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.
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?