Development has a long memory: Children stunted today because of slavery in 1573

Perhaps I am mistaken, but wasn’t the mita an Incan system that was in place prior to the Spanish conquest? If I remember my history correct, the Spanish high jacked the system and used methods of trapping people in debt to make them de facto slaves forever whereas under Incan rule it was more of a communist-like collective good thing. My first concern was that the author didn’t really control for the fact the mita system existed under Inca rule, but I suppose the system was so corrupted under the Spanish that it probably isn’t effecting any of the results.

Anyway, interesting paper though. It’s one of those things that makes me wonder if a historical unit root of sorts exists in poor countries today.

But, I have a separate, though somewhat related, question for Bill Easterly (or another commentator if they happen to know). I’m studying macro, but I tend to follow a lot of the development literature just out of interest – but I don’t know all of it so forgive me if this is a stupid question. Does “outsider”-rule make institutions and governments less effective even if they structurally aren’t bad (I’m thinking like if the Spanish maintained the mita system as-is, would it have made any difference?). Let’s say a form of government is in place, but an outside power (a colonizer, a military junta etc) seizes control. Hypothetically, if the institutional structure and other aspects of government are unchanged, does it have any effect on growth? I was wondering if a system that is run by someone viewed as an “outsider” to the citizens becomes inherently less effective because it lacks credibility and, if so, how damaging is that lack of credibility (I guess I’m falling back on my institutional credibility stuff from monetary theory)? I was just wondering if a study like that has ever been done, and if one has, what it’s outcome was (I tried to search for papers on that, but no luck).