The Legacies of Forced Freedom: China’sTreaty Ports Ruixue Jia IIES, Stockholm University January 20, 2011 Abstract Treaty ports in China provide a quasi-natural experiment to study whether and why history matters. This paper focuses on a selected sample of prefectures and shows that treaty ports grew about 20% faster than similar places during 1776-1953 and also enjoyed faster urbanization growth. However, the advantage of treaty ports was very much restricted between 1949 and 1978. After the economic reforms in the 1980s, the places with treaty ports took much better advantage of the opening. The paper also demonstrates that human capital and social norms play a more important role in this context than geography and tangible institutions. JEL code: N15, N35, N95, O11, O18 Contact:
[email protected]. I am indebted to Torsten Persson for his guidance from the very early stages of this paper. I thank Abhijit Banerjee, Davide Cantoni, Camilo Garcia, Edward Glaeser, Avner Greif, Richard Hornbeck, Masayuki Kudamatsu, Pinghan Liang, Nathan Nunn, Dwight Perkins, Nancy Qian, James Robinson, David Strömberg, Noam Yuchtman and participants at UPF Economic History Seminar, Econometric Society World Congress 2010, MIT Political Economy Breakfast and Harvard Development Lunch for their comments. I would also like to thank Peter Bol, Shuji Cao, Clifton Pannell and Elizabeth Perry for their discussion of the historical background. Any remaining mistakes are mine. 1 1 Introduction This paper studies the treaty ports system in the history of China and at- tempts to answer two basic questions in the broad literature of history and development: whether history matters and why.1 China’s treaty ports pro- vide an interesting context for studying both questions.