Saturday , January 18 2020
Home / V. Ramanan: Concerted Action / Omission And Commission In The Development Economics Of Daron Acemoglu And Esther Duflo

Omission And Commission In The Development Economics Of Daron Acemoglu And Esther Duflo

Summary:
Omission And Commission In The Development Economics Of Daron Acemoglu And Esther DufloThere’s a new paper by Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson which critiques the economics of Daron Acemoglu and Esther Duflo. The paper was written earlier but it’s publication coincides with the recent award of the Nobel Prize, of which Duflo was one of the recipients.Abstract:This article is a critical review of the work of Esther Duflo, recently awarded the 2019 Nobel Prize for economics, and of Daron Acemoglu, who like Duflo has received the John Bates Clark Medal in recognition of research in development economics. Aside from the differences in the two scholars’ approaches, we argue that both downplay the role of the state and of international economic structures that influence national development,

Topics:
V. Ramanan considers the following as important: , ,

This could be interesting, too:

John Quiggin writes Climate change and the strange death of libertarianism

Stavros Mavroudeas writes CfP: Dialogue on economics curriculum reform

Lars Syll writes Economists saving the world …

Editor writes Unrealistic mental models 6

Omission And Commission In The Development Economics Of Daron Acemoglu And Esther Duflo

There’s a new paper by Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson which critiques the economics of Daron Acemoglu and Esther Duflo. The paper was written earlier but it’s publication coincides with the recent award of the Nobel Prize, of which Duflo was one of the recipients.

Abstract:

This article is a critical review of the work of Esther Duflo, recently awarded the 2019 Nobel Prize for economics, and of Daron Acemoglu, who like Duflo has received the John Bates Clark Medal in recognition of research in development economics. Aside from the differences in the two scholars’ approaches, we argue that both downplay the role of the state and of international economic structures that influence national development, thereby obscuring the actual existing causes of contemporary underdevelopment.

From the conclusion:

It would be difficult to argue that the power of contemporary MNCs, the IMF and foreign governments did not have a significant, if not determining, influence on the development of many poor countries. Yet it would be difficult to find any mention of these recent external actors in either Duflo or Acemoglu’s work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *