The Unassuming Economist

From a paper by Shehla Arif:

“In this chapter, we examine larger systems of oppression encