Blame modern decisions, not just ancient history, for economic inequality | Torsten Bell

Black Americans whose ancestors were enslaved were still suffering a century later because they lived in states where Jim Crow laws were enforced

Persistence studies are all the rage in economics - using clever maths to show that events in the distant past drive political or economic outcomes today. One well-known example argued that Britain's superior growth to France as late as 1800 was shaped by... the collapse of the western Roman empire a millennium before. Here, the collapse saw the population de-urbanise, while in France they remained in Roman-era towns that lasted. So when Britain's cities re-emerged they were in places better suited to growth in the run-up to the Industrial Revolution.

Interesting stuff. But persistence studies also breed something dangerous: determinism. If ancient history is so influential, what hope do we have to shape our destiny? Which is why I love a new paper by Lukas Althoff and Hugo Reichardt, examining the lasting economic impact of slavery. Their findings look like the normal persistence story: black Americans whose ancestors were enslaved before the civil war have had significantly worse economic outcomes ever since, compared with black Americans whose forefathers were free - even in 2023, descendants of enslaved people had incomes $11,620 lower than other black Americans.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk