5 ms·

The causality might go the opposite way. Maybe areas with poorer economies were more prone to persecuting minorities. So it’s not the persecution that led to th

The causality might go the opposite way. Maybe areas with poorer economies were more prone to persecuting minorities. So it’s not the persecution that led to the poor economy, but the poor economy that led to the persecution. Or maybe a third factor drove both of these things.

sofixa 5y ago
The Spanish Inquisition was centrally ordered and to an extent managed, not spontaneous local events. Unless they specifically targeted poorer areas, which isn't impossible but is unlikely ( if they killed or expelled infidels, guess who got to keep the gold/money/property?), causality seems more probable to be in the way Spanish Inquisition -> poverty.
- dash2 5y ago
  Typically papers like this find some instrument. The fact they don't have one might explain why they went for PNAS and not an economics journal, which are usually more rigorous (or more anal?) That said, their results on trust fit their mechanism pretty well. The big possible confounder might be that the inquisition correlates with Muslim ("morisco") or Jewish presence. There's a big literature arguing that ethnic heterogeneity weakens trust, and that might persist over time even when the ethnic heterogeneity has vanished. But: "adding a control for pre-expulsion morisco population has little impact on the results."
- watwut 5y ago
  > Unless they specifically targeted poorer areas, which isn't impossible but is unlikely ( if they killed or expelled infidels, guess who got to keep the gold/money/property?) Being rich tends to coincide with having some kind of power. The poor people are more likely to be targeted by oppressive campaigns of any sort, because rich people use their power to protect themselves. There would be nothing exceptional about targeting poor rather then rich and powerful.
dave4420 5y ago
Well maybe, but the abstract says they controlled for this.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
While they can't prove there wasn't an unrelated third factor, the abstract does say they attempted to control for religiosity and wealth.

sofixa 5y ago

The Spanish Inquisition was centrally ordered and to an extent managed, not spontaneous local events. Unless they specifically targeted poorer areas, which isn't impossible but is unlikely ( if they killed or expelled infidels, guess who got to keep the gold/money/property?), causality seems more probable to be in the way Spanish Inquisition -> poverty.

dash2 5y ago
Typically papers like this find some instrument. The fact they don't have one might explain why they went for PNAS and not an economics journal, which are usually more rigorous (or more anal?) That said, their results on trust fit their mechanism pretty well. The big possible confounder might be that the inquisition correlates with Muslim ("morisco") or Jewish presence. There's a big literature arguing that ethnic heterogeneity weakens trust, and that might persist over time even when the ethnic heterogeneity has vanished. But: "adding a control for pre-expulsion morisco population has little impact on the results."
watwut 5y ago
> Unless they specifically targeted poorer areas, which isn't impossible but is unlikely ( if they killed or expelled infidels, guess who got to keep the gold/money/property?) Being rich tends to coincide with having some kind of power. The poor people are more likely to be targeted by oppressive campaigns of any sort, because rich people use their power to protect themselves. There would be nothing exceptional about targeting poor rather then rich and powerful.

dave4420 5y ago

Well maybe, but the abstract says they controlled for this.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

While they can't prove there wasn't an unrelated third factor, the abstract does say they attempted to control for religiosity and wealth.