paler shades. :-/
I didnt know that about arable land... I was taking a guess.
Just my opinion... and I am not from East Coast, but I would disagree with Americans viewing Dominicans as black. I think there is a significant number of Dominican diaspora in the country, that Dominicans are viewed as an entity to themselves, or more likely to be associated with Puerto Ricans (Caribbean Hispanics). This is based on working on East Coast, the military and also working in the Dominican Republic.
How about my theory on the language being an advantage with economic ties?
Does Haiti as a francophone country have a disadvantage given its primarily Spanish and English speaking neighbors? (though it doesn't explain why the French West Indies islands have the same problem)
As always, Its probably a confluence of issues.
Words of Cuban poet and philosopher Jose Martí-
With Haiti there is no possibility of understanding; all the truths of the political and economic sciences crash against this brutal reality. It is a culture of misery, predation and poverty that will inevitably swallow them up unless they put up serious resistance. Close the border or push it back to the fullest. That everything you want is invested, internally in Haiti, but do not bind the peoples because nothing good will come out. Haiti is not a nation, it is a mass of people, and with very sinister intentions towards the Dominicans.
The poet Jose marti seems like a retard. Most of the problems in Haiti is due to them using majority of there resources to help and aide Latin countries freeing themselves, as well as aiding in migrating Americans to samana which was previously Latin Haiti. Haiti been focusing on helping the world and ridding slavery, while deforesting their land and not repopulating and focusing on themselves. If they had a focus where they kept to themselves and just build similar to Christophe maybe Haiti would of had a chance. But also not to forget that the African slaves weren’t in control of the land the leaders were all mix and til this day are running the country to only serve them and not the country as a whole completely different from desaline plan. There is a issue of colorism in Haiti and with their next door neighbor. Those issues need to be addressed while building the country up as future disasters will always come cause of it. They need to reforest their land. Build a military that is effective and not easily corrupted. Focus on education and building the nation. Also redoing the constitution so only Haitians can own land and remove all foreign companies. With those issues addressed Haiti can resolve their issues in 5-40 years with the help of Haitians abroad. But Haiti needs to do something they never did before which is focus on Haiti and it citizens first. Once they have their issues fixed they can maybe lend a hand to others. But that is the best solution at the moment.
To label another as a retard, only exposes your own insecurities and frustrations - which automatically dis credits any points you may make.
Haiti’s troubles are simple. There are more of them ( than thier neighbors )who do not wish to live in a civilized manner and thus work together to build a better society.
The moment anyone points blame at others or circumstances for their current situation is the moment they continue loss .
Not at all calling out someone for what they are with proof isn’t showing any type of insecurities what so ever. I think you only looked at that and passed a judgement maybe cause you felt hurt by it or maybe didn’t like the person being called what they are.
It like what I wrote which was similar to yours our issues are easy to resolve but our issues should only be solved by us and not by someone who has no attachment or investment in our community.
We know what the issues are and Haiti can only be fixed by Haitians and Blacks. With non Blacks and their democracy it has brought Haiti to where they are today. An easy fix to this is simply by removing the elite pedo class that runs the country and either exile them or remove them completely and the rest of the Haitian diaspora can do the rest and fix the country.
But yeah the issues is easy to fix so no hard feelings for you and the retard.
"most of the whites and many of the mixed race people fled Haiti during the Revolutionary era beginning about 220 years ago."
Weren't most actually killed in a series of genocides under Jean-Jacques Dessalines and Henri Christophe?
Ah, one of my favorite all time developmental questions. Spent some time in Haiti and DR for extended periods. A Family member fled Baby Doc Duvalier then tried to return under Preval. Both places are stunningly beautiful and the people are warm and friendly.
