What works best to break the cycle of poverty?

Simple: Migration. See the great article by Michael Clemens about this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-clemens/the-south-pacific-secret-to-breaking-the-poverty-cycle_b_8135780.html
From the article:
“What’s working against poverty? International labor mobility. So you might think that projects like this — among the most effective ever evaluated — would be at the center of the global antipoverty agenda. You might think that the World Bank and other aid agencies would scour the globe for similar opportunities, as a centerpiece of their activity. You’d be wrong.”

I strongly recommend reading the entire article.

Diane Coyle wonders where the Robots for the People are

Diane Coyle maintains The Enlightened Economist blog (and has written a thoroughly enjoyable book on the GDP, no less), so I visit her blog every so often. Today’s offering discusses Martin Ford’s book Rise of the Robots. She is optimistic about capitalism creating a wave of new jobs, as it has done every time pessimism about technology stealing jobs from people became prominent in the last 250 years. Whether that is going to continue this time is an open question. I do want to emphasize the distributional problems of the rise of the robots, and I will do it by simply quoting here her last paragraph:

Well, maybe I’m delusionally optimistic. Ford ends the book with figures from the BLS. Between 1998 and 2013, there was a 42% real increase in US GDP, but no increase in the total hours worked. He thinks that’s a bad thing. I think it’s a good one – with the huge proviso that the benefits of growth must be widely shared. They haven’t been. We don’t have the people’s robots. That’s the real problem.

On having finished the book Sapiens

I have written here about reading Harari’s book Sapiens. I have finished the book since that post appeared. Now, separated from the time of finishing the book by a few days, in which I spent a lot of time reading graduate student dissertation proposals and writing lecture notes, I thought I would write down my lingering impression from the book.

This impression is bleak. The various revolutions Harari talks about left individual members of Homo Sapiens less well off than before, with the Agricultural Revolution as a prime example. Even worse were the effects of these revolutions (Cognitive, Agricultural, Industrial) on other species on planet Earth.

A secondary impression I got was one of a fundamental tension between Harari’s portrayal of history as proceeding without regard to what is good or bad, for humans or other species, and constantly talking about effects of historical changes as good or bad. I am perfectly content to read normative statements in a book on history (or economics, as a matter of fact), but I want a clearer idea of the author’s ethical convictions. Harari does not elucidate a moral philosophy, but one seems to be in the background, one that I would have liked to be made clearer.

More on “mathiness” in economics

Paul Romer has a new post about “mathiness”, this time in financial economics. Right at the top of the post, he includes two links to blog posts by Tim Johnson about how mathiness was used to obfuscate what the math says in finance, so that official investigations into the latest financial crisis, the one that started in earnest in 2007, would miss something. In Romer’s words, “People in finance used math to hide what they were doing.” The Johnson posts are rich in material from the beginnings of probability theory, incidentally, and surprised me with a connection to Aristotle and how thinking about money as a universal measure showed people the way to apply math to physics; Johnson also connects finance to a notion of justice. Fascinating stuff! I hope to carve some time out to delve in this more deeply.

H/T for the Paul Romer link: Mark Thoma, here.

Interesting read

I promise in the Hello World post at the top of this blog that the blog would be an attempt to gather at least some of my disparate posts online in one place. In this spirit, let me share here that I was intrigued by this review in the Economist and this post by Paul Romer enough to buy Hidalgo’s book. Since promising to blog about it here might help motivate me to read it soon (by creating some time carved out from my time on social media, which I know I should be doing much more), I hereby promise to blog about this book soon.

Nicholas Stern asks “why are we waiting?”

This is the title of Professor Stern’s recently published book. Following up on my previous post from today, I just got this book and Hirofumi Uzawa’s Economic Theory and Global Warming. So I am happily ensconced reading up on this topic, which I consider the most important topic for anyone, especially any economist, to learn about and contribute what s/he can to saving the future of humanity from catastrophe. Don’t just read the recently ubiquitous dystopias out there. Read also the suggestions of the people who have thought long and hard about how to navigate to eutopias instead. (No, it’s not a typo: eutopia is quite the opposite of dystopia in Greek, and different from utopia, as eutopia is attainable.)

