Economic Growth Determinants And Models | Literature Review

Economic Growth Determinants And Models | Literature Review Introduction Economic growth is one of the most important fields in economics. Since sustained economic growth is the most important determinant of living standards, there is no more important issue challenging the research efforts of economists than to understand the causes of economic growth. Human capital has been identified as a key stimulus of economic growth. In fact, it can never be overemphasized that human capital is the engine of growth of an economy. No nation can develop beyond its investment in education in particular. Growth economists in affirmation have explained that the differences in the per capita income of countries cannot be explained in isolation from the differences in human capital development. Health and education are both components of human capital and contributors of human welfare. Numerous economists research their relevance in the economic growth and tried to incorporate human capital in the growth model. While some researchers take a Keynesian route and stress on the demand factors, other researchers follow the neoclassical route and emphasis the role of factor supplies in growth. Human Capital in the form of education It is equally important to effectively and efficiently measure the human capital with the perceiving importance of human capital. Since, human capital is considered as a synonym of knowledge embedded in all levels such as an individual, an organizations and a nation, education is the primary element in the measurement of human capital. Some economists attempted to measure the stock of human capital utilizing â€Å"school enrollment rates† as a proxy of human capital. Through the study of 129 countries for a time period 1960 to 1985, Barro and Lee, 1993 concluded that female education stimulates the acquisition of human capital through children. A fact is in accordance with the findings of De Tray, 1773 and Becker and Lewis, 1973. Barro and Lee reconcile their findings with the conclusion of De Long and Summers (1992) with the belief that â€Å"perhaps the true key is to have educated women working with machines†. (Barro and Lee, 1991, p29). However, the study of Kyriacou in 1991 concluded a negative and insignificant correlation between years of schooling in labour force and future growth. One of the possible explanations for this result is the link between human capital and subsequent growth of technology was ignored. The method of using school enrollment rates is criticized as student’s effec tiveness can be recognized after participating in production activities. Nehru, Swanson, and Dubey (1993) attempted to measure relationship between human capital and studentsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¸ â€Å"accumulated years of schooling† in the employable age as educational attainment. Their approach to measure human capital is similar to that of Lau, Jairison, and Louat( 1991), Psacharopolous and Arriagada (1986,1992). The results show a positive relationship between education stock and its influence on income per capita. They also concluded that there is a high correlation between education stock and other human capital indicators and hence justify the usage of this variable as a proxy for human capital. Nevertheless, they note that there is a problem with the estimates of education stock due to repeaters and dropout rates. The weakness in the study pertains to education stock estimation as they are â€Å"based on sparse data of uneven quality†( Nehru, Swanson, and Dubey,1993, p8). Romer (1990) suggested the ratio between skilled-adults and total ad ults to measure the stock of human capital in the national economy. Another approach to measure human capital is through the returns which an individual obtains from a labour market throughout education investment. Mulligan and Sala-i-Martin (1995) defines that aggregate human capital is the sum of quality adjustment of each individual’s labor force, and presents the stock of human capital utilizing an individual’s income. Their belief was that the â€Å"quality of a person would be related to the wage rate he receives in the marketplace†( Mulligan and Sala-i-Martin, 1995, p.2). This measure called the Labour –Income –Based is a measurement of human capital calculated through wage rate. Though this study, it was noted that the usage of average years of schooling as a measurement could be misleading since economists could interpret the increase in income in 1980s independent of human capital accumulation due to the dispersion of average years of schooling. Human capital in the form of Health A large body of literature has established that investment in education pay off in the form of higher future earnings. However, the demerit of the conventional measurement of the human capital is the disregard to qualitative benefits of human capital such as health, fertility rate, child mortality. Given the importance of â€Å"health capital† for education and earnings (Grossman, 2000; Case, Fertig, and Paxson, 2005; Currie and Madrian, 1999; Smith, 1999), it is possible that poor health has an impact on education and hence on economic status. Many health shocks can affect human capital and productivity, both in the short-run (Strauss and Thomas, 1998; Currie and Stabile, 2006) and the long-run (Cunha and Heckman, 2007; Currie and Hyson, 1999)( Joshua Graff Zivin and Matthew Neidell, 2013). The World Health Organization’s Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (2001) claims the following. â€Å"Improving the health and longevity of the poor is an end in itself, a fun damental goal of economic development. But it is also a means to achieving the other development goals relating to poverty reduction. The linkages of health to poverty reduction and long-term economic growth are powerful, much stronger than is generally understood.