Hubbry Logo
J curveJ curveMain
Open search
J curve
Community hub
J curve
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
J curve
J curve
J curve
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A J curve

A J curve is any of a variety of J-shaped diagrams where a curve initially falls, then steeply rises above the starting point.

Political economy

[edit]

Balance of trade model

[edit]
An example J curve. Trade starts in perfect balance, but depreciation at time 0 causes an immediate trade deficit of 50 million dollars. The balance of trade improves over time as consumers react, returning to balance at month 3 and rising to a surplus of 150 million at month 4.

In economics, the "J curve" is the time path of a country’s trade balance following a devaluation or depreciation of its currency, under a certain set of assumptions. A devalued currency means imports are more expensive, and on the assumption that the volumes of imports and exports change little at first, this causes a fall in the current account (a bigger deficit or smaller surplus). After some time, though, the volume of exports starts to rise because of their lower price to foreign buyers, and domestic consumers buy fewer imports, which have become more expensive for them. Eventually the trade balance moves to a smaller deficit or larger surplus compared to what it was before the devaluation.[1] Likewise, if there is a currency revaluation or appreciation the same reasoning may be applied and will lead to an inverted J curve.

Immediately following the depreciation or devaluation of the currency, the total value of imports will increase and exports remain largely unchanged due in part to pre-existing trade contracts that have to be honored. This is because in the short run, prices of imports rise due to the depreciation and also in the short run there is a lag in changing consumption of imports, therefore there is an immediate jump followed by a lag until the long run prevails and consumers stop importing as many expensive goods and along with the rise in exports cause the current account to increase (a smaller deficit or a bigger surplus).[1] Moreover, in the short run, demand for the more expensive imports (and demand for exports, which are cheaper to foreign buyers using foreign currencies) remain price inelastic. This is due to time lags in the consumer's search for acceptable, cheaper alternatives (which might not exist).

Over the longer term a depreciation in the exchange rate can usually be expected to improve the current account balance. Domestic consumers switch to domestic products and away from the now more expensive imported goods and services. Equally, many foreign consumers may switch to purchasing the products being exported into their country, which are now cheaper in the foreign currency, instead of their own domestically produced goods and services.

Empirical investigations of the J curve have sometimes focused on the effect of exchange rate changes on the trade ratio, i.e. exports divided by imports, rather than the trade balance, exports minus imports. Unlike the trade balance, the trade ratio can be logarithmically transformed regardless of whether a trade deficit or trade surplus exists.[2]

Asymmetric J-curve

[edit]
NARDL (Cumulative Dynamic) Multiplier effect of real effective exchange rate and response of US trade balance

The asymmetric J-curve implies that there could be an asymmetric relationship between the exchange rate changes and trade balance. The asymmetric effects of real exchange rate on trade balance were initially reported by the American economist Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. However, the term asymmetric J-curve was coined by the British economists Muhammad Ali Nasir and Mary Leung. They employed cumulative dynamic multiplier analysis and reported empirical evidence of an asymmetric J-curve in an article on US trade deficit.[3]

Private equity

[edit]
An illustration of the J curve in Private Equity

In private equity, the J curve is used to illustrate the historical tendency of private equity funds to deliver negative returns in early years and investment gains in the outlying years as the portfolios of companies mature.[4][5]

In the early years of the fund, a number of factors contribute to negative returns including management fees, investment costs and under-performing investments that are identified early and written down. Over time the fund will begin to experience unrealized gains followed eventually by events in which gains are realized (e.g., IPOs, mergers and acquisitions, leveraged recapitalizations).[6]

Historically, the J curve effect has been more pronounced in the US, where private equity firms tend to carry their investments at the lower of market value or investment cost and have been more aggressive in writing down investments than in writing up investments. As a result, the carrying value of any investment that is underperforming will be written down but the carrying value of investments that are performing well tend to be recognized only when there is some kind of event that forces the private equity firm to mark up the investment.[7]

