2019 Economics Nobel for Economics of World Poverty

After 21 years of first Economics Nobel Prize won by Indian born economist Prof Amartya Sen in 1998, this year, again Indian born economist and researcher Dr Abhijit V Banerjee won Economics Nobel prize along with his fellow economists Michael Kremer and Esther Duflo.

It is also interesting to see that both Banerjee and Duflo has came out a interesting book titled Good Economics or Hard Times

While it is both delight and slight disappointment on the prize for the works awarded. Nevertheless, the larger message from their experimental research about poverty reduction or eradication made significant elaborated debate in mainstream academia and researchers. 

The following are some of the interesting reactions on the Economics Nobel Prize from Indian media and public:

What the Nobel says about economics

We need many more women in the field of economics

Economics Nobel goes to a cook

Sorry Abhijit Banerjee, high taxes and freebies don’t create egalitarian utopia

And the Nobel Prize goes to… experimental economics

The much talked-about randomised controlled trials are more sinned against than sinning

Making sense of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics

China......there is much that RCTs and contemporary development economics have missed. 

There is nothing wrong with providing a little extra understanding, on the margins. But RCTs don't easily handle the big questions.

The limitations of Abhijit Banerjee's methods

Rich politics, not poor economics

Prof Abhijit Banerjee and Prof Esther Duflo have jointly written a new book on “Poor Economics”. Nothing more to say, but still poor understanding or rich politics is actually derails the good economics into poor economics.

Poor economics is poorly understood. Take the review in the HT newspaper:

• So much for the method, what about the object of their scrutiny? The myriad ‘small’ answers to the ‘small’ questions posed by the researchers draw out a few broad themes. The poor lack information to make decisions. The poor have more decisions to make than the rich. Both the State and the market tend to keep the poor out. The rich do not conspire to perpetuate indigence. And finally, defeatism does defeat. In themselves, these inferences ought to shape society’s attitude towards poverty, and, to an extent, they form the guiding principles of most social welfare systems.

Also read the Authors interview here.

Hayek vs. Duflo

From Aidwacth:

The Counter-Revolution of Development Economics: Hayek vs. Duflo