† Despite the importance of health capital, the empirical literature of the effects of health on economic growth is relatively thin. Recent experimental or quasi-experimental studies, such as Thomas and Frankeberg (2002) and Thomas et al. (2003) have found that specific health sector interventions help recipients raise earnings significantly, and general indicators of health and nutrition status are significant predictors of economic success. At macroeconomic level, several researches support the positive contribution of health on economic growth. Barro (1996b), Bloom and Canning (2003), Bloom, Canning, and Sevilla (2004) and Gyimah-Brempong and Wilson (2004) find that health capital indicators have desirable influence on aggregate output. For the countries in their sample, about one-fourth of economic growth was attributable to improvements in health capital, and improvements in health conditions equivalent to one more year of life expectancy are associated with higher growth of up to 4 percentage points per year. The following table summarises the finding of macroeconomic studies with health. Source: J. Hartwig / Journal of Macroeconomics 32 (2010) 314–325 According to Weil (2007, p. 1295 and 2005, pp. 153–161), health’s positive effect on GDP is strongest among poor countries. The existing evidence on whether health capital formation has an impact on economic growth gives a mixed response. Some papers such as Heshmati (2001), Rivera and Currais (1999a, 1999b, 2003, 2004) accept the significance of health capital formation for economic growth in OECD countries. However, Knowles and Owen (1995, 1997) as well as McDonald and Roberts (2002) reject the hypothesis that life expectancy is a statistically significant explanatory variable for productivity growth in high income countries. IN fact, Bhargava et al. (2001) and Acemoglu and Johnson (2007) estimated a negative effect of adult survival rate on economic growth for US, France and Switzerland. Some studies have associated fertility rate and child mortality with human capital. The best known study between population growth and development is Kuznets (1967). His study found a positive correlation between growth rates of population and income per capita within broad country groupings, which he interpreted as evidence of a lack of a negative causal effect of population growth on income growth. However, Kelley (1988) found no correlation between population growth and growth of income per capita, and similarly no relationship between population growth and saving rates. Summarizing many other studies, he concluded that the evidence documenting a negative effect of population growth on economic development was weak or nonexistent. Becker et al. (1990) associated endogenous fertility and a rising rate of return on human capital as the stock of human capital increases. Their analysis discusses the importance of investment of human capital and the impact of family sizes and birth rates. They concluded that â€Å"societies with limited human capital choose large families and invest little in each member; those with abundant human capital do the opposite † ( Becker et al., 1990, p.35). Weil et al.(2012) found that a reduction in fertility rate will increase GDP per capita income by an economically significant amount. This result is similar to the findings of Bloom and Canning (2008) who have regressed the growth rate of income per capita on the growth rate of the working-age fraction of the population, and have gotten a positive and significant coefficient. The high growth of working age fraction is the result of fertility reductions; it can be seen as showing the economic benefits of reduced fertility. Growth Models Being one of the most important determinants of living standards, economic growth is among the most important issue challenging the research efforts of economists. Many adopted the neoclassical growth approach to study economic growth. The neoclassical growth model emphasizes the role of factor supplies in growth as it seeks to undermine the long-run economic growth rate determinant through the accumulation of factor inputs such as physical capital and labour. Over time, human capital was introduced in the growth model. The concept of capital in the neoclassical model has been broadened from physical goods to include human capital in the form of education, training and experience. In the early 1960s, Schultz initiated the human capital revolution in economic thought. He claimed that â€Å"This knowledge and skill are in great part the product of investment and, combined with other human investment, predominantly account for the productive superiority of the technically advanced countries. To omit them in studying economic growth is like trying to explain Soviet ideology without Marx.