1. Exquisite Tweets from @ingridharvold, @GuillermoMaya18, @threadreaderapp, @wi_osori, @tribalgulabo, @Sheheryarbanuri, @gabrielekoehler

    Woody_WongECollected by Woody_WongE

    A prize to be expected. Banerjee, Duflo & Kremer rely on key tenets of mainstream Econ. While founded on behavioral econ and assumption that tweaks to individual actions can alleviate global poverty, their work is often wrongly presented as purely empirical, objective & radical.

    The Nobel Prize @
    BREAKING NEWS:
    The 2019 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel has been awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer “for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty.”

    #NobelPrize

    Reply Retweet Like

    ingridharvold

    Ingrid H. Kvangraven

    A good a time as any to revisit some critiques of the body of work that this year's laureates have paved the way for. Last year, @farwasial and @cacrisalves wrote a critique of RCTs for @CriticalDev: Why Positive Thinking Won't Get You Out of Poverty 👇
    developingeconomics.org/2018/11/09/why…

    Reply Retweet Like

    ingridharvold

    Ingrid H. Kvangraven

    Angus Deaton and Nancy Cartwright's classic critique, which cautions against simple extrapolations from trials to other contexts, is also worth revisiting.

    The Limitations of Randomised Controlled Trials 👇 voxeu.org/article/limita…

    Reply Retweet Like

    ingridharvold

    Ingrid H. Kvangraven

    Last year leading economists argued in @guardian that the focus on micro-interventions associated with RCTs can do little to alleviate poverty if we fail to also tackle its root causes:

    Buzzwords & Tortuous Impact Studies Won't Fix a Broken Aid System 👇
    theguardian.com/global-develop…

    Reply Retweet Like

    ingridharvold

    Ingrid H. Kvangraven

    Related is also Ben Fine et al's critique of behavioral approaches in development from 2015:

    Nudging or Fudging 👇 onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…

    Reply Retweet Like

    ingridharvold

    Ingrid H. Kvangraven

    Martin Ravallion's (@MartinRavallion) review of Poor Economics is also worth a read. He questions how far Duflo and Banerjee's approach will get us in the fight against global poverty:

    Fighting Poverty One Experiment at a Time 👇
    jstor.org/stable/23269972

    Reply Retweet Like

    ingridharvold

    Ingrid H. Kvangraven

    Sanjay Reddy's (@sanjaygreddy) critique questions the randomistas' ability to explain global poverty and their approach's "technocratic premises, its naïve view of politics and society, and its unselfconscious do-goodism". Check it out:

    Randomise This! 👇
    ras.org.in/randomise_this…

    Reply Retweet Like

    ingridharvold

    Ingrid H. Kvangraven

    There's also @N_Kabeer's critique, which questions to what extent RCTs take human agency seriously. Here's an interview with her by @fp2p:

    Naila Kabeer on Why Randomized Controlled Trials Need to Include Human Agency 👇

    oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/naila-kab…

    Reply Retweet Like

    ingridharvold

    Ingrid H. Kvangraven

    Jean Drèze's critique is also important, which critiques the concept of "evidence-based policy," arguing that the relation between evidence and policy needs further thought:

    Evidence, Policy, and Politics 👇 ideasforindia.in/topics/miscell…

    Reply Retweet Like

    ingridharvold

    Ingrid H. Kvangraven

  2. Good points.

    This paper of Reinert (2006) Development and Social Goals: Balancing Aid and Development to Prevent ‘Welfare Colonialism’, criticizes the millennium goals to reduce poverty, palliative economy or welfare colonialism.

    un.org/esa/desa/paper…

    Reply Retweet Like

    GuillermoMaya18

    Guillermo Maya

  3. Hi there is your unroll: Thread by @ingridharvold: "A prize to be expected. Banerjee, Duflo & Kremer rely on key tenets of mainstream Econ. While founded on behavioral […]" threadreaderapp.com/thread/1183722…
    See you soon. 🤖

    Reply Retweet Like

    threadreaderapp

    Thread Reader App

  4. They studiously avoid mentioning the success of the PRC, because ideologically they can't. Half the book seems to b them figuring out how to convince us not to take their own data srlsly b/c it indicates the need 4 a strong state w/ long term plan & anti-corruption power, eg PRC

    Reply Retweet Like

    wi_osori

    오소리 힘!

  5. It totally is empirical, but I think what they mean is that some perceive their work to be a-theoretical. There are a small number of economists who feel that their work is unscientific (in the same way that the inductive approach might be considered unscientific).

    Reply Retweet Like

    Sheheryarbanuri

    Sheheryar Banuri

  6. what do you think of their contributions to "alleviating poverty"?

    Reply Retweet Like

    tribalgulabo

    Wajiha Ather Naqvi

  7. I don't really see their work in this way. Alleviating poverty is not the primary goal of scholars (not should it be). In this sense, I find limited contribution (if any). This is the domain of policy.

    Contributions to *understanding* poverty? I believe that is substantial.

    Reply Retweet Like

    Sheheryarbanuri

    Sheheryar Banuri

  8. Power does not feature in Duflo et al's one-dimensional research. So the root causes of income poverty, social exclusion, oppression are obscured. Their findings are thus problematic (I'm being polite).

    Reply Retweet Like

    gabrielekoehler

    gabriele koehler

  9. Ah the framing! Someone teach that nuance to the official nobel prize branding/marketing team! @NobelPrize

    Reply Retweet Like

    tribalgulabo

    Wajiha Ather Naqvi

  10. For a political economy perspective, see Bédécarrats (@BedecarratsF), Guérin & Roubaud's article. It explores how RCTs fit w/ contemporary scientific business models & interests of donor communities:

    All That Glitters Is Not Gold 👇 doi.org/10.1111/dech.1…

    Reply Retweet Like

    ingridharvold

    Ingrid H. Kvangraven