Showing posts with label Profiles of Economists.   Show all posts

Thaler on the Evolution of Behavioral Economics

From a new post by Timothy Taylor:

“Richard Thaler won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2017  “for his contributions to behavioural economics.  He tells the story of how the field evolved from early musings through small-scale tests and more comprehensive theories and all the way to public policy in his Nobel prize lecture, “From Cashews to Nudges: The Evolution of Behavioral Economics.” It is ungated and freely available in the June 2018 issue of the American Economic Review (108:6, pp. 1265–1287).”

Continue reading here.

(Picture from University of Chicago web page.)

From a new post by Timothy Taylor:

“Richard Thaler won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2017  “for his contributions to behavioural economics.  He tells the story of how the field evolved from early musings through small-scale tests and more comprehensive theories and all the way to public policy in his Nobel prize lecture, “From Cashews to Nudges: The Evolution of Behavioral Economics.” It is ungated and freely available in the June 2018 issue of the American Economic Review (108:6,

Read the full article…

Posted by at 9:43 AM

Labels: Profiles of Economists

Lawrence R. Klein and the making of large-scale macro-econometric modeling, 1938-1955

From new Documentos CEDE by Erich Pinzón-Fuchs:

“Lawrence R. Klein was the father of macro-econometric modeling, the scientific practice that dominated macroeconomics throughout the second half of the twentieth century. Therefore, understanding how Klein developed his identity as a macro-econometrician and how he conceived and forged macro-econometric modeling at the same time, is essential to draw a clear picture of the origins and subsequent development of this scientific practice in the United States. To this aim, I focus on Klein’s early trajectory as a student of economics and as an economist (from 1938-1955), and I particularly examine the extent to which the people and institutions Klein encountered helped him shape his professional identity. Klein’s experience at places like Berkeley, MIT, Cowles, and the University of Michigan, as well as his early acquaintance with people such as Griffith Evans, Paul Samuelson, and Trygve Haavelmo were decisive in the formation of his idea on how econometrics, expert knowledge, mathematical rigor, and a specific institutional configuration should enter macro-econometric modeling. Although Klein’s identity defined some of the most important characteristics of this practice, by the end of the 1950s, macro-econometric modeling became a scientific practice independent of Klein’s enthusiasm and with a “life of its own,” ready to be further developed and adapted to specific contexts by the community of macroeconomists.”Picture from Nobelprize.org.

From new Documentos CEDE by Erich Pinzón-Fuchs:

“Lawrence R. Klein was the father of macro-econometric modeling, the scientific practice that dominated macroeconomics throughout the second half of the twentieth century. Therefore, understanding how Klein developed his identity as a macro-econometrician and how he conceived and forged macro-econometric modeling at the same time, is essential to draw a clear picture of the origins and subsequent development of this scientific practice in the United States.

Read the full article…

Posted by at 10:50 AM

Labels: Forecasting Forum, Profiles of Economists

21st-century Indian economists

For a list of 21st-century Indian economists, click here.

For a list of 21st-century Indian economists, click here.

Read the full article…

Posted by at 1:09 PM

Labels: Profiles of Economists

20th-century Indian economists

For a list of 20th-century Indian economists, click here.

For a list of 20th-century Indian economists, click here.

Read the full article…

Posted by at 10:27 AM

Labels: Profiles of Economists

Dani Rodrik on Globalization and its Discontents

From Pro-Market:

In an interview with ProMarket, Harvard economist Dani Rodrik explained where globalization went wrong, how trade agreements serve rent-seeking by politically well-connected firms, and why the only solution to the rise of political populism is an economic populism that reimagines the institutions of capitalism.

Q: A recent report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development argued that the hyperglobalization of the past 30 years has led to a sharp increase in market concentration, which in turn led to a proliferation of rent-seeking. Do you agree with the assessment that globalization has increased rent-seeking?

I’m not saying that it has increased rent-seeking. I’m agnostic on that. I think it’s changed the relative power of different groups of rent-seekers and that the terrain over which the rent-seeking is taking place is different. I don’t want to make a blanket statement that we’re in a world where rent-seeking has increased. I think it’s always been there. I think what has happened is a combination of changes in our ideas and changes in the financial power and other powers of different groups, and this combination is reflected in the various parts of our global economy.

I think that by fetishizing globalization and exaggerating its benefits and understating its downsides, we have essentially privileged and prioritized a set of powerful interests. The fact that pharmaceutical companies or foreign investors find it so easy to get what they want is in part because of our existing narratives, or existing ideas, about how the world does or should work.

Q: You differentiate between two kinds of populism—political populism, the kind of autocratic populism we see from the likes of Putin in Russia and Erdoğan in Turkey—and economic populism, which you write is “occasionally necessary” and which you seem to suggest as a potential remedy to our current predicament. What is economic populism, and how is it different from political populism?

I think economic populism is a populism that takes aim at the sources of economic inequality and at concentrations of economic power. Today in the US, economic populism would take the form of bringing the financial sector down to size, reducing the influence of Wall Street in political institutions, and having much greater regulation of the financial sector. It would mean taking aim at concentrations of power in high-tech and digital industries. It would mean taking aim at our current pattern of trade agreements, which often privilege particular corporate interests and investors. All of that would be economic populism that tries to reshape the distribution of economic power and tries to reduce the concentration of economic power but does not try to turn the political system into an authoritarian one, does not necessarily concentrate political power or undermine liberal norms of pluralism and tolerance.

See my profile of Dani Rodrik here.

From Pro-Market:

In an interview with ProMarket, Harvard economist Dani Rodrik explained where globalization went wrong, how trade agreements serve rent-seeking by politically well-connected firms, and why the only solution to the rise of political populism is an economic populism that reimagines the institutions of capitalism.

Q: A recent report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development argued that the hyperglobalization of the past 30 years has led to a sharp increase in market concentration,

Read the full article…

Posted by at 7:55 AM

Labels: Profiles of Economists

Home Older Posts

Subscribe to: Posts