Logographer

I’ve mentioned before that I have no training in economics, and any time I read something that requires a knowledge of that field, I’m reminded of my ignorance. So I do what most people do — try to make reasoned judgments based on common sense and a smattering of material aimed at the general reader. Some of that material now comes to me directly from two economists at Harvard, via their respective web logs. I like hearing their opinions on various topics, which, in the case of Prof. Dani Rodrik, often involves discussion of poverty and economic development. This post of his on the “two schools of thought” (natch) on global poverty solutions was illuminating intriguing.

In one school are people with “names like Bono, Angelina Jolie, Bob Geldof, Bill Gates, John Edwards, and Jeffrey Sachs.” The second group includes people with “names like Abhijit Banerjee, Tim Besley, Francesco Caselli, Esther Duflo, Lant Pritchett, and Mark Rosenzweig.”

While giving credit to “Bono and company” for raising awareness of poverty worldwide, Rodrik concludes:

[I]t is a pity that the general public sees hears [sic] so little from the second group. Mention global poverty, and most people start thinking of debt relief, foreign aid, and (perhaps) cheap pharmaceuticals. Never mind that most development economists do not think these are where the real action is. Hey, Bono makes for much better copy.

Make sure to read the comments attached to Rodrik’s post.

So much to learn, so little time….

• Leave a comment... (0)

As the saying goes, so much to learn, so little time. One of many topics that I know very little about is economic theory. Few of my friends have a grasp of it either, although I suspect many of us, at times, think we have a handle on it.

To the rescue come Harvard professors Dani Rodrik and George Borjas, debating the economics (and the politics) of recently proposed US immigration reform, and specifically a guest worker program. Although Borjas and Rodrik hold different opinions on the benefits — social, moral, and economic — of the proposed reforms, Rodrik offers this common ground:

Interestingly, the difference of views has nothing to do with the economics of immigration, on which I think we all agree. Expanded immigration is likely to exert downward pressure on workers’ wages in the U.S. Where we disagree is on whether the gains to the rest of the world make this still a worthwhile effort (in the context, of course, of efforts to cushion the adverse effects on U.S.).

I’ll be keeping an eye on these two blogs, trying to gain some insight into the economic arguments for and against the latest proposed immigration reforms, the merits of which I am extremely skeptical, yet eager to learn.

• Leave a comment... (2)