Summary of the Paper
Dave Donaldson and Richard Hornbeck’s work entitled: “Railroads and American Economic Growth: A ‘Market Access’ Approach” reveals the historical impact of railroads on the American economy. The work relays the extent to which railroads impacted the market accessibility of various counties, especially in the late 19th Century. From the paper, it is evident that railroads had a major hand in determining whether or not a specific piece of land was valuable. The impact of railroads on every county has been captured through assessment of the changes in the county’s ‘market accesses. The ‘market Access’ of each county is perceived to increase when it becomes easier, cheaper and more efficient for that particular county to trade with other counties. It is obvious that is ease and efficiency was as a result of the railroads.
The paper uses a constructed database of railroads and waterways for calculation of the lowest county to county freight routes as criteria to measure a county’s market access. The agricultural sector is viewed as an important aspect of estimating the aggregate impacts of railroads on the American economy. The paper adopts such an approach that the railroads affected the American economy through the agricultural sector. Donaldson and Hornbeck develop an argument that purports to portray that it is natural to measure how the expansion of the railroad network affects each county’s market access and to estimate how enhanced market access is capitalized into each county’s value of agricultural land. Eventually, the paper develops a new method for evaluating the aggregate economic impact of railroads. In developing this method, the authors based the derivations on a new database of county-to-county transport costs and recent trade research.
Main Comments and Suggestions
Unrecognized Sector Assumption
In developing this paper, the authors adopt a primary focus on the in the agricultural sector. It is viewed as the only sector that has a major influence on the American economy. In fact, the authors affirm that the estimations made on the aggregate impacts of railroads on the American economy maintain a major focus on the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector is a primary sector whose ability to thrive is primarily based on the infrastructure for market access. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the adoption of a primary focus on the sector. The authors have, however, made a theoretical mistake by failing to acknowledge that several other sectors have a major impact on the American economy, but the paper focuses on the Agricultural sector.
A typical economy categorizes its sectors into three main categories as follows: the primary sector, secondary and tertiary sector. The primary sector is composed of that part of the economy that utilizes the natural resources. It is composed of sectors such as agriculture, mining, forestry and fishing amongst others that make direct use of the natural resources. The secondary sector, on the other hand, refers to that sector of the economy that seeks to product finished and readily usable products. Industry in this sector focuses on manufacturing, production and construction. While this is the case, the tertiary sector is a services sector majoring on the provision of services as opposed to goods. The authors, therefore, make an unrecognized generalization and assumption that the railroads only influence the American economic growth through one industry in one sector; the agricultural industry in the primary sector.
Insufficient Historical Background
As evident in the abstract, the authors intend to form an argument based on the history of railroads on the American economy. A detailed historical background regarding the construction of the railroads in America from the beginning of the 19th Century is an important element of such a paper. Further, the authors were expected to provide details relating to the growth of American economy in the same and subsequent centuries that was associated with the railroads. As opposed to the provision of detailed historical background relating to the growth of the American economy as a result of the construction of railroads, the authors have provided highlights on the same. The information provided relating to the history of the same subject cannot be relied on by a layman to acquire basic knowledge.
Where the paper is meant to examine the historical impact of railroads on the American economy, the history of the railroads and the American economy would have provided a vital background for the readers. Further, such history would have been considerably important for the researchers and the authors in developing this content. In addition to the historical loopholes evident in this paper is the failure to provide even a highlight of railroad networks on county segments in spite of the intentions to assess the total impact of the railroads on each county’s market access. It is unprofessional for authors to purport to compare and contrast the impact of railroads on the market access of various counties while they have not provided any background information relating to the construction of railroads in such counties.
Unnecessary Description of the Paper’s Content
In a report of 46 pages, the authors have used the first six pages in describing the content of the paper. The authors provide descriptions of the paper from one section to the other in unnecessary details. Considering that these descriptions are made in the introductory sections of the paper, it is more likely than not that the reader gets bored at the preliminary stages. Further, the descriptions fail to be succinct. Forgetting that the introduction is should be a minor, the authors go into detailing the paper at this section such that the body may lose meaning. As much as the authors intend to provide details on the methodology used in estimating aggregate impacts of railroads on the American economy, such details should not be provided in the wrong section. The introduction should only appear as a highlight of the information to follow.
Over-detailing of the introduction makes fail to be succinct. The failure to ensure that the preliminary section of the paper may cost the authors the attention of the readers. It is important to ensure that the readers mind have been tied up to the paper right from the beginning. It is important that the authors avoid revealing all the details in these sections because by so doing the reader finds no reason to proceed to the next sections. The preliminary sections should only provide briefings on what is yet to come. In other words, the main reason for a preliminary section in such a paper is to create suspense without which the readers will not proceed to other sections. The authors should have avoided all discussions that are detailing as opposed to introducing in this preliminary section.
Lack of Summative Data Presentation
Summative data presentation provides a simple and easily comprehendible summary of the results acquired from data analysis. Diagrammatic expressions, figures, and tables as well can be used to sum up the data. In this paper, there is an evident excessive domination of theoretical work and formulae of summative presentations. Research conducted previously affirms that use of tables, charts and data graphs is the most efficient way to ensure that readers have an easier time ‘assimilating’ what they read. It is normal for theoretical work to dominate over the presentations in such papers but not to extents as large as the one in this paper. In cases such as the one on this paper, readers get a hard time trying to comprehend the message that the authors intended to pass. This could have been simplified by the simple adoption of data presentation tools.
There is a lot of information relating to the discussion that has been avoided by this paper and could have been provided by summative presentation methods. The paper could have calibrated real data relating to the development of railroads, their influence on the American economy, their influence on ensuring ‘market Access’ for various counties and their overall role in development. All this data could have been provided in tables, graphs, charts or other forms of data presentation. Had this been the case, the readers would have been placed in a better position to even skim through the report and source considerable knowledge. Data presentation is an important part of this paper that was omitted and its omission, in extreme cases, may lead to questioning of the professionalism of the authors.
Minor Points
Some of the information provided on the footer are too much to be on the footer. With such information, the authors should have developed a paragraph in the text or created some provision for the appendix. Its current position is unsuitable, and it compromises the paper’s professional decency.
On page 2, second paragraph, the first sentence reads: ‘an empirical advantage to estimating the impact of market access, rather than estimating the impact of local railroad destiny, is that countries’ market access is influenced by changes in the railroad network' (Donaldson & Richard, 3) It is not vividly clear on the message that the author intended to pass. A review to make it better would be helpful.
The first sentence of the first paragraph on page 3 reveals a grammatical error that ought to be reviewed. The sentence reads: ‘revisiting the historical impact of railroads on the American economy suggests a larger role for railroads and market integration in economic development' (Donaldson & Richard, 3). The use of the word ‘larger’ with no ‘than’ causes a grammatical misalignment especially because the sentence is at the beginning of the paragraph and, therefore, there is no connection with a previous sentence.
On page 11 section ‘II.D’ on transport route cost calculations the last sentence appears to have a sentence structure problem. The sentence reads as follows: “The created data are not our best predictions of actual freight routes and costs but an econometrically useful proxy for differences over space and time due to differences in the location of railroads and waterways” (Donaldson & Richard, 11). The grammatical problem is on the structural arrangement of the 2nd and the 3rd words. They should be reversed.
Work Cited
Donaldson, Dave, and Richard Hornbeck. Railroads and American Economic Growth: A “Market Access” Approach. 1st ed. Massachusetts: Cambridge, 2013. Print.
