Nobel Laureates Aim Too Low on Global Poverty
wsj.com
wsj.com
The "randomista" revolution essentially states that we know (or knew) very little about what actually work to foster development and that RCTs are the best tool we have to obtain this knowledge. Macro-scale policies are important, but we have no tool to evaluate their effects appropriately.
The article essentially says that this approach is wrong because we know that some macro-scale policies will have a much bigger impact than all those micro interventions. In this case, reducing barriers to immigration.
But we do not know that, that's the whole point of doing RCTs in the first place.
You can make an argument that we should spend less time focusing on micro scale interventions and more on macro-scale interventions because the former will never have a large impact and thus the best way to foster development is finding which macro intervention work.
However saying that focusing on the micro scale is useless because we _already_ know about some macro intervention that work better than the micro ones is unfounded. The evidence on macro intervention is much, much weaker than the evidence from RCTs.
Economics is almost entirely ideology accompanied by linear regression, and should be ignored or at least laughed at by numerate people.
This year's recipients got it for RCTs. Would you say that recipients from the real Nobel Prize in Medicine that use the same methodology should also be laughed at?
The massive conflict of interest in that set up is something I didn't know. It does greatly affect how I view it.
In terms of Medicine, that's different. Doctors aren't only financially driven. Bankers are.
I've known a bunch of doctors (my sister's partner is a doctor). They tend to list helping others as their primary motivation, with fulfilling a childhood dream as another big one. Financial rewards for a specialty sure, but not for why they got into medicine.
I don't know many bankers. But I'd guess their primary motivation will be different. Sure they might enjoy something like analysis. But in the end of the day, you could be an analyst for a conservation NGO. Being a banking analyst attracts people with a specific set of financial desires.
I should have used more accurate language and said 'primary' instead of 'only'.
If no, why does it change anything that this administration is called "bank" for historical reasons rather than "federal interest rate administration"?
You can agree or not. To me it seems obvious this is true.
If you agree that the assertion is true, then 'doctors are more reliable to provide assessments that aren't based on self interest' would be a logical conclusion that would be drawn from the initial statement. Of course if you don't agree with that assertion (and it's hard to prove either way in a scientific manner, so I'm quick to admit it's just my perspective), then you obviously won't agree with the logical conclusion.
1. Bankers are primarily interested by money, which includes employees of the Swedish central bank
2. There is a conflict of interest because the prize is funded by a bank
to:
3. Economists are more motivated by money than doctors.
1 and 2 are not relevant because the central bank is not a bank in any meaningful sense.
I fail to see how 3 has any impact on how one should view the economics prize. Could you elaborate?
This makes me wonder: - would there be less backlash against the econ prize had it been funded by another government agency with "bank" in its name? - would there be less backlash if econ was like math, with no Nobel prize but a "top prize for the discipline" instead (the John Bates medal for econ, the Fields medal for math)?
So, yes, it is a Nobel prize because the guys in charge of Nobel prizes say it is. It's also awarded by the guys who award the other Nobel science prizes (the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences).
‘“Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-being", saying that "There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize", and that the association with the Nobel prizes is "a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation".’ [0]
I’ve also heard rumors that Nobel had a personal animosity towards certain academic areas because of an affair his wife had with a professor, but I can’t find any good references for that.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
The fact that the "economics Nobel" isn't a real one, of course, is indisputable[2].
[0] http://almaz.com/nobel/why_no_math.html
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6sta_Mittag-Leffler
[2] for example https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel-...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Econom...
> In 1968, the Sveriges Riksbank established the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was given the task to select the Laureates in Economic Sciences starting in 1969.
[0] - https://www.nobelprize.org/the-nobel-prize-organisation/priz...
Unsubstantial? Yeah, it's definitely that. Who cares what the technical name of the prize is? It is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics.
This is like the person who keeps going on about "There is no country named America". Maybe not, but there's one called that. We're probably going to keep calling it that, since it's more convenient than the official name, and everyone knows which country we're talking about.
But that person (or those people) claim that there are people in the Americas who take offense to only one country being called "America". scottlocklin, on the other hand... why does he keep beating this particular horse?
Secondly, the idea that modern academic economics is driven by ideology and linear regression is demonstrably false. Take a look at the latest edition of QJE, the highest impact factor economics journal (link: https://academic.oup.com/qje/issue/134/4). Most of those articles are use empirical evidence to answer questions with obvious policy importance (e.g., causes of food inequality, effectiveness of workplace wellness policies). And modern econometric methods do not amount to linear regression, they include things like regression discontinuity design, instrumental variables techniques, panel data methods, that can provide convincing evidence of causal effects when only quasi-random variation is available. The Nobel prize your commenting on was awarded to researchers carrying out RCTs to assess the impact of specific interventions, how is that mere ideology and linear regression?
In a classic Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk? Michael Clemens argues that it would be a win-win-win scenario to open up our borders.
The Nobel winners see this and decided to focus on smaller, provable questions instead. I'm not saying RCTs are perfect, but they are much better than a lot of the snake oil that still comes out of the discipline. We need more of them, not less.
I already hear the open borders arguments again. No, if an underdeveloped nations completely opens up for trade, its domestic economy will get destroyed. And China should be the falsification of that theory anyway.
People lift themselves from poverty. Not by easily bored economists from the developed world and their insights. So don't let them experiment with your society too much.
Why is immigration good for developed countries? Maybe because you simply catch motivated individuals that have the means to migrate?
Think this comment sounds a bit hostile to the discipline? I think you would be correct.
(Archive link for those who prefer non-broken web experiences)
I don't care about the Moon, and besides it, the problems in 2019 aren't much different.
And people are pessimistic about life because of climate change that was helped to be created by the pollution of the past when we discarded crap everywhere and didn't care about the earth.
I can't imagine the thought process of someone who looks at all this progress and comes away with "damn liberals are ruining the world today with their political correctness".