†(Schultz, 1961, p.3). Exogenous growth model In general, there are two basic frameworks that seek to understand the relationship between human capital and economic growth. The first approach is through the exogenous growth model adopted by Nelson and Phelps (1966). The exogenous growth model has its origin form the Solow growth model. The crux of this model is the aggregate production function written in the general form: Y = F (A, K, L), Where output is explained as being a function of technology, A in addition to capital (K) and labour (L). In 1957, after a study of 40 years of growth, Robert Solow concluded that â€Å"it is possible to argue that about one-eighth of the total increase is traceable to increased capital per man hour, and the remaining seven-eighths to technical change† (Solow 1957, p316). The Solow growth model assumes a constant growth rate of productivity, g Y = A0 egt KÃŽ ± L1-ÃŽ ±. This implies that the growth in income in income is determined by productivity growth, g and growth of capital per worker. However, Solow left technological progress unspecified. Moreover, the model assumption of market competitiveness, constant returns to scale lead to further study of the model. In his seminal paper, Nelson and Phelps (1966) related how level of human capital stock is an indirect determinant of economic growth. They concluded that â€Å"the usual, straightforward insertion of some index of educational attainment in the production function may constitute a gross misspecification of the relation between education and the dynamics of production.† (Nelson and Phelps, 1966, p.75) They believe that stock of human capital determines the economic capacity of a nation to innovate, which in turn lead to economic growth. Education and training facilitate the implementation and usage of new techniques makes an economy technologically progressive and more productive. Henceforth, incentives to innovate and market structures necessary for research and development have become important in theories for growth. The Schumpeterian growth literature revived this doctrine. The Schumpeterian theory explains that â€Å"current innovators exert positive knowledge spillovers on subsequent innovators as in other innovation-based models, but where current innovators also drive out previous technologies-, generates predictions and explains facts about the growth process that could not be accounted for by other theories.†(Aghion et al, 2013, p.35) The empirical literature on technical diffusion has been growing. The role of human capital in facilitating technological is supported by Welch (1975), Bartel and Lichtenberg (1987) and Foster and Rosenzweig (1995). The significant spill-overs are documented by the survey of Griliches (1992). Benhabib and Spiegel (1994), using cross-country data, investigate the Nelson-Phelps hypothesis and conclude that technology spillovers flow from leaders to followers, and that the rate of the flow depends on levels of education. As a matter of fact, a great deal of study seeks to analyse the relationship between level of education and technological diffusion and this affects economic growth. Some examples will be Islam (1995), Temple (1999), Krueger and Lindahl (2001), Pritchett, Klenow and Rodriguez-Clare (1997), Hall and Jones (1999), Bils and Klenow (2000), Duffy and Papageorgiou (2000), and Hanushek and Kimko (2000). (Jess Benhabib and Mark M. Spiegel, 2002) Endogenous growth model The second approach is the endogenous growth model inspired by Gary Becker’s human capital theory (1964) which directly links human capital to economic growth. The basic idea behind Becker’s view is that growth is driven by human capital accumulation. Nobel laureate Robert Lucas presented an endogenous growth model in which the engine of growth is the human capital. He added â€Å"what Schultz (1963) and Becker (1964) call human capital to the model, doing so in a way that is very close technically lo similarly motivated models of Arrow (1962), Uzawa (1965)and Romer (1986)† ( Lucas, 1988. p.17). He assumed that individuals choose to allocate time to current production or schooling based on increases in productivity and wages in the future due to the current investment of time in education. Lucas model can be summarized in Y = Kß(UH)1-ß, Where H represents the current human capital stock of the individual and U is the fraction of time allocated to current production and K is the per capita stock of physical capital. Human capital growth model Over time, with numerous studies on human capital, different variables were included in the growth equation as a measurement of human capital. Drawing upon Mankiw et al. (1992), Barro (1996a, 1996b), Bassanini and Scarpetta (2001), Bloom et al. (2004) and Gyimah-Brempong and Wilson (2004), the following growth equation was modelled in the Baldacci, Clements, Gupta and Cui (2008) paper on Social Spending, Human Capital, and Growth in Developing Countries. The growth equation is based on the framework of neoclassical growth augmented by the inclusion of education capital, ed, health capital, he, investment ratio, sk and denotes the set of macro and institutional control variable such as the fiscal balance, inflation rate, trade openness, and governance that augment the baseline specification of the model. Moreover, it is assumed that there is a relationship between the initial stock and increment in human capital with per capita GDP growth, g. The baseline growth model was as follows: Where git is real capita per income growth, 1i and 1t denote the country-specific effect and period-specific effect, respectively, Ln (yit-1) is the lagged logarithm of per capita income to control for the expected reduction in growth rates as per capita incomes rise and there is convergence to steady growth rates; Skit denotes the investment ratio, Edit refers to the stock of education capital, which is proxy by the sum of the gross primary and secondary enrollment rate, Ed refers to changes in education capital, Heit refers to the stock of health capital, and he refers to changes in health capital, mit consists of control variables and uit is the error term.   Ã‚   Japanese in Brazil: Asian-zing Brazil Japanese in Brazil: Asian-zing Brazil Wendy Do   As a country of a very diverse population, Brazil has experienced the influx of a variety of races and ethnicities throughout the course of history. As a result, Brazil continues to experience extreme cultural syncretism and assimilation. Nearing the end of the nineteenth century, the world saw Brazil as a country with a high degree of miscegenation (Schwarcz 3); immigration is one of the major cause for this. From the discovery of Brazil in the 16th century to its colonization by Pedro Alvares Cabral and onward, Brazil has been a country of immigrants. One country in particular, Japan, started emigration to Brazil in the early 20th century. Most people would not expect Brazil to contain the largest Japanese immigration population. My thesis is that: Japanese immigrations initially sought relief from the Meiji Restoration and chose Brazil due to their increasing demand for laborers, but over time established a huge community which to their settlement. In this essay, I will discuss th e initial reason for the Japaneses immigration to Brazil, the impacts of these migrants, and the reaction of the Brazilians and Japanese to the migrants. This will demonstrate the impact of an Asian immigration society in Brazil and how it contributed to the diverse population due to racial formation. Before the Portuguese settled in Brazil, the majority of the population was of indigenous groups. As described in detail in Schwartzs work, when the Portuguese first arrived, they encountered various Indian groups and made an agreement where they decided that they needed to civilize the indigenous (Graham, W1D2). While the two groups of the Jesuits and the Portuguese settlers disagreed in ways to civilize the indigenous, they both believed in slavery. As indigenous groups were forced into slavery, they faced many risks including, overcrowding in their communities called aldeais and diseases that killed them at alarming rates (Graham, W1D2). Before the Portuguese arrived, the population of Indians capped around five million but by the 1950s, the population decreased to one hundred twenty thousand (Graham, W1D2). This not only led the devastation of the ingenious population, but increased the demand for labor. This trend would later contribute to the Japanese immigration to Brazil. How ever, before the Japanese, the substitution of indigenous slavery with African slave labor made its way. Brazil had a slave economy where one product dominated Brazils export for most of the slave period from 1550-1888 (Graham, W2D2). This began with the Donatorio Captaincies which were awarded by the crown in Portugal in order to protect interests in Brazil. The awards gave the Portuguese courtiers and soldiers, who bore the title of captain, to have the right of taxation, justice, administration, and the privileges to promote settlement and economic development (Schwartz 13) in Brazil. This marked the beginning of the Portuguese settlement which would evolve into plantations. The Coffee Cycle, is the period we will be focusing on, which took place from the 1830s to the 20th century. Coffee was expanding and slavery was abolished in the 1880s (Graham, W2D2) which led to a need for laborers. According to Schwarcz, from the beginning of the coffee plantations, the owners have contracted with workers in their home countries and engaging in acts such as loaning them money for travel costs, housing, or other expenses (8). With this being said, it can be noted that the Japanese were viewed more as an indentured servant, but eventually grew in status and recognition. The previous events mentioned have contributed to the diverse population in Brazil through: the indigenous already living there, the settlement of the Portuguese, the African slavery, and immigration from other countries. Many intellectuals, politicians, and cultural and economic leaders saw [] immigration as improving an imperfect nation that has been tainted by the history of Portuguese colonialism and African slavery (Lesser, 2013, 2). With the end of slavery, planters have encouraged their state and federal government to seek Europeans in order to replace their slaves in the massive coffee economy. By 1888, thousands of immigrants poured into Sao Paul (the largest group being the Italians); however, these white immigrants believed the elites of Brazil had created a system that