There is not one thing or even five but a hundred things DR got sort of right. Some highlights: (1) The stability, institutions and reduced corruption (land titles, functioning courts, contract enforcement) that let DR build the Zona Industrial's (ZI) which generated export earnings. 2) The large diaspora of hard workers and political trouble makers (leaving created stability) who send back remittances for school children and housing. 3) The government focused on tourism when China (with US help) began to dominate low wage manufacturing. They attracted foreign investment and created megaresorts and jobs during the 1990-2020. (4) Finally, in the DR, corporate and elite control the state (much like Haiti) but with a voice for the poor. DR also has a "cultural" optimism that drives some of the success. They still are plagued poverty, corruption and human trafficking.
Haiti, if you can imagine, is a completely institution-less country. The major institution are the cellphone company, EDH, the ports and the schools. If you go to a government office there is no one there or no one who can resolve the problem. The politicians do not meet. Rubbish is burned not picked up. Water is spotty. And there are rumors everywhere (often very accurate).
Everything is private: Hospitals, schools, doctors, bodyguards. There is no personal security. If you are elite, you live behind a strong fence with broken glass embedded on top. You have a bodyguard/driver. If you are middle class, you have a personal firearm. And if your poor, you hope you have your community to protect you. It is hard to imagine the level of personal "insecurite." Note: Had an off duty cop flash his fire arm because he want us to move our car so his truck could pass.
Haiti also has resource issues and an exploding population. Much of the country is mountainous with limited rainfall. There is also a limited amount of arable land for farming, primarily in the Artibonite Valley. Haiti grows rice.
In Haiti's case, development, is more of a failure to launch. They could not stabilize their institutions to build the infrastructure needed to attract foreign investment. Haiti started exporting right when the China shock started. So basically, the jobs and development of Haiti took place: But in China. Despite being one of the most interesting places in the Caribbean, Haiti never made the transition to tourism. The Haitian diaspora send back about $3B vs. 9B for DR. Most likely due to US discrimination.
Finally, I would go back in a minute to Haiti (if it was safe) or DR. Two of my favorite places to visit.
.
You didn't mention Hernando de Soto's observation about how DR is much better at recording who owns what property.
That is interesting!
The Mystery of Capital's a great book I'd recommend highly if you haven't read it.
I recall folks mentioning after the Hurricane in Puerto Rico there were similarish issues when it came to providing aid. Lots and lots of people lived on property that they practically owned but didn't legally own, which made federal relief effort very difficult. Lots of folks built houses on some boss's land based on unwritten or unrecorded handshake agreements decades prior.
This video starting at around 8 minutes also gets into the issues with Haitian building codes; which (though they don't refer to it) could be tied to lack of state capacity, inability to enforce contracts, no clarity in who owns what, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddbkmhIKz7s&t=691s
I vaguely recall that DR had a stronger land titling system going back a while too. At first it was just a tool for the rich people to assert that they owned stuff, but over time the middle class and poor folks got to benefit from it too. It also doesn't hurt that DR's being passed back and forth among colonial powers (including the Haitians conquering them!) meant that its elite weren't a bunch of old-money types going back centuries who thought they had a divine right to rule.
Interesting--there's a similar problem in US among Blacks--a lot of property, both land and houses, are heir property, where title has been passed down without wills, so legal ownership is spread among a lot of cousins.Means it's hard for black farmers to get loans on their land, or for home owners to get FEMA benefits. (There's a recent book, Yellow House, where a minor thread is the difficulty in getting all the cousins to agree to sign for FEMA.) Members of some Native American tribes also own land in common.
It's possible that clear titles have become more and more important in recent decades as the availability of capital becomes more critical to economic development (certainly the case for agriculture, I assume the same applies in other sectors).
Words of Cuban poet and philosopher Jose Martí-
With Haiti there is no possibility of understanding; all the truths of the political and economic sciences crash against this brutal reality. It is a culture of misery, predation and poverty that will inevitably swallow them up unless they put up serious resistance. Close the border or push it back to the fullest. That everything you want is invested, internally in Haiti, but do not bind the peoples because nothing good will come out. Haiti is not a nation, it is a mass of people, and with very sinister intentions towards the Dominicans.
Well your blog post is like a Christian fundamentalist trying to cope with evidence that the universe was not created in six days. Everyone who has some knowledge of basic science will smile seeing those cognitive dissonance motivated explanations.
