I am an academic economist. I agree that economic development is important and is likely responsible for the majority of welfare gains in poor countries (although the spread of medical treatments, eliminating polio etc., are also huge). Yes, we have some good evidence that certain policies substantially inhibit development. And we should advocate against these policies.
However, some parts of the argument seem a bit overstated or unfair to me. Some points
“Randomista”: that is not the term the advocates would prefer, is it?
Even if the best policies are pursued, the benefits will be slow and uneven. In the meanwhile, donations to prevent malaria, fund micronutrients, and even provide fistula and eye surgery can have a huge impact/$.
I don’t think many donors will decide between giving $ to bednets and giving it to fund advocacy for pro-trade policies. However, presenting the benefits of the former as ‘a drop in a vast ocean’ will discourage giving overall
The benefits of these health interventions are not primarily their impact on boosting economic growth/income. They yield direct welfare benefits. The comparisons you highlight above make it seem as if the main intention of these is to boost growth/income.
The main issue: You state
friendly economic policies can often be orders of magnitude more cost-effective than direct funding of evidence-based interventions.
Perhaps, but that is not the issue from a donor point of view. The issue is the cost-effectiveness of money donated to support these policies. I see very little reason to believe that “funding a bunch more economists” (again, I say this as an economist myself) would have a substantial beneficial impact, much less on a per-dollar basis.
Maybe it would, but I think there are orders of magnitude of uncertainty over this impact. The assumptions for this in the spreadsheet seem simply like guesses to me.
My reason to be a bit skeptical… we have many many economists out there. I don’t see how more economists–or even more think tanks–will do much to clearly advance the argument against the known-to-be-bad growth policies.
I am an academic economist. I agree that economic development is important and is likely responsible for the majority of welfare gains in poor countries (although the spread of medical treatments, eliminating polio etc., are also huge). Yes, we have some good evidence that certain policies substantially inhibit development. And we should advocate against these policies.
However, some parts of the argument seem a bit overstated or unfair to me. Some points
“Randomista”: that is not the term the advocates would prefer, is it?
Even if the best policies are pursued, the benefits will be slow and uneven. In the meanwhile, donations to prevent malaria, fund micronutrients, and even provide fistula and eye surgery can have a huge impact/$.
I don’t think many donors will decide between giving $ to bednets and giving it to fund advocacy for pro-trade policies. However, presenting the benefits of the former as ‘a drop in a vast ocean’ will discourage giving overall
The benefits of these health interventions are not primarily their impact on boosting economic growth/income. They yield direct welfare benefits. The comparisons you highlight above make it seem as if the main intention of these is to boost growth/income.
The main issue: You state
Perhaps, but that is not the issue from a donor point of view. The issue is the cost-effectiveness of money donated to support these policies. I see very little reason to believe that “funding a bunch more economists” (again, I say this as an economist myself) would have a substantial beneficial impact, much less on a per-dollar basis.
Maybe it would, but I think there are orders of magnitude of uncertainty over this impact. The assumptions for this in the spreadsheet seem simply like guesses to me.
My reason to be a bit skeptical… we have many many economists out there. I don’t see how more economists–or even more think tanks–will do much to clearly advance the argument against the known-to-be-bad growth policies.