Property Rights Without Democracy: How Post-Bellum Southern Institutions Explain Contemporary Regulatory Capacity

This dataset contains complete replication materials for "Property Rights Without Democracy: How Post-Bellum Southern Institutions Explain Contemporary Regulatory Capacity," examining how Jim Crow-era institutional forms persist in contemporary U.S. regulatory frameworks.

ABSTRACT

We analyze the relationship between historical Jim Crow institutions and contemporary regulatory efficiency using Doing Business in North America (DBNA) 2022 rankings across 83 U.S. cities. One-way ANOVA reveals significant regional differences (F(3,79) = 3.83, p = 0.013, η² = 0.127), with Upper South states exhibiting the most efficient regulatory environments (mean rank = 26.42, 95% CI [17.87, 34.97]). Critically, Spearman rank correlation shows no significant linear relationship between Jim Crow intensity and regulatory burden (ρ = -0.210, p = 0.057), supporting the hypothesis that institutional FORM rather than INTENSITY determines long-term outcomes.

Results reveal a "Goldilocks pattern": Upper South states with moderate Jim Crow developed sophisticated formal-legal mechanisms that, while designed to maintain racial hierarchy, also built durable state capacity for complex regulatory administration. This capacity persists in contemporary business regulation, divorced from its original discriminatory purpose but retaining its institutional sophistication. The pattern contradicts simple "more Jim Crow = worse outcomes" narratives, demonstrating instead how moderate Jim Crow regimes developed bureaucratic frameworks formal enough to create lasting capacity but not so extreme as to rely primarily on violence and arbitrary authority.

DATASET CONTENTS

Primary Data Files:
• DBNA_2022_FINAL.xlsx - Complete DBNA 2022 rankings for 83 U.S. cities with regional classifications based on historical Jim Crow institutional forms
• DBNA 2022 Report v2.pdf - Original DBNA 2022 report from Arizona State University's Center for the Study of Economic Liberty
• 2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf - Project 2025 policy document for contemporary institutional analysis

Analysis Code:
• JIM.ipynb - Complete Jupyter notebook with all statistical analyses, including ANOVA, pairwise comparisons (Tukey HSD), correlation tests, diagnostic checks, and robustness analyses

Statistical Tables (CSV format):
• Table1_Descriptive_Statistics.csv - Regional descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals
• Table2_Pairwise_Comparisons.csv - Tukey HSD pairwise regional comparisons
• Table3_Correlations.csv - Spearman and Pearson correlation results
• Table4_ANOVA_Complete.csv - Complete one-way ANOVA results
• Table4_GroupMeans.csv - Group means with confidence intervals
• Diagnostics_Summary.csv - ANOVA assumption diagnostics (normality, homogeneity, outliers)
• Robustness_Checks.csv - Non-parametric tests and alternative specifications

Publication Tables:
• TABLES.docx - All four statistical tables in manuscript-ready Word format

Documentation:
• Manuscript_Text.txt - Complete statistical results section with interpretations

METHODOLOGY

Regional Classification:
Cities classified into four categories based on historical Jim Crow institutional characteristics:
- Border South (High JC): DE, MD, WV, KY, MO - States on Mason-Dixon line with sophisticated formal-legal Jim Crow mechanisms (n=7)
- Upper South (Moderate JC): VA, TN, AR, NC, OK, TX, FL - Intermediate states with moderate Jim Crow formalization (n=19)
- Deep South (Severe JC): SC, GA, AL, MS, LA - States with most extreme Jim Crow characterized by arbitrary authority (n=5)
- Non-South (No JC): All other U.S. states and territories (n=52)

Statistical Methods:
- One-way ANOVA testing regional differences in DBNA rankings
- Tukey HSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons
- Spearman rank correlation between Jim Crow intensity and regulatory burden
- Diagnostic tests: Shapiro-Wilk (normality), Levene's test (homogeneity of variance), Cook's distance (outliers)
- Robustness checks: Kruskal-Wallis test (non-parametric ANOVA), Pearson correlation

Data Source:
DBNA 2022 rankings obtained from Arizona State University's Center for the Study of Economic Liberty. Rankings based on 7,700+ data points across 93 variables measuring ease of starting, operating, and closing businesses in six categories: Starting a Business, Employing Workers, Getting Electricity, Paying Taxes, Land and Space Use, and Resolving Insolvency.

KEY FINDINGS

Statistical Results:
- Significant regional differences: F(3,79) = 3.83, p = 0.013, η² = 0.127
- Upper South significantly outperforms Non-South: mean difference = 20.58, p = 0.007
- No linear correlation: Spearman ρ = -0.210, p = 0.057; Pearson r = -0.114, p = 0.303
- Diagnostic tests confirm ANOVA assumptions reasonably satisfied
- Results robust to non-parametric specification (Kruskal-Wallis H = 10.41, p = 0.015)

Theoretical Implications:
Findings demonstrate that institutional form (sophisticated formal-legal mechanisms vs. arbitrary authority) matters more than intensity (severity of discriminatory practices) in determining long-term institutional capacity. Upper South states developed a "Goldilocks" level of formalization—creating durable bureaucratic frameworks without the institutional disruption caused by extreme arbitrary authority in Deep South states.

USAGE NOTES

Reproducibility:
All analyses fully reproducible using JIM.ipynb notebook with DBNA_2022_FINAL.xlsx dataset. Python environment requires: pandas, numpy, scipy, statsmodels, matplotlib, seaborn, openpyxl.

Citation:
If using this dataset, please cite: [Author]. (2025). Property Rights Without Democracy: How Post-Bellum Southern Institutions Explain Contemporary Regulatory Capacity [Dataset]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/[DOI]

Data sources cited:
- Arizona State University Center for the Study of Economic Liberty. (2022). Doing Business in North America 2022 Report (4th ed.). https://dbna.asu.edu
- Heritage Foundation. (2025). Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Project 2025). https://www.project2025.org

RESEARCH ETHICS

This research analyzes publicly available archival data and does not involve direct human participants. Data sources include: (1) DBNA 2022 rankings published by Arizona State University; (2) publicly available government documents. No IRB approval required as research involves only publicly available aggregate data. All data sources properly cited and publicly accessible for independent verification and replication.

FAIR DATA PRINCIPLES

Findable: Dataset deposited in Zenodo with persistent DOI, comprehensive metadata, and descriptive keywords
Accessible: All files openly available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license
Interoperable: Data provided in standard formats (XLSX, CSV, PDF) compatible with common statistical software
Reusable: Complete documentation, analysis code, and methodological notes included; clear licensing permits reuse with attribution

CONTACT

For questions about this dataset or replication, please contact via Zenodo messaging or institutional channels.

KEYWORDS

Jim Crow, institutional persistence, regulatory capacity, state capacity, historical institutionalism, property rights, federalism, American South, business regulation, DBNA, path dependence, racial hierarchy, formal-legal institutions, comparative institutions

VERSION

1.0 - Initial release (2025)