Under-appreciated fact: today’s Nobel is, in large part, given for formally introducing class struggle into mainstream theory and empirics of economic growth and political development.
Their models of democratization and much of their historical analysis is effectively an argument that in some places, historical circumstances drove bargaining power into the hands of merchants and other non elites, and this sometimes created virtuous cycles of democratization and development.
Under-appreciated fact: today’s Nobel is, in large part, given for formally introducing class struggle into mainstream theory and empirics of economic growth and political development. Their models of democratization and much of their historical analysis is effectively an argument that in some places, historical circumstances drove bargaining power into the hands of merchants and other non elites, and this sometimes created virtuous cycles of democratization and development.
Congratulations to @DAcemogluMIT, @baselinescene & James Robinson on their @NobelPrize in Economic Sciences. While their work on institutions is important, it's crucial to remember that development is complex.
As @yuenyuenang, @mushtaqkhan100 & Ha-Joon Chang argue, effective institutions must be context-specific, not just replicas of Western... See more
As @yuenyuenang, @mushtaqkhan100 & Ha-Joon Chang argue, effective institutions must be context-specific, not just replicas of Western... See more
Mariana Mazzucato • Tweet
Why Nations Fail is a bit longer than The Communist Manifesto , but it is essentially The Bourgeois Manifesto . Merchants having become wealthy from the Atlantic trade win property rights in England, already primed for this breakthrough. Resultant regime called inclusive , though the merchants were primarily slavers.
They will underline however tha... See more
They will underline however tha... See more
Rakesh Bhandari • Tweet
Congrats to AJR! They are brilliant.
But I don't agree with their idealized portrayal of institutions in Western development
It is historically inaccurate, if not ideologized
Thus, not only do they struggle to explain China, they also can't explain why Western economies like the US prospered despite being as corrupt as China is today
But I don't agree with their idealized portrayal of institutions in Western development
It is historically inaccurate, if not ideologized
Thus, not only do they struggle to explain China, they also can't explain why Western economies like the US prospered despite being as corrupt as China is today
Yuen Yuen Ang • Tweet
it was really a political project dressed up as an economic one.
David Graeber • Bullshit Jobs: A Theory
irrevocably. As John Maynard Keynes, who transformed macroeconomic policy with his ideas, wrote: “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a fe
... See moreEsther Duflo • Good Economics for Hard Times
We like to think of revolutions as being carried out by downtrodden factory workers and farmers, and in some cases that’s true. But frustrated and underemployed elites are uniquely well-positioned to disrupt society. They have the talent, the connections, and the time to organize radical movements and promulgate radical ideas.
Noah Smith • The Elite Overproduction Hypothesis
Stuart Evans added
Bill Easterly, not very charitably perhaps, but quite accurately, described their conclusion: “After two years of work by the commission of 21 world leaders and experts, an 11-member working group, 300 academic experts, 12 workshops, 13 consultations, and a budget of $4m, the experts’ answer to the question of how to attain high growth was roughly:
... See moreEsther Duflo • Good Economics for Hard Times