gave them an inability to move out of low status. This created immigrant-led protests against labor and social conditions and the deportation of Italian for anarchism (Lesser, 1999, 82), so Brazil sought fo r a more submissive group. Japanese diplomat, Sho Nemoto mentioned in a later signed treaty that Brazil would be a country where Japanese immigrants could be perfectly settled and we could improve our standard of living, buy property, educate our children, and live happily' (Lesser, 1999, 82). Correlating with the Meiji governments interest in emigration of Japan, this seemed like the perfect option for the Japanese to immigrate to Brazil. The reasons for Japaneses immigration are laid out as: Brazilians needed more labor due to the abolishment of slavery, Japans Meiji government created a period of modernization where peasants become hungry and restless; the encouraged emigration in Japan, and the establishment of colonies by previous Japanese. The first reason why the Japanese migrated to Brazil was because Brazil was seeking a new labor group to fill in as laborers. They saw Japanese immigrants as a ready solution from their previous disappointment with the European replacements; in addition, this could also help foster a relationship between Japan and Brazil in relation to trading. The first Brazil-Japanese treaty was then signed in 1895, where Brazil would see a rapid increase in Japanese labor (Lesser 84). In addition between 1908 and 1941, about one-hundred ninety thousand Japanese immigrants would settle in Brazil (Lesser, 1999, 83). A ship containing the first 781 members of the newly founded Japanese community called the Kasato-Maru arrived after its fifty-one day journey from Japan in June 1908 (Lesser, 2012, 153). The results of the Japanese led the Brazilian government to later promote immigration to other Asian countries, such as China. The Japanese were described as an intelligent and energetic force and this people is amazing us with their power to assimilate everything from European civilization in letters, in science, in art, in industry and even in political institutions (Lesser, 1999, 83). The expectations of the Japanese to the Brazilians were very low, but what the Japanese contributed to this society made them realize that they were definitely not inferior. The second reason for Japanese migration was due to their expectations of Brazil. The Japanese workers felt tricked due to the belief that they would become rich. In turned, similar to previous immigrants, the Japanese revolted against the Brazilian elites. Some of them fled to Argentina, where the salary was higher; or other urban areas such as Minas-Gerais, Parana, and Sao Paulo (Lesser, 2012, 155). One Japanese boy, Riukiti Yamashiro summarized his experience in Brazil as the following: It was a lie when they said Brazil was good the emigration company lied (Lesser, 2012, 156). Japanese propaganda had led the Japanese to believe that Brazil would rich in five years and that they would be able to return home wealthy. However, this was just a proportion of the feelings that Japanese had of Brazil. The Japanese also faced a problem from their home country due to the modernization and industrialization of the Meiji period from 1868 to 1912 (Carvalho 3). Japanese sought escape from poverty, overpopulation, heavy taxes and numerous socioeconomic problems. While some Japanese immigrated to Manchuria or Korea, other fled to Australia or Hawaii. Emigration that was prohibited during the Tokugawa period (1603 1867) was solved when Japan faced these economic problems. The Japanese government gave permission to emigration companies to recruit emigrants, Brazil being the primary destination as immigrants faced strong resistance from other countries (Carvalho 4). The first group of immigrants was a failure because the Japanese rebelled against the emigration companies and deserted the population due to poor treatment and no form of payment. In addition, most had no experience in farming. However, all hope was not lost for the Japanese in Brazilians, because the Japanese would continue to enter the country for the next fifty years (Carvalho 7). The third reason was that Japanese were able to create a community within Brazil. In order to create solutions to the land and labor problems, law were established which required immigrants to come as family units (Carvalho 7) and Japanese-run colonies were allowed to be established. In addition, the Japanese did hold a more powerful protector regime than other immigrants since they were able to establish regular school schedules for children and allow adults to participate in various every day activities such as gymnastics and moral boosting (Lesser 2012 156). Schooling allowed children of the immigrants to move up into more dominant positions in Brazilian societies. In addition, foreign government-sponsored colonies allowed Japanese to be relived from the worry of landowners which allowed them to focus on settlement. This discouraged them from returning to Japan and encouraging more emigration as the success in Brazil news spread back to their home country (Lesser, 2012, 157). There were many opportunities for the Japanese to assimilate into Brazilian culture. Most Japanese arrived at a time where the acquisition of land was easy, allowing them to