Haiti population DNA is 95% black, Dominican Republic's DNA is 52% European. Charles Murray's last book explains why it matters to IQ and achievement.
*rolls eyes*
Ok buddy
Barbados is richer than the D.R. and Jamaica is 4x as rich as Haiti, but YOU GO OFF, RACIST KING
There is also a lot to be said about French occupation of various countries. I think they were the worst colonialists - if we are allowed to put colonial powers on a scale :-)
In Africa or Asia, being under french ocuppation yielded much worse results for the natives than British occupation.
Can be worse of course - the Belgian (Congo). Belgians created real hell on earth.
It reminded me of a ranking I saw on Usenet back in the day of colonial regimes in the East Asia/Pacific region: there the conclusion was basically that the British were the best , the Americans and the French were OK, the Dutch weren't so good, the Spanish and Portuguese were awful, and the Japanese started off great but ended up terrible.
So you should compare Jamaica and Haiti and it can be quite interesting. Comparing Hispanic country like DR and a black country like Haiti makes no sense.
And didn't Jamaica during its last decade of British colonial rule actually have a lower murder rate than Britain itself?
So absolutely everything goes - from american tourists being racist to depletion of trees in the hills (rotfl) - everything except history and anthropology?
One country is a usual latin american country, and little intricacies shaped it's destiny little differently than Honduras, Mexico or Guatemala.
The other is a country of rudderless (slavery descending) Africans speaking broken French. That is why it is poor. Just like Mali, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger and so on. Completely chaotic, no meaningful systems, no previous culture to fall back on, shunned by the world. Tribal society with guns instead of spears.
How could you expect it to be managed as well as latin american countries?! What is so surprising here?
It is no more surprising than difference between neighbouring USA and Mexico or Greece and Albania. It's history, anthropology, culture. I would bet the OP was even right about the IQ difference - of course IQ is a western-centered measure and western-oriented culture and education helps with the average level of it. But this is also what it takes to be a sucessful country in the last 500 years.
This is completely different than Nand S Korea. Haiti and DR have nothing important in common.
But only since 1950 is the Haiti 95% Black and DR 52% European?
As quoted above:
"At the end of the colonial era, black slaves made up 90% of Haiti's population, while less than half of Dominicans were Africans in bondage. Both societies were deeply stratified by race, but most of the whites and many of the mixed race people fled Haiti during the Revolutionary era beginning about 220 years ago."
DR tried to attract more European immigrants. Trujillo was one of the few leaders to welcome in Jews fleeing the Nazis.
(Book of Mormon voice) “I belieeeeeve… that in 1960 white people became genetically superior at running countries…”
As other commenters have said, the IQ explanation doesn't do much to explain the divergence which is the interesting part.
It is possible that DR's poverty in the sixties was the specific legacy of the dictator Trujillo, but I don't know enough about the economic history of DR. Anyway there is no real reason to compare DR with Haiti. The population DNA is just too different.
"Trujillo maybe? Idk" is indeed not an adequate analysis. And just saying "their IQ is low so therefore they can't be rich" isn't enough either. What we're interested in are the specific institutional manifestations that cause the GDP to not grow. If it is because of IQ then that actually has to manifest in something concrete which causes GDP to grow in DR, but not in Haiti. So what is the divergence? What shows up in 1960?
How much is low IQ a consequence of extreme poverty (as in brains fail to develop properly due to malnutrition) rather than a cause?
The usual explanation for low IQ mullatto-majority countries being wealthy is "tourism money". This applies here to some extent, though probably not enough to make the decisive difference.
The DR is much whiter than countries like Peru or Bolivia where the population has only about 15% European ancestry.
BTW Argentina's DNA is extremely European and its GDP is relatively high but its PISA scores are unbelievably terrible. That is really puzzling.
It's puzzling only if you buy in to your "race uber alles" thesis. If you look at the post, you'd see that Argentina has been a basket case politically (and financially and stability-wise) in recent decades as well.
