ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST, TOURISM, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ■ 197
signifi cant—shown in equations (4) and (6). Th e F-test for the instrument used
for Trade indicates that the instrument is not weak. Overall, Kleibergen-Paap statistics
shown in the lower panel of table 7.3 are greater than the Stock and Yogo
10 or 15 percent critical values for most of the regressions except for equation
(5) and (6). Th at result indicates that the introduction of the instruments used
for Institution weakens the identifi cation. Th e main result related to Tourism
holds when we use Eurfrac, corresponding the fraction of the population speaking
one of the major languages of Western Europe: English, French, German,
Portuguese, or Spanish, and Lnsetmort individually and/or in combination with
Engfrac as instruments for Institution. 15 We now turn to testing the robustness of
our main results.
Robustness 16
Th e study fi rst conducted a number of robustness checks on the instrument. We
used various versions of the WHL in the IV regressions, as shown in table 7.6 in
Appendix II. Results are virtually unchanged whether we use the list from 1997
or 1992. Th e coeffi cients associated with Tourism in the second stage regressions
range between 0.013 and 0.015.
Th e study then used exclusively the number of cultural sites as an instrument
for Tourism in the IV growth regressions. As discussed previously, the process of
selection of natural sites is a potential source of statistical bias in our estimation
results stemming from the fact that both the selection of natural sites and economic
growth could be explained by a variable we have omitted to include in our
regression analysis. Once again our results are virtually unchanged. Indeed, the
coeffi cient associated with Tourism in equation (2) of appendix table 7.7 when
using only cultural sites equals 0.015 (compared to 0.013 in our benchmark
regression). Further, appendix table 7.8 shows results of the regressions (1)–(8)
where sites built in the 20th century, 19th to 20th centuries, and up to 5th century
BC were respectively subtracted. Th e sign, magnitude (ranging from 0.013 to
0.016), and signifi cance of the coeffi cients associated with Tourism are all in line
with our main result.
Th e study also used, in addition to the UNESCO World Heritage sites, kilometers
of coastal zone, the square of the latter variable, and its interaction with
the distance to the equator. Indeed, coastal area is likely to exogenously drive
tourism activity. Controlling for Trade, this provides a valid instrument in the
sense that it satisfi es the exclusion restriction. Once again, our results hold. Th e
coeffi cient associated with Tourism ranges from 0.013 in our benchmark regressions
to 0.016, as shown in appendix table 7.9. Th e Hansen-J test indicates that
the over-identifying restrictions are valid. Th e Kleibergen-Paap statistics indicate
that the instruments are not weak, albeit at the 10 percent level.