by I don’t think anyone was surprised by this year’s “Nobel” prize in economics, which went to three American-based specialists in the design of on-the-ground experiments in low income countries, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer. I think the award has merit, but it is important to keep in mind the severe limitations of the work being honored.... On balance, I think it’s fine that this prize honors experimentalism, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the larger picture. Using experimental methods to incorporate more learning in program administration should be standard practice; perhaps some day it will be. But the big problems in poverty and oppression are too complex and encompassing to be reduced to experimental bits, and there is no substitute for theoretical analysis and
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: development economics, Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes Ndongo Samba Sylla – What does MMT have to Offer Developing Nations?
Mike Norman writes Asymmetric Protectionism — Ramanan
Mike Norman writes What Xi Jinping thinks about development economics — Andrew Batson
Mike Norman writes Andrew Batson — Capacity to transform
I don’t think anyone was surprised by this year’s “Nobel” prize in economics, which went to three American-based specialists in the design of on-the-ground experiments in low income countries, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer. I think the award has merit, but it is important to keep in mind the severe limitations of the work being honored....
On balance, I think it’s fine that this prize honors experimentalism, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the larger picture. Using experimental methods to incorporate more learning in program administration should be standard practice; perhaps some day it will be. But the big problems in poverty and oppression are too complex and encompassing to be reduced to experimental bits, and there is no substitute for theoretical analysis and a willingness to take chances with large-scale collective.
Micro approach versus macro. Conclusions cannot be extended beyond the scope and scale of the model, no matter how well-designed the experiment may be. Development economics assumes a large scale context. According to Peter Dorman, the work for which the prize was awarded does not deal with the hard problem of development economics.
We want to avoid the damned if you do and damned if you don't bias, which Peter Dorman seeks to do. The experimental method lies at the basis of scientific method and should be used where it fits. But it doesn't fit everywhere and a shoehorns and girdles should not be used to make it fit either.
The other issue is with randomization, which Lars Syll has pursued in depth at his blog over the years. It's not a straightforward in social science as it is in natural science owing to the subject matter.
Peter Dorman | Professor of Political Economy, The Evergreen State College
See also
Oxfam Blogs — From Poverty to Power
The Randomistas just won the Nobel Economics prize. Here’s why RCTs aren’t a magic bullet.
Duncan Green, strategic adviser for Oxfam GB