How it makes the young students struggle with solving simple math questions? Even Jewish holocaust survivors had no problem with math.
The Holocaust didn't last for whole decades, fuckwit.
Argentina's DNA is not "extremely European", nor is its GDP per capita that high.
Ironically the 3 oldest independent majority black countries:
Ethiopian
Haiti
Liberia
All have GDP per Capita numbers that are below the sub-Saharan Africa median.
Do you have an opinion on claims that some nations have an *average* IQ around 70? I am no expert on the levels of skill that sub-70 IQs represent, but these figures seem hard to believe.
The people there are completely not prepared to cognitive tests prepared in the west. I don't think you can test them reliably using those tools.
The best thing a racist ever does in this world is leave it. Why don't you hurry it along?
Tomás de Torquemada also wanted everyone who disagreed with his principles of faith to leave this world. People like you follow his example.
Kill yourself, racist. Just put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. Improve the world.
I think this comment should be deleted by the blog owner
Uh someone objects to facts.
It's interesting that the four neighboring entities -- Haiti, Jamaica, DR, and Puerto Rico -- form two distinct pairs in terms of economic development (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maddison-data-gdp-per-capita-in-2011us-single-benchmark?time=1900..latest&country=DOM~JAM~HTI~PRI). Obviously there are unique factors for each (e.g., Puerto Rico's high numbers due to its relationship to the US), but I do wonder how much difference the two sets of patterns reflects that one group is Spanish speaking and the other French-Creole/English, given the overall economic growth of the Spanish speaking parts of the hemisphere (most definitely including southern Florida).
Well Puerto Rico is very different since it's part of the U.S.! And Jamaica is like 4x as rich as Haiti...
I was most struck by the similar rates of growth within each pair, less the absolute current levels.
Nice article. Wish there was something more definitive in terms of conclusions but I guess it is what it is. Here’s a thought, is there any evidence one way or the other that prior to the divergence DR had better human capital than Haiti? This could be anything ranging from people with more basic education, business or technical experience.
I think it did have higher literacy rates. But not nearly as high as now!
Great comment. I am going to look back at educational institution during Duvalier and Trujillo. My recollection from talking to old educators was they had small, Catholic private schools and colleges. Many Haitians left to pursue advanced degrees in Mexico, Venezuela, and Chile/Argentina. Many older, educated Haitians speak Spanish fluently.
I’ve read first hand accounts of Haiti from European visitors in the late 19th century, early 20th century. They didn’t paint a pretty picture.
I think there are four factors at play that I can think of.
They might not be the most important but I do think they are relevant.
1. Haiti before it became independent was the sort of society that Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson described in their book "Why Nations Fail" . The French set up extractive institutions whose purpose was to maximize sugar production. As a result Haiti was very important to the French empire.
The side of the island that became the Dominican Republic on the other hand was a backwater of the Spanish empire, undeveloped. The Spaniards were far more interested in exploiting the resources of Peru and Mexico than what would become the DR. Though slavery was legal in what would become the Dominican Republic it was not as central to the economy as it was in Haiti.
These initial difference would affect the development of both countries even after they became independent and even after some of the extractive institutions (i.e. slavery) where abolished. Slavery and the extractive institutions that replaced them in Haiti discouraged savings and investment to a greater extent than in the Dominican Republic.
2. Haiti was an example that potential trading partners of Haiti did not want to encourage. Black slaves rising up, killing their masters and starting a republic...not something that Europe or slave owners in the US wanted to encourage.
Even after slavery was abolished it's not like racism magically disappeared.
In the 20th century there would be more prosperous countries with black majorities but by the time these countries became independent the attitude of European countries and the US had been influenced by the Second World War and the Cold War. Neither Europe nor the US wanted to antogonize the non-white countries of the newly independent Third World.
3. Haiti is a country where the overwhelming majority speak Creole and a small minority speaks French. It's isolated from its neighbors who speak English and Spanish.