produce new crops such as cotton, rice and potatoes (Carvalho 8). The social structure of Japanese communities mirrored those of traditional Japanese communities where the social order also followed traditional Japanese patterns. If a Japanese were to disturb the social order, they would be [ostracized] (Carvalho 10). The Japaneses primary goal was to accumulate as much capital as possible in order to return to their country of origin, so they worked hard and saved; however, the years they spend on Brazilian soil allowed them to bring their traditions and customs. This included their practices of incense money, gosembetsu (farewell gifts), and emphasis on social relationships between children and parent and society in addition to holidays as well (Carvalho 11). Their economic and cultural success allowed them to negotiate a position in the Brazilian society to the extent where Brazilian Indians and Japanese immigrants were of the same biological stock (Lesser, 2012, 160). Japanese immigration has contributed a great deal to Brazils national identity. The Meiji era created changes in the economic structure of Japan which led to relief through emigration. At the same time, Brazilians believed that Japanese immigrations would solve the problem of rural work, yet the same result due to poor treatment led to the revolt. However, the difference of the Japanese lied in the fact that they were able to form their own communities. This led to the population being able to culturally sustain themselves in Brazil. Currently, about 1.5 million Brazilians claim Japanese descent (Lesser, 1999, 174). The Japanese migration highlights the differences in immigration to Brazil. The Japanese and their descendants are among some of the best Brazilians and the cultural attitude they developed has allowed them to move into the upper-class of society. Today, Japanese-Brazilians can be found amongst every area of Brazilian society, from politics to economy to arts and industry (Lesser, 1999, 174). Even so, the pattern of emigration and immigration differ according to the economy of Brazil. For most of the last two hundred years, Brazil has been a destination for immigration (Lesser, 1999, 190). However, even with an improved economy, Brazil has been faced with the problem of emigration rather than immigration. A statistic from 2010 shows that about four million Brazilians live abroad which means the population is slowly decreasing. Many Japanese are involved in a phenomenon called dekasegui which means working away from home which is used to those who are descendants of Japanese who migrated to Japan (Lesser,2012, 191). With the amendment to Japans Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law in 1990, the Japanese were allows to have work visas up to the generation (Lesser, 2012, 191). This trend fluctuated for various years, for example, when Brazils economy grew strong in the 2000s and the Japanese economy weakened, the migratory trends reversed. As opposed to in the 19th century, Brazilian-Japanese immigrants believed they were temporarily migrating to Brazil to become wealthy (Lesser, 1999, 192). In conclusion, Brazil has and still is a country of immigration. Despite traditional views of Brazil as a country of mestizo and African slavery, the Japanese population outside of Japan is highest in Brazil. I chose to write this essay on the reason for Japanese immigration to Brazil because Asian immigration is typically viewed as the Chinese immigration to America in the 1800s. However, the Japanese is not a country that is really talked about. This relates to the course theme of the Racial Formation of Brazil because it discusses the reasons for the Japanese immigration and how it contributed to Brazils diverse population. Initially, the Japanese immigrations initially sought relief from the Meiji Restoration which paralleled the Brazilian need for laborers. However, the Japanese were allowed to create a settlement and community which in turned allowed for the mass emigration from Japan to Brazil. This contributed to the existing community today and despite reverse changes, Brazi l is able to add onto its extremely diverse and vast culture. Works Cited Carvalho, Daniela De. Migrants and Identity in Japan and Brazil: The Nikkeijin. 1st ed. Place of Publication Not Identified: Routledge, 2015. Print. Graham, Jessica. Arrival of Enslaved Africans. HILA 121A W1D2. Warren Lecture Hall, Rm. 2115, La Jolla. 19 Jan. 2017. Lecture. Graham, Jessica. History of Brazilian Indios. HILA 121A W2D2. Warren Lecture Hall, Rm. 2115, La Jolla. 12 Jan. 2017. Lecture. Lesser, Jeffrey. Immigration, Ethnicity, and National Identity in Brazil, 1808 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2013. Print. Lesser, Jeffrey. Negotiating National Identity: Immigrants, Minorities, and the Struggle for Ethnicity in Brazil. (1999): Pp. 13-39 (Chapter Two); Pp. 81-94 (part of Chapter Four); Pp. 147-57 (Chapter Six).+. Duke University Press. Web. 21 Mar. 2017. Schwarcz, Lilia Moritz. Introduction. The Spectacle of the Races: Scientists, Institutions and the Race Question in Brazil, 1870-1930. New York: Hill and Wang, 1999. 3-20. Print. Schwartz, Stuart. Early Brazil: A Documentary Collection to 1700. (2010): 117-40. TED. Cambridge University Press. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.