North and SouthThe first two readings for Economics 344 contain some noteworthy observations about the growth and development of budding economies. In Engerman and Sokoloff's chapter titled “Factor Endowments, Institutions, and Differential Growth Paths Among New World Economies,” the authors compare the economic growth levels of the North American colonies with those of the Latin American colonies. Then, in “Tracing the Economic Divergence of the North and the South,” Peter Coclanis highlights the different economic paths taken by these two distinct regions of the United States. Overall, these two essays are similar in nature: they make similar comparisons between two regions using similar criteria. The readings, however, differ drastically in topic and scope of comparisons. In the first reading Stanley Engerman and Kenneth Sokoloff attempt to explain what factors contributed to the different levels of economic development between the North American colonies and the Latin American colonies. They hypothesize that the United States and Canada were able to sustain economic growth thanks to a higher factor endowment than that of Central and South America. Endowments such as climate, soil, and native population density, they say, predisposed some colonies to achieve economic growth. Government institutions and policies, such as land policies and trade regulations, were also determinants, but less so than factor endowments. After comparing prosperous colonies to less prosperous ones, the authors briefly illustrate the differences within the U.S. colonies regarding economic growth. Numerous differences in the economic models of the North and South are highlighted: Indeed, in many respects the South resembled those colonies that were less successful. Despite these distinctions, ultimately, the authors conclude that, overall, “the Southern economy was unique and ultimately achieved a growth record more similar to that of the northern United States or Canada.” experienced by the North and the South. Coclanis highlights numerous variations in the economies of the two regions from the seventeenth century and over two hundred years. Factor endowments are also taken into account here, while political factors play a minor role. Overall, the author concludes that the economic divergence between the North and the South was quite large and that the differences certainly outweigh the similarities. The two readings share both notable similarities and stark differences..