For distinguishing short-termist from long-termist, I think risk aversion is a key factor. Long-termists are risk-neutral, and are happy to roll the dice in hits-based giving, whereas short-termists are risk-averse, and want a higher certainty of doing good. (And overall, individuals should not identify as one or the other, because the overall portfolio is going to have a mix of both.)
Some points on China:
The way I think about the current slowdown is the same as the Soviet case: they got easy catch-up growth based on investment, but now they’re hitting diminishing returns. To maintain growth, they have to switch to innovation, but that requires inclusive political institutions (to protect creative destruction). Also, China and Soviet Russia seem to be in the same boat re: counterexamples to AR’s theory, because both achieved catch-up growth under extractive political institutions.
I wouldn’t describe China’s economic institutions as inclusive. They have a weird system of cronyism, where formal institutions are low quality, so firms use political connections to get stuff done (see this).
I’ll note that OpenPhil is hiring researchers to “focus on causes in policy, scientific research, and global development”. Hopefully their page on development won’t be empty for much longer!
Good post!
For distinguishing short-termist from long-termist, I think risk aversion is a key factor. Long-termists are risk-neutral, and are happy to roll the dice in hits-based giving, whereas short-termists are risk-averse, and want a higher certainty of doing good. (And overall, individuals should not identify as one or the other, because the overall portfolio is going to have a mix of both.)
Some points on China:
The way I think about the current slowdown is the same as the Soviet case: they got easy catch-up growth based on investment, but now they’re hitting diminishing returns. To maintain growth, they have to switch to innovation, but that requires inclusive political institutions (to protect creative destruction). Also, China and Soviet Russia seem to be in the same boat re: counterexamples to AR’s theory, because both achieved catch-up growth under extractive political institutions.
I wouldn’t describe China’s economic institutions as inclusive. They have a weird system of cronyism, where formal institutions are low quality, so firms use political connections to get stuff done (see this).
I’ll note that OpenPhil is hiring researchers to “focus on causes in policy, scientific research, and global development”. Hopefully their page on development won’t be empty for much longer!