Individuals that reside in the highest social stratum of intelligence (i.e., those that have a high IQ) have been shown to generate relatively more national income and are more innovative, with those that have the lowest levels of IQ being less influential on economic development. However, the degree to which all levels of IQ influence economic growth and technological innovation remains unclear. By assuming that the IQ of a population is modeled based on a bell curve, we arrange IQ into three strata, namely intellectual class, average ability citizens, and non-intellectual class, which are represented by the 95 th , 50 th , and 5 th percentiles of cognitive ability, respectively. Our multiple hierarchical regression analysis of a sample of over 60 countries shows that the intellectual class has the greatest impact on economic growth followed by average ability citizens and the non-intellectual class in that order. Moreover, we find evidence that the impact of the intellectual class on technological progress is exceptionally more significant than even the number of professional researchers engaged in R&D activities, with average ability citizens and the non-intellectual class not significant. These findings allow us to suggest that the government and private institutions should not only employ professionals with good experiences and high academic credentials, but also those who has excellent IQ levels to work in their R&D sectors. However, in order to foster economic growth, governments should invest into facilities that benefit all societal 2 groups of intelligence level, with highest priority given to the intellectual class, followed by the average ability citizens and the non-intellectual class respectively.Keywords: economic growth; innovation; intellectual class; national IQ; non-intellectual class; patent JEL Classifications: I25, J24, O3, O47, Z13 IntroductionEmpirical studies have found that intellectual people, namely those that have a high IQ, contribute more to socioeconomic development in a society as compared to the average ability citizens. For example, assuming that the IQ of a population is modeled based on a normal distribution or bell curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 2010), Rindermann and Thompson (2011) found that the smartest proportion (i.e., those at the 95 th percentile on the IQ scale) is more significant in raising cross-national income and technological achievement as compared to the citizens that have an average IQ (50 th percentile). This finding implies that although the size of this "intellectual class" as it is termed in this paper is relatively small in the population, they are able to benefit society to a greater degree than society contributes to their lives.In a similar vein, Rindermann, Sailer, and Thompson (2009) Literature ReviewThe centuries-old relationship between cognitive ability and technological achievement has recently been explored. Lynn (2012), for example, examined 120 countries in order to assess the degree to which technological achievement over millennia at...

The present study examines whether crime rates can be reduced by increasing the IQ of people with high, average, and low IQ. Previous studies have shown that as a determinant of the national level of income per capita growth and technological achievement, the IQ of the intellectual class (those at the 95 th percentile of the Bell curve distribution of population intelligence) is more important than the IQ of those with average ability at the 50 th percentile.Extending these findings, our study incorporates the non-intellectual class (IQ at the 5 th percentile) to examine the role of IQ classes in determining crime rates across countries. We conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses with IQ, seven types of crimes, and nine control variables: urbanization, alcohol consumption, unemployment rate, young to old population ratio, income inequality, education attainment, drug consumption, police rate, and income per capita. Regardless of types of crimes, we found evidence that raising IQ will lessen crime rates, with raises in the 95 th percentile group having the most number of significant impacts, followed by the 50 th and then the 5 th percentile groups. Furthermore, none of the nine control factors was stronger than the 95 th percentile group in predicting crime rates. We conclude that the intellectual class influences rates of more types of crime than the non-intellectual class does. The intellectual class has the highest authority in 2 determining law enforcement and development policies. Therefore, increasing the IQ of politicians and leaders from this class than other social classes will have a more significant influence in reducing crime rates, through enhanced functionality and quality of institutions across countries.

Previous studies found that the impact of intelligence (IQ) on productivity is larger at country level than at individual level. Labor works in clusters at the country level, and therefore, the effect of individual skill complementarities collectively magnifies per capita income at the national level, which is consistent with the O-ring theory of economic development. The main feature of the O-ring theory is positive assortative matching, in which individuals can augment productivity per capita when they team up with other individuals with equivalent levels of skills. We investigated whether global integration would intensify this impact owing to global interconnectivity of skills and intellectual ideas. By extending the O-ring theory, we examined the role of economic globalization (i.e., actual flows and restrictions), social globalization (i.e., personal contact, information flows, and cultural proximity), and political globalization in moderating the impact of national IQ on the economic growth of more than 110 countries during 1970-2010. The results of our hierarchical multiple regressions suggest that IQ rather than economic, political, or social globalization has the strongest impact on economic growth. Moreover, moderation analysis 2 revealed that globalization has reduced the impact of national IQ on economic growth at the cross-country level. We suggest that within the context of globalization, friction was present in the matching market and cognitive skill-sorting inefficiencies, which reduced the collective impact of IQ on economic growth.

Self-actualization theory suggests that all individuals hold potential, and they can focus their motivations on actualizing this potential only if all basic and psychological needs are satisfied. Contemporary economic literature has reported that national average intelligence (IQ) is the most robust measure of human capital in raising economic productivity across countries. Treating national IQ as an intrinsic potential of society, our study examined the role of basic and psychological needs (i.e., life expectancy, life satisfaction, and political stability) in moderating the impact of national IQ on economic growth among 118 countries from 1970 to 2010. Hierarchical multiple regression indicates that the independent effects of national IQ, life expectancy, political stability, and life satisfaction on economic growth rate were significantly positive. Furthermore, life satisfaction was significantly negative in moderating the effect of national IQ on growth, while the other two factors were nonsignificant moderators. Therefore, we suggest that increased life satisfaction reduces desire for better performance, thereby diminishing the effect of IQ on economic growth. This finding is in accordance with the predictions of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

No abstract