The steeper the positive part of the J curve, the quicker cash is returned to investors. A private equity firm that can make quick returns to investors provides investors with the opportunity to reinvest that cash elsewhere. Of course, with a tightening of credit markets, private equity firms have found it harder to sell businesses they previously invested in. Proceeds to investors have reduced. J curves have flattened dramatically. This leaves investors with less cash flow to invest elsewhere, such as in other private equity firms. The implications for private equity could well be severe. Being unable to sell businesses to generate proceeds and fees means some in the industry have predicted consolidation amongst private equity firms.[citation needed]

Productivity J-Curve

[edit]

When a new technology requires significant investment in complementary intangible assets, then this can create a J-curve in productivity growth, at least as it is conventionally measured. Investments in intangibles require tangible costs, but they are not well-measured as part of output in the official national accounts. This can lead to underestimation of productivity growth in the early years of technology adoption and overestimation later, when the tangible benefits of intangible investments are harvested. The result is what has become known as the Productivity J-curve.[8]

Political science

[edit]

Revolution model

[edit]

In political science, the "J curve" is part of a model developed by James Chowning Davies to explain political revolutions. Davies asserts that revolutions are a subjective response to a sudden reversal in fortunes after a long period of economic growth, which is known as relative deprivation. Relative deprivation theory claims that frustrated expectations help overcome the collective action problem, which in this case may breed revolt. Frustrated expectations could result from several factors, including growing levels of inequality within a country, which may mean those who are increasingly poor relative to the rich are getting less than they expected, or a period of sustained economic development, lifting general expectations, followed by a crisis.

This model is often applied to explain social and political unrest and efforts by governments to contain this unrest. This is referred to as the Davies' J curve, because economic development followed by a depression would be modeled as an upside down and slightly skewed J.

Country status model

[edit]
Main article: The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall
A graph of stability against openness

Another "J curve" refers to the correlation between stability and openness. This theory was suggested initially by the author Ian Bremmer, in his book The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall.

The x-axis of the political J curve graph measures the 'openness' of the economy in question and the y-axis measures the stability of that same state. It suggests that those states that are 'closed'/undemocratic/unfree (such as the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba) are very stable; however, as one progresses right, along the x-axis, it is evident that stability (for relatively short period of time in the lengthy life of nations) decreases, creating a dip in the graph, until beginning to pick up again as the 'openness' of a state increases; at the other end of the graph to closed states are the open states of the West, such as the United States of America or the United Kingdom. Thus, a J-shaped curve is formed.

States can travel both forward (right) and backwards (left) along this J curve, and so stability and openness are never secure. The J is steeper on the left hand side, as it is easier for a leader in a failed state to create stability by closing the country than to build a civil society and establish accountable institutions; the curve is higher on the far right than left because states that prevail in opening their societies (Eastern Europe, for example) ultimately become more stable than authoritarian regimes.

Bremmer's entire curve can shift up or down depending on economic resources available to the government in question. So Saudi Arabia's relative stability at every point along the curve rises or falls depending on the price of oil; China's curve analogously depends on the country's economic growth.

Medicine

[edit]

In medicine, the "J curve" refers to a graph in which the x-axis measures either of two treatable symptoms (blood pressure or blood cholesterol level) while the y-axis measures the chance that a patient will develop cardiovascular disease (CVD). It is well known that high blood pressure or high cholesterol levels increase a patient's risk. What is less well known is that plots of large populations against CVD mortality often take the shape of a J curve which indicates that patients with very low blood pressure and/or low cholesterol levels are also at increased risk.[9]

Other graphs associated with health can take the form of a "J curve", such as mortality vs BMI[10] or mortality vs age.[11][12] Really low values for various risk factors can also increase the risk, beyond cardiovascular health.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

J curve

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The J-curve effect describes a pattern in international economics where a country's trade balance initially worsens after a devaluation or depreciation of its currency, before improving over time, forming a trajectory resembling the letter "J". This phenomenon, first formalized by economist Stephen Magee in 1973, arises because import and export prices adjust immediately to the exchange rate change, exacerbating the trade deficit in the short run due to relatively inelastic demand quantities, while longer-term adjustments in trade volumes—driven by price elasticities exceeding unity under the Marshall-Lerner condition—lead to an eventual surplus or improvement. Empirical evidence for the J-curve has been observed in various countries, though results vary depending on factors like contract durations, pass-through effects, and initial trade conditions. Beyond trade balances, analogous J-curve patterns appear in private equity returns, where early losses from fees precede gains, and in productivity responses to technological adoption, highlighting initial disruptions followed by outsized benefits.

