The importance of evolutionary forces for comparative economic performance across societies has been the focus of a vibrant literature, highlighting the roles played by the Neolithic Revolution and the prehistoric "out of Africa" migration of anatomically modern humans in generating worldwide variations in the composition of human traits. This essay provides an overview of the literature on the macrogenoeconomics of comparative development, underscoring the significance of evolutionary processes and of human population diversity in generating differential paths of economic development across societies. Furthermore, it examines the contribution of a recent hypothesis set forth by Nicholas Wade, regarding the evolutionary origins of comparative development, to this important line of research.

This research advances the hypothesis and establishes empirically that interpersonal population diversity, rather than fractionalization or polarization across ethnic groups, has been pivotal to the emergence, prevalence, recurrence, and severity of intrasocietal conflicts. Exploiting an exogenous source of variations in population diversity across nations and ethnic groups, as determined predominantly during the exodus of humans from Africa tens of thousands of years ago, the study demonstrates that population diversity, and its impact on the degree of diversity within ethnic groups, has contributed significantly to the risk and intensity of historical and contemporary civil conflicts. The findings arguably reflect the contribution of population diversity to the non-cohesivnesss of society, as reflected partly in the prevalence of mistrust, the divergence in preferences for public goods and redistributive policies, and the degree of fractionalization and polarization across ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups.

This study argues that the decline of coercive labour institutions over the course of industrialization was partly driven by complementarity between physical capital and effective labour in manufacturing. Given the difficulty of extracting labour effort in care-intensive industrial tasks through monitoring and punishment, capital-owning elites ultimately chose to emancipate workers to induce their supply of effective labour and, thus, boost the return to physical capital. This hypothesis is empirically examined in the context of serf emancipation in nineteenth-century Prussia. Exploiting variation in proto-industrialization across Prussian counties, the analysis finds that, consistent with the proposed hypothesis, the initial abundance of elite-owned physical capital is associated with a higher pace of serf emancipation and lower redemption payments to manorial lords.