Point taken, but I think the correlation in China is so much larger than the correlation between African countries (with respect to the things we’re most interested in, like the effects of policies) that it’s reasonable to look at the data with China excluded when trying to find a long-term trend in the global economy.
I agree that if you’re trying to predict the future of extreme poverty, excluding China when looking at trends seems reasonable.
If you’re trying to understand living conditions of the past/present (which was my impression of what Hickel was claiming to be doing?), excluding >1 billion people seems not the best.
More broadly I’m a bit worried about a specific argumentation pattern where statistical boundaries are gerrymandered around the edges to get the desired result. There was a politician’s Tweet I saw a long time ago (paraphrased, can’t find it anymore) where
a [junior US politician] did poorly except for LGBT people, ethnic minorities, women, and those under 65.
I can’t find the original post so it’s possible my memory’s embellishing, and certainly I don’t think what Hickel’s doing is quite that bad, but I’m still worried about the broader pattern of excluding groups that don’t fit your narrative well, rather than a careful impartial look at the evidence.
I agree. I’m concerned about the same, and want to look at both
some of the evidence for myself; and
some of what others think, both through my new stack of books on development (from Abhijit & Banerjee to Acemoglu & Robinson to Jeffrey Sachs to Ha-Joon Chang—I’m excited!) and through conversations.
I just haven’t been able to do it yet, since I’m in the middle of an internship. That’s why I wrote this post with some first thoughts.
Point taken, but I think the correlation in China is so much larger than the correlation between African countries (with respect to the things we’re most interested in, like the effects of policies) that it’s reasonable to look at the data with China excluded when trying to find a long-term trend in the global economy.
I agree that if you’re trying to predict the future of extreme poverty, excluding China when looking at trends seems reasonable.
If you’re trying to understand living conditions of the past/present (which was my impression of what Hickel was claiming to be doing?), excluding >1 billion people seems not the best.
More broadly I’m a bit worried about a specific argumentation pattern where statistical boundaries are gerrymandered around the edges to get the desired result. There was a politician’s Tweet I saw a long time ago (paraphrased, can’t find it anymore) where
I can’t find the original post so it’s possible my memory’s embellishing, and certainly I don’t think what Hickel’s doing is quite that bad, but I’m still worried about the broader pattern of excluding groups that don’t fit your narrative well, rather than a careful impartial look at the evidence.
I agree. I’m concerned about the same, and want to look at both
some of the evidence for myself; and
some of what others think, both through my new stack of books on development (from Abhijit & Banerjee to Acemoglu & Robinson to Jeffrey Sachs to Ha-Joon Chang—I’m excited!) and through conversations.
I just haven’t been able to do it yet, since I’m in the middle of an internship. That’s why I wrote this post with some first thoughts.
This sounds like a good battle plan! And do let us know what you finally decide on!
Oh, also I want to be clear that what I was concerned about is the broader structure of argument, rather than being critical of your post! :)
Any update here? Did you ever come to a conclusion on Hickel?