4. The Dominican Republic, has followed better policies and has had more stability than Haiti, at least going back to 1960. These is an important factor but it is not isolated from the other three factors.
Regarding sugar production, it was harder to consolidate landholdings in Haiti than DR, so it missed out on a sugar boom.
Is Haiti that much less prosperous than the average black majority country? There are some that are more prosperous, but also some that are less so.
The freed slaves had little interest in working on large plantations for obvious reasons even if the new owners were black.
This is the paper I was thinking of but couldn't find to link in my comment you're replying to:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/small-farms-large-transaction-costs-haitis-missing-sugar/3DFD05E5DA9040A580FEDC6346E873E0
So I skimmed through it. Interesting that the USA reformed these farm and land issues during the occupation. Yet sounds like there are still issues with clean title.
They changed the law removing citizenship from women who married foreigners, requiring them to sell their land within a certain period of time. But they didn't change laws giving entire families usufruct rights without individuals having a right to alienate property absent the consent of their relatives.
I see. The Syrian-Lebanese used that law to marry local women in order to own land. They now dominate the economy.
Btw thanks
You are right! When I mentioned black majority countries I had the Anglophone Caribbean in mind but I did not make that clear.
> Haiti is a country where the overwhelming majority speak Creole and a small minority speaks French.
Isn't this situation, where the language of the colonizing country is a prestigious official language used in education, government, &c., but the most commonly spoken language is a creole based on it, common in the Caribbean islands, most of which are doing much better economically than Haiti?
That's not my understanding. The only other country I know of where the common language is a creole is Papua New Guinea with "Tok Pisin" (derived from "pidgin").
I just double-checked (wikipedia) and it seems that many of the countries of the greater Caribbean have a creole as their common language. Suriname has a Dutch-based creole. Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao have a Spanish-based. And Jamaican, Bahamian and Belizean are considered creoles (of English).
But also, isn't it comparatively very easy to learn French, if your native tongue is a related creole?
"But how to get a country to collectively decide to pursue growth — and the political stability and smart policy required for that growth — is a harder question entirely".
China post 1990?
I'm kind of surprised you didn't mention Daron Acemoglu's hypothesis from why nations fail. He makes the argument that Haitian colonial rule was more extractive than DR's, and that even after liberation Haiti failed to establish inclusive institutions. Acemoglu contends that extractive institutions can be as efficient, or more efficient, than inclusive institutions up to a point (South America was wealthier than North America 'til 1800 an onwards for example). In the case of Haiti vs DR the 1960s was the point at which the competitive advantage of DR's more inclusive institutions became apparent.
http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/4/3/why-is-haiti-so-poor.html
Oh, the IMF paper I linked to shows that the two had similar institutions as measured by traditional measures, in 1960.
So, in other words: Acemoglu and Robinson's claim that Haiti did not have a strong state while the DR did in the period before 1960—and that this led to anarchy rather than extractive growth—is wrong?
It might be right. But the variables that A&R use to proxy for the quality of colonial institutions were the same for both.
One hypothesis is that individual leadership mattered in the post colonial world. Duvalier was crazy as hell. I can only speak second had for Trujillo. When his son succeeded him and then later, left for France, almost all institutions were completely dysfunctional. When Trujillo left, things continued to function and later governments put the pieces back together.
There is something their I cannot put my finger on: It might be the institutions required for stable tourism like with Costa Rica. I was in a small town in Hatit, Figues, when a truck load of German tourist descended from no where to bathe in the natural spring, buy peanut brittle, see a Voudun ceremony and shop at the local market. Thinking back, the level of institutional function to make that happen was impressive during the early 1900's.
There is a huge market for authentic, adventure tourism especially among young, affluent Europeans.
Trujillo didn't "leave": his career as dictator of the Dominican Republic was ended by assassin's bullets.
Having looked some more, I don't really see much of a divergence in 1960. DR's GDP/cap in 1960 was already about 3x that of Haiti, it's just that the handles on the hockey sticks always look small when you zoom out far enough.