Economics

Balance of Trade Model

The J-curve effect in the balance of trade model describes the expected path of a nation's current account balance following a currency devaluation or depreciation, where the balance initially worsens before improving, forming a J-shaped trajectory when plotted against time. This phenomenon arises from the differential timing in price and quantity responses in international trade. Immediately after devaluation, the domestic-currency value of imports rises sharply due to higher prices, while export revenues in domestic terms increase only modestly because quantities remain fixed under short-term contracts denominated in foreign currency. Import volumes do not decline promptly owing to low short-run price elasticities of demand, often below unity, leading to a temporary trade deficit expansion. Over time, as contracts renegotiate and consumers adjust behaviors, trade quantities respond: exports become more competitive abroad, boosting their volume, while higher domestic prices for imports curb consumption. For the eventual improvement to occur, long-run elasticities must satisfy the Marshall-Lerner condition, which requires that the sum of the absolute values of the price elasticity of demand for exports and imports exceeds one. Mathematically, if ηx\eta_x is the export demand elasticity and ηm\eta_m the import demand elasticity, devaluation improves the trade balance when ∣ηx∣+∣ηm∣>1|\eta_x| + |\eta_m| > 1. Short-run elasticities typically fall short of this threshold due to habit persistence and adjustment lags, explaining the initial downturn, whereas long-run elasticities rise as substitution effects dominate. The model assumes flexible prices in the long run and no supply constraints, with trade balance expressed as TB=X−mYTB = X - mY, where XX denotes exports, mm the terms-of-trade adjusted import price, and YY import volume. Devaluation shifts the terms of trade against the domestic economy initially but favors quantity adjustments later. Empirical tests often model this using time-series data on real exchange rates and trade balances, though results vary; for example, analyses of U.S. devaluations in the 1970s showed short-term deterioration followed by recovery after 1-2 years. Critics note that confounding factors like global demand shifts can obscure the pure J-curve, and some studies find no reliable evidence of the pattern across countries.

Asymmetric J-Curve

The asymmetric J-curve hypothesis extends the standard J-curve effect by positing that real exchange rate depreciations and appreciations impact the trade balance differently in both the short and long run. Depreciations typically worsen the trade balance initially due to inelastic import demand and lagged export responses, followed by long-term improvement as quantities adjust, but appreciations often exhibit weaker or insignificant effects, failing to mirror the depreciation path symmetrically. This nonlinearity stems from heterogeneous pass-through mechanisms, pricing-to-market strategies by exporters, and structural trade frictions that amplify depreciation impacts relative to appreciations. Empirical investigations employ nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) models, decomposing exchange rate changes into cumulative depreciations (positive shocks) and appreciations (negative shocks) to test for asymmetries. Studies consistently find short-run asymmetries, where depreciations deteriorate the trade balance more sharply than appreciations improve it, across various contexts including Kenya's bilateral trade with 30 partners, U.S. trade with developing economies, and global commodity exchanges. Long-run asymmetries appear less prevalent but are evident in specific sectors, such as services trade for China, where depreciations yield net improvements absent symmetric appreciation reversals. These findings challenge symmetric Marshall-Lerner assumptions underlying traditional models, suggesting policy implications for currency management: depreciations may offer more reliable trade balance corrections than anticipated appreciation benefits. However, results vary by trade partner, commodity type, and time period, with stronger evidence in developing economies and industry-level data; aggregate analyses sometimes yield weaker asymmetries.

