(a) In the paper titled "An African Success Story: Botswana by Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson (2001). The paper analyzes the case of Botswana, a very successful African country. Botswana has had the highest rate of per-capita growth of any country in the world in the last 35 years as at the time the paper was published. This occurred despite many adverse initial conditions including minimal investment during the colonial period, and high inequality. Botswana achieved this rapid development by choosing orthodox economic policies. Although the situation in Botswana is not without serious problems (for example with respect to the incidence of AIDS and the persistence of inequality). how Botswana managed to implement these policies is a puzzle because typically in Africa, "good economics" is bad politics. What is the main hypothesis the authors elaborate to explain Botswana's relative success? How can you connect that hypothesis to the growth theories we studied in this course? Is Solow enough or we need something more? (b) In one of the convergence papers, Reconsidering the Baumol results. J. Bradford DeLong (1988), in a comment on Baumol's convergence result for the industrialized countries over the last century, pointed out that the result could be driven by the procedure through which the countries were selected. In particular, DeLong noted two things. First, only countries that were rich at the end of the sample (i.e., in the 1980s) were included. Second, several countries not included, such as Argentina, were richer than Japan in 1870. Use these points to criticize and discuss the Baumol results. Do these criticisms apply to the results for the OECD? For the world