Check out GDP/cap in Haiti and DR from 1960-1970: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=1970&locations=DO-HT&start=1960
The 10-year-average GDP growth/cap (annual %) between 1961-1970 for DR was 2.91%, whereas for Haiti it was -1%: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=DO-HT
DR has just been pulling away from Haiti pretty consistently since 1960, and still are. The difference in 1960 was already quite substantial, in fact it's the same as the difference between Spain and Mexico today. And as Guy mentioned in the comments; DR had 10 years greater life expectancy than Haiti by 1960 - Spain's life expectancy is 8 years greater than Mexico's.
So I'm mostly leaning towards this great divergence between Haiti and DR in 1960 actually not being thing. For all we know it may have taken DR 100 years by 1960 to triple their GDP relative to Haiti, and the true divergence in DR's GDP trajectory was sometime in the 1800s...
***DR has just been pulling away from Haiti pretty consistently since 1960, and probably did before 1960 as well.
I would suggest metals extraction has had an influence. First nickel mining contributed almost 50% of gap as nickel mining declined gold mining began which quickly took over, again contributing almost 50% to the gdp.
But predominance of extractive industries is normally a strong predictor of instability and disfunction
I guess my question is more about morality than economics, but it would seem at first blush that France clearly owes Haiti reparations. But if France were to pay such reparations then most or all of it would end up in some gangster’s bank account in the caymans. So France seems to have a duty to pay, but this could easily make the world worse off. What then should France do?
Seems like one option would be giving citizenship to anyone from Haiti who wants it. Unlimited immigration to France would be a real perk for Haitians (I don't know how hard it is to move from Haiti to France now, but I suspect it's not as easy as, say, moving from California to Maine, which should be the goal here).
What a vile suggestion.
Hey Noah, you've got a bigot in your comments section. Cleanup in Aisle 3.
As an American I have every right to object to an insane immigration policy proposal. Sorry you don’t get to throw open our borders to millions of Haitians to prove how much of a progressive think you are.
> Unlimited immigration to France
> to France
> France
France is not America, French borders are not American. You illiterate dipshit.
Some (like myself) think that France (and the USA) would have a duty to allow mass immigration from Haiti even had they not acted like mafiosi towards them. But this act of brazen extortion would seem to impose a special duty upon France towards Haiti, hence citizenship for Haitians?
France doesn’t owe them a nickel. The payment of debt was sought by the president of Haiti at the time, Boyer. Many other countries recognized Haiti including Russia and Greece. The Haitians did not have to pay, they chose to.
The photo contrasting the two sides of the Haiti-DR border is a really stark contrast. But I'm not sure the deforestation is the biggest difference. The DR side isn't actually that heavily forested either. It's more like savannah or scrubland, like Southern California, with low bushes on the hilltops and sides, and trees in the creases between hills where water flows. Instead, I think the biggest contrast is that the Haitian side appears to be overgrazed (with cattle? I don't know what animals they raise there). Notice all the little paths covering the hillsides on the Haitian side, which I think are probably made by livestock. Notice also that even the grassy or low bush areas on the DR side have more plants growing on them. I bet no one is cutting down grass or bushes for wood or even firewood, and they aren't going around mowing it with a lawnmower either. Again, I think it was livestock that mowed all those bushes down.
You see this contrast in the ranching areas of the Western US too, where low grass on areas used as pasture can contrast with scrub and sagebrush on adjacent lands that aren't grazed by cattle.
Is this representative or related to the growth rates? Maybe DR agriculture was always tilted toward more cash crops and less livestock, which created a virtuous cycle against deforestation and decreasing soil quality.
One thing to consider is that DR basically took over Cuba’s exports after the Cuban revolution. Stealing brand names of cigars and rum fairly flagrantly to exploit the embargo. This was around the time of the divergence. It’ll be interesting to see what happens if embargo ends someday.
Was the “Macroeconomic section” supposed to end mid-sentence after “Personally, I think”? Is this a subtle nod to the lack of definitive answers, or just a snafu?
Just a fragment I forgot to delete