Productivity J-Curve

The productivity J-curve refers to the observed trajectory in aggregate productivity following the adoption of general-purpose technologies (GPTs), where measured productivity growth initially stagnates or declines before accelerating sharply. This pattern emerges because GPTs, such as electricity or information technology, necessitate large upfront investments in complementary intangible assets—including software development, worker training, and organizational restructuring—that are not fully captured in standard productivity metrics. These investments temporarily reduce measured output as resources are reallocated, creating a short-term drag, but yield substantial long-term gains once complementarities are realized. Theoretical frameworks demonstrate how intangibles act as complements to physical GPT capital, leading to underestimation of true productivity in early adoption phases. Firms invest heavily in unmeasured intangibles during the GPT rollout, causing initial slowdowns that reflect measurement issues rather than technological failure. Evidence supporting the productivity J-curve extends to firm-level data and international contexts. Recent analyses of U.S. public firms adopting GPTs suggest evidence of J-curve dynamics, with short-term performance losses preceding longer-term gains, consistent with costly intangible accumulation. In Japan, a study using industry-level data from 1970–2010 estimates shadow prices of investment goods and confirms J-curve shaped productivity movements, particularly in sectors with high intangible intensity, countering narratives of persistent stagnation. Across advanced economies, recent total factor productivity revisions incorporating innovative intangibles show initial digitalization costs producing J-curve effects, with slowdowns in the 2010s potentially preceding AI-driven upswings. Critics note challenges in measuring intangibles precisely, as standard national accounts may still undervalue them, potentially overstating the J-curve's depth; however, microevidence from GPT adopters strengthens causal claims over aggregate correlations. The framework implies that current AI deployment, with its demands for data infrastructure and skill reconfiguration, may exhibit a similar initial dip before transformative growth, urging patience in productivity assessments.

Finance

Private Equity Returns

The J-curve in private equity describes the trajectory of fund returns, characterized by initial negative internal rates of return (IRR) due to capital contributions and management fees outpacing distributions, followed by positive returns as portfolio realizations occur. This pattern arises during the investment period, typically lasting 3-5 years, when limited partners (LPs) fulfill capital calls to acquire and improve portfolio companies, incurring fees of 1-2% on committed capital without immediate exits. As the fund enters the harvest phase around years 5-8, sales, IPOs, or recapitalizations generate distributions exceeding contributions, driving cumulative cash flows upward. Empirical data from fund benchmarks confirm this effect across vintages. For instance, private equity funds often report negative net IRRs in the first 1-3 years, with median IRRs for the 2021 venture capital vintage remaining negative after three years due to the lag in value creation and exits. Pooled analyses show average IRRs improving from low single digits or negative in early years to 14% for more mature 2012-2014 vintages. Cambridge Associates benchmarks illustrate the J-shaped IRR curve, with low or negative values initially as capital is deployed, converging to higher multiples over the 10-12 year fund life. The depth and duration of the J-curve vary by factors such as vintage year economic conditions, manager experience, and strategy. Secondaries and co-investments mitigate it by acquiring mature assets or bypassing fees, reducing early negative cash flows and shortening the timeline to positive returns. While the pattern persists empirically, some analyses suggest modern funds exhibit shallower curves due to faster deployment and improved practices, though primary commitments still face the inherent illiquidity premium.