Meanwhile, if you want a shorter presentation of Stern’s points in Why Are We Waiting? there is a way: you can watch the recent lecture Stern gave at LSE, and/or read the slides used in that lecture.

Climate economics

Do you need a reason to be even more depressed than when reading the news from Greece? No? I am sorry to disappoint you, but I have just such a thing. I have such news and I will start here a sequence of posts that will describe the situation from my point of view and look very hard for a policy that we puny humans can follow to avoid destroying the future of our children.

It has been pretty obvious to climate scientists that human activity is changing the Earth’s climate at a scary rate. Even the Pope recently said that recently, but ruled out the one solution that has a chance of success: carbon pricing.

I understand why people are suspicious of the proposals of economists, especially since economists in the past often understated the instability of markets, especially financial ones, that bit our behinds starting in 2007 and still threatens major catastrophe to the world’s economies, rich and poor alike. It would be nice to think that voluntary actions, undertaken worldwide, will be enough to mitigate the coming climate disaster. It also would be dangerous daydreaming.

The reason is the old bugaboo of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. I wrote about that not too long ago, in a post about capturing birds (here) where I also connected the environment more generally to the bleak implications of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. (If you think the works of Ostrom mentioned in that post can help, consider that the climate change problem is world-wide, while the examples of communities handling tragedies of the commons that she found were small in scale. Getting the whole planet to agree and act is the problem I am focusing on here.)

Today I want to point you in the direction of two lucid contributions by thoughtful economists, who point out that the voluntary actions never come at the needed level, and pricing carbon worldwide is the one policy that, obvious as it is to economists, has not been tried. Everything that has been tried, such as the Kyoto protocol, has failed.

The first contribution is in this PBS post by Gernot Wagner and Martin Weitzman. They argue that we are foolish not to insure against ecological catastrophe of gigantic proportions, and the way to insure is by means of pricing carbon.

The second is a collective effort with a well-named website. There you can find links to papers written for a special journal issue coming out in September. The papers are free to download. While they are written by economists (including Nobel prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Jean Tirole) and thus are not literary masterpieces, they are clear enough about what humanity needs to do and have practical suggestions on how to get to it by international negotiations.

I will return to this topic soon. Meanwhile, read on, my friends.

Market Power versus Price-taking in Economic Growth

I was traveling when Paul Romer’s “mathiness” paper and blog post started a debate about how economic theory built with mathematical tools can be manipulated for purposes that are more political than scientific. There has been a ton of discussion about this, and for now I want to highlight this piece by Dietz Vollrath. If you assume that the relevant production function is well-defined and differentiable, his arguments make many things about this controversy very clear.

Meanwhile, Paul Romer has come back to this topic many times, and his latest, as of now, http://paulromer.net/the-norms-of-politics-ferguson-and-ehrlich/, pursues the science / politics point by bringing in two figures whom he criticizes for twisting words for political purposes and not admitting it when caught.

dvollrath's avatarThe Growth Economics Blog

I’m sure you’ve been breathlessly following along with the discussion on “mathiness” that Paul Romer kicked off (see here, here, here). Romer used several growth models to illustrate his point about “mathiness”, and his critique centered around the assumption of price-taking by firms and/or individuals in these papers. His argument was that these papers used “mathiness” as a kind of camouflage for their price-taking assumptions. Romer argues that the reasonable way to understand growth is to allow for market power by some firms and/or individuals over their ideas.

From what I can see, the heart of this is about replication. What Romer has asserted is that any aggregate production function must have constant returns to scale (i.e. be homogenous of degree one) in its rival inputs. The mental exercise here is the following. Imagine that tomorrow there was a perfect replica of the Earth floating next to…

View original post 1,810 more words