4 ms·

We had a discussion a while back on this piece: http://ftp.iza.org/dp5584.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp5584.pdf titled "The Empire Is Dead, Long Live the Empire! Lo

We had a discussion a while back on this piece: http://ftp.iza.org/dp5584.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp5584.pdf titled "The Empire Is Dead, Long Live the Empire! Long-Run Persistence of Trust and Corruption in the Bureaucracy". It discussed how European communities once under the rule of the Habsburg empire were, many decades later, very much lower-corruption places than very similar places that were not. The paper is relevant to your interests. "Do empires affect attitudes towards the state long after their demise? We hypothesize that the Habsburg Empire with its localized and well-respected administration increased citizens’ trust in local public services. In several Eastern European countries, communities on both sides of the long-gone Habsburg border have been sharing common formal institutions for a century now. Identifying from individuals living within a restricted band around the former border, we find that historical Habsburg affiliation increases current trust and reduces corruption in courts and police. Falsification tests of spuriously moved borders, geographic and pre-existing differences, and interpersonal trust corroborate a genuine Habsburg effect. " -- Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2618993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2618993

bladedtoys 13y ago
Yeah but the US and India, which the OP is comparing were both part of the British Empire. Indeed former British holdings span all extremes of corruption from the Sudan to New Zealand and every flavor in between.
- darklighter3 13y ago
  It's helpful to remember that the British took very different methods of governance among different colonies at different times. They very much used different means depending upon the local situation and what they were trying to get out of a colony. Also colonies that were populated by British people (US, Canada, etc.) have a very different cultural and social heritage than the colonies where Britain showed up in a pre-existing society with established norms.

bladedtoys 13y ago

Yeah but the US and India, which the OP is comparing were both part of the British Empire. Indeed former British holdings span all extremes of corruption from the Sudan to New Zealand and every flavor in between.

darklighter3 13y ago
It's helpful to remember that the British took very different methods of governance among different colonies at different times. They very much used different means depending upon the local situation and what they were trying to get out of a colony. Also colonies that were populated by British people (US, Canada, etc.) have a very different cultural and social heritage than the colonies where Britain showed up in a pre-existing society with established norms.