Political Science

Revolution Model

The revolution model in political science, formulated by James C. Davies, asserts that revolutions arise when a sustained period of objective economic and social advancement is abruptly interrupted by a severe downturn, creating a disparity between heightened expectations and diminished realities. Introduced in Davies' 1962 article "Toward a Theory of Revolution," the hypothesis models societal satisfaction as tracing a J-shaped path: initial improvements elevate welfare and aspirations, fostering a psychological momentum for further gains, but a subsequent reversal—often triggered by events like war, crop failures, or policy failures—intensifies frustration through relative deprivation, where individuals perceive losses not in absolute terms but relative to prior progress and peers. This causal dynamic prioritizes subjective perceptions over mere hardship; stable regimes endure chronic deprivation if expectations remain low, but progress-induced optimism amplifies discontent when reversed, channeling aggression toward systemic overthrow rather than isolated crime or resignation. Davies integrated insights from Alexis de Tocqueville's observations on the French Revolution—where prosperity bred demands for more—and Marxist notions of class consciousness, but emphasized that absolute immiseration alone rarely suffices without the expectation-reality gap. The theory predicts unrest at the curve's nadir, where the steep decline underscores unfulfilled needs, potentially mobilizing disparate groups against entrenched elites. Davies applied the model to cases like the Russian Revolution of 1917, where serf emancipation in 1861 and subsequent industrialization through 1905 spurred economic growth and social mobility, only for reversals—including the 1905 Russo-Japanese War defeat, 1906-1914 stagnation, and World War I hardships from 1914—to erode gains and ignite Bolshevik-led upheaval. The 1952 Egyptian Revolution similarly followed interwar independence and modernization (1922-1940s), undermined by 1948 Arab-Israeli War losses and ensuing economic contraction. Earlier examples include Dorr's Rebellion in Rhode Island (1842), with textile booms (1807-1815) yielding to 1830s depressions that fueled suffrage demands. While Davies noted the pattern's prevalence in "progressive" revolutions involving literate, urbanizing societies, he cautioned against universality, observing that the 1930s U.S. Great Depression—despite massive unemployment exceeding 25% by 1933—produced no revolution due to factors like democratic outlets, New Deal reforms, and resultant despondency over organized fury. Prediction requires gauging societal "mood" via proxies such as strike frequencies or public sentiment surveys, though Davies conceded methodological challenges in quantifying expectations preemptively. The model thus serves as a heuristic for causal sequences in unrest, contingent on institutional resilience and elite responsiveness to mitigate the J-curve's violent inflection.

Political Stability Model

The political stability model posits a J-shaped relationship between a country's openness and its resilience to internal and external shocks. Developed by Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group political risk consultancy, the framework illustrates how closed authoritarian regimes achieve stability through isolation and control, but liberalization introduces volatility before potentially yielding higher long-term resilience in open democracies. In the model, the horizontal axis measures openness, encompassing political freedoms, economic integration via foreign direct investment and trade, unrestricted information flows from global media, and societal exposure to external ideas and migration. The vertical axis quantifies stability as the ability to withstand disruptions such as economic crises, leadership changes, or social unrest without systemic collapse. Closed societies occupy the left side of the curve, maintaining moderate stability—exemplified by North Korea's regime under Kim Jong-il, sustained by total information control and economic autarky despite underlying fragilities. As openness increases, stability plummets during the curve's downward hook, reflecting the turmoil of dismantling repressive structures without mature institutions to manage competition, as seen in Russia's 1990s transition from Soviet control amid oligarchic power struggles, hyperinflation peaking at 2,500% in 1992, and Chechen conflicts. This phase heightens risks of state failure, civil war, or authoritarian backsliding, as competing factions exploit newfound freedoms. Only with sustained openness do countries ascend the upward stroke, building accountability mechanisms, rule of law, and diversified economies that enhance shock absorption—positioning nations like the United States or India, despite periodic volatility such as India's 1975-1977 Emergency or U.S. civil rights upheavals, at elevated stability levels. Bremmer's model underscores the challenges of engineering transitions, noting that coercive pushes for rapid openness, such as through sanctions or military intervention, exacerbate the dip by isolating regimes further, while multilateral engagement can mitigate risks by providing technical aid and incentives for incremental reform. The framework, while heuristic rather than econometric, has informed analyses of post-Arab Spring instability in countries like Egypt, where openness surged after 2011 but stability eroded amid institutional voids.

Medicine

Health Outcomes and Risk Curves

In medical research, the J-curve describes a non-linear relationship between certain risk factors and health outcomes, where moderate levels of exposure correlate with lower risk compared to minimal or excessive levels, forming a J-shaped graph when risk is plotted against exposure. This pattern has been observed in associations between alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality, as well as blood pressure and cardiovascular events. However, interpretations remain contentious, with debates centering on whether the curve reflects true causality or artifacts like selection bias and reverse causation. For alcohol consumption, numerous cohort studies have reported a J-shaped curve, indicating reduced mortality risk among light to moderate drinkers (typically 1-14 drinks per week) relative to lifelong abstainers, with risks escalating at higher intakes. A 2013 analysis of U.S. National Health Interview Survey data found regular non-heavy drinking linked to lower mortality, echoing prior meta-analyses. Yet, critics argue this apparent benefit stems from "abstainer bias," where former heavy drinkers or those with pre-existing illnesses quit alcohol and skew the abstainer category toward higher risk, inflating the curve's nadir. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of 107 studies concluded that even low-volume daily alcohol intake (up to 25g ethanol) showed no significant reduction in all-cause mortality risk, challenging protective claims and aligning with global health guidelines advocating zero consumption to minimize harm. Similar J-curves appear in blood pressure research, particularly for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and cardiovascular outcomes. Meta-analyses indicate heightened coronary event risk below DBP thresholds of 60-70 mmHg, potentially due to impaired myocardial perfusion during diastole. The 2015 SPRINT trial observed a J-shaped association between achieved DBP and myocardial infarction, with excess events at levels under 70 mmHg among intensively treated hypertensives. Nonetheless, recent evidence questions causality, attributing the low-DBP uptick to reverse causation—underlying conditions like heart failure lowering BP—or treatment effects rather than inherent risk. A 2022 analysis emphasized that while high DBP elevates risk linearly, the J-curve's lower limb likely reflects confounding rather than a target to avoid aggressive lowering in most patients. These patterns underscore the need for randomized trials over observational data to disentangle correlation from causation in health risk modeling.

Empirical Evidence and Criticisms

Economic Applications

In international economics, the J-curve effect describes the short-term deterioration followed by long-term improvement in a country's trade balance after a currency depreciation or devaluation. This pattern arises because the immediate impact is a rise in the domestic-currency value of imports, exacerbating the trade deficit, while export revenues initially remain stable due to quantity adjustment lags; over time, higher import prices reduce import volumes, and cheaper exports boost export quantities, assuming the Marshall-Lerner condition holds where the sum of export and import elasticities exceeds unity. The effect has significant implications for economic policy, particularly in nations pursuing exchange rate adjustments to address persistent trade imbalances. Policymakers must anticipate the initial worsening, which can strain foreign reserves and increase inflationary pressures, often necessitating complementary measures like fiscal tightening or capital controls to sustain the adjustment process until volume responses materialize, typically within one to two years. For instance, following the 1967 devaluation of the British pound by 14%, the UK's current account deficit initially deepened before showing improvement, illustrating the J-curve in a historical context. Empirical investigations reveal mixed support for the J-curve hypothesis across countries and time periods. Studies on developing economies, such as Ghana, have identified evidence of the effect post-depreciation, with trade balances improving after an initial dip due to delayed quantity adjustments. In contrast, analyses of advanced economies like the United States at the state level or New Zealand bilaterally show support only in select cases, often under asymmetric conditions where depreciations elicit stronger responses than appreciations. A 1989 study concluded no statistically reliable evidence for a stable J-curve in aggregate data, highlighting methodological challenges like data aggregation and lag specifications that can obscure the pattern. Recent applications extend to sector-specific trade, such as agricultural commodities in Southeast Asian economies, where devaluations led to J-curve patterns in balances with major partners, and fossil fuel trade in Turkey, underscoring the hypothesis's relevance in commodity-dependent policy responses. However, persistent empirical ambiguity advises caution; while theoretically grounded in price and quantity elasticities, real-world frictions like pass-through incompleteness or global demand shifts can alter or negate the expected trajectory, informing more nuanced exchange rate strategies.

Political Applications

In political science, the J-curve has been invoked to explain outbreaks of revolution and civil unrest, particularly through James C. Davies' 1962 formulation, which hypothesizes that violence erupts when a prolonged rise in societal satisfaction—fueled by economic or social progress—gives way to abrupt decline, creating a gap between heightened expectations and realized conditions. Davies applied this model qualitatively to historical cases, such as the Russian Revolution of 1917, where pre-World War I industrialization and reforms (e.g., Stolypin's agrarian changes from 1906–1911) improved living standards for segments of the population, only for wartime disruptions from 1914 onward to reverse gains, culminating in the February and October Revolutions. Similar patterns were posited for the American Revolution (post-1763 prosperity dip after the French and Indian War) and the French Revolution (late 18th-century growth stalled by fiscal crises in the 1780s). These illustrations rely on archival economic indicators, like grain prices and wage data, to trace the "upswing" and "downswing," though they remain interpretive rather than rigorously statistical. Quantitative empirical tests of the J-curve in domestic political violence have largely failed to confirm its predictive power. A 1973 study using time-series analysis of individual-level perceptual data—drawn from surveys on economic perceptions and satisfaction among Black Americans—examined the 1960s urban riots (e.g., Watts in 1965, Detroit in 1967) and disconfirmed the theory's core claim of progressive relative deprivation driving unrest; instead, riots correlated more with immediate events like police incidents than lagged satisfaction declines. This analysis refined Davies' original indices of objective conditions (e.g., unemployment rates) against subjective expectations but found no J-shaped temporal pattern in riot incidence. An earlier empirical test in Alexander M. Hicks' 1973 dissertation similarly scrutinized Davies' model against cross-national data on political violence from 1919–1966, yielding inconclusive results due to data limitations in measuring expectation gaps. Criticisms of political J-curve applications center on measurement challenges and alternative causal mechanisms. Quantifying "expectations" versus "capabilities" proves elusive, as proxy variables like GDP growth or income inequality often fail to capture perceptual dynamics, leading to endogeneity issues in regressions. Davies addressed critiques from power struggle theorists (e.g., Tilly and Shorter's 1974 analysis of European strikes), arguing that J-curve dynamics complement rather than contradict resource mobilization, but empirical reanalyses of strike data from 19th-century Europe showed no consistent J-pattern, favoring institutional factors like union density. In contexts of political stability, applications to post-policy shifts—such as liberalization reforms—suggest initial unrest (e.g., Turkey's 2010s economic upswing followed by 2018 currency crisis-linked protests) before stabilization, but a 2020 study linking J-curve to digital-era discontent found only partial fit when incorporating social media-amplified expectations, undermined by omitted variables like elite fragmentation. Overall, while the model offers causal intuition for disequilibrium-driven instability, its empirical track record remains weak, with disconfirming evidence outweighing confirmations in peer-tested datasets.

Other Fields

In psychology, the J-curve hypothesis, proposed by Floyd Henry Allport in 1934, describes the distribution of conforming behavior in social groups, where the majority of individuals adhere closely to group norms, with deviations becoming progressively rarer as the degree of nonconformity increases, forming a J-shaped pattern of frequency versus deviation magnitude. This model suggests that extreme nonconformists are outliers, while mild deviations are more common but still limited, challenging uniform distribution assumptions in conformity studies. Empirical tests, such as observations of pedestrian stopping at crosswalks or automobile speed variations, supported the hypothesis by showing clustered conformity near the norm and a steep drop-off in higher deviations. In population ecology and biology, the J-curve depicts exponential growth patterns in populations unconstrained by environmental limits, where growth rate accelerates continuously, leading to a sharp upward trajectory after an initial phase, as seen in species like bacteria or weeds under abundant resources. This contrasts with S-shaped logistic curves that plateau due to carrying capacity; the J-shape highlights risks of unchecked proliferation, such as resource depletion or collapse, observed in models of r-selected species with high reproductive rates. Real-world examples include invasive species outbreaks, where populations surge rapidly before density-dependent factors intervene. Species abundance distributions in biodiversity studies often exhibit a J-curve or "hollow curve" pattern, characterized by a high number of rare species and progressively fewer common ones, reflecting ecological processes like niche partitioning and stochastic extinction. This distribution arises from mechanisms such as competitive exclusion and dispersal limitations, with log-series or log-normal models approximating the shape across taxa from insects to plants; deviations from the J-curve can indicate ecosystem disturbance or succession stages. In educational research, the J-curve effect, also termed the "implementation dip," illustrates temporary performance declines during the adoption of innovative teaching methods before long-term gains, as teachers navigate learning curves and systemic adjustments. Documented in studies of science education reform since the early 2000s, this pattern underscores the need for sustained support to overcome initial resistance and skill gaps, with recovery linked to professional development intensity.

References

  1. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1973/01/1973a_bpea_magee.pdf
  2. https://subversion.american.edu/aisaac/notes/tradebal.pdf
  3. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/1309/
  4. https://www.hamiltonlane.com/en-us/education/private-markets-education/j-curves
  5. https://ide.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/2019-04JCurvebrief.final2_.pdf
  6. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/143448/economics/j-curve-effect/
  7. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/j-curve/
  8. https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/policy-and-theory-of-international-economics/s22-12-the-j-curve-effect.html
  9. https://www.savemyexams.com/dp/economics/ib/22/hl/revision-notes/4-the-global-economy/4-6-balance-of-payments/marshall-lerner-and-j-curve/
  10. https://www.econinja.net/global-economy/4-6-balance-of-payments/the-marshall-lerner-condition-and-the-j-curve-effect
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0261560689900077
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304393289900160
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1303070120300354
  14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apel.12397
  15. https://pure.psu.edu/en/publications/the-us-trade-balance-with-partners-from-developing-world-an-asymm
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0313592622001229
  17. https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/worlde/v42y2019i10p2854-2899.html
  18. https://international.vlex.com/vid/is-there-jcurve-effect-1049457285
  19. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86640/1/MPRA_paper_86640.pdf
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889158321000162
  21. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/new-developments-total-factor-productivity-measurement-reflecting-innovative
  22. https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/j-curve/
  23. https://carta.com/learn/private-funds/management/fund-performance/j-curve/
  24. https://www.cambridgeassociates.com/insight/when-secondaries-should-come-first/
  25. https://russellinvestments.com/content/ri/us/en/insights/russell-research/2024/06/the-j-curve-in-private-equityand-how-to-potentially-beat-it.html
  26. https://www.canterburyconsulting.com/blog/death-of-the-j-curve/
  27. https://louischauvel.org/DAVIES2089714.pdf
  28. https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/media/series/ethics-online/review-the-j-curve
  29. https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/media/podcast/20060912b-the-j-curve-a-new-way-to-understand-why-nations-rise-and-fall
  30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ty8tDwrEiY
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48602469
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3872245/
  33. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.05.073
  34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24033586/
  35. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-023-02911-w
  36. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2802963
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28612327/
  38. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1803180
  39. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.122.18997
  40. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2785317
  41. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/j-curve-effect.asp
  42. https://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/18-05.html
  43. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10037-023-00186-5
  44. https://www.emerald.com/reps/article/9/4/358/1237242/The-J-curve-effect-in-agricultural-commodity-trade
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1049007825001757
  46. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/jcurve-theory/63B1557377F659C67B95F5A40C7776B3
  47. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/jcurve-theory-and-the-black-urban-riots-an-empirical-test-of-progressive-relative-deprivation-theory/BE1F01F55FA56C8745AA1926480FD240
  48. https://books.google.com/books/about/James_C_Davies_J_curve_Explanation_of_Po.html?id=-wFZAAAAMAAJ
  49. https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/SOC924/Articles/DaviesResponseShorterTilly1974.pdf
  50. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2245974
  51. https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Allport/Allport_1934.html
  52. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/college-bio/j-shaped-growth-curve
  53. https://www.coursesidekick.com/economics/330826
  54. https://sites.ualberta.ca/~fhe/He-publications/McGill.ELE07.pdf
  55. https://serc.carleton.edu/files/sencer/backgrounders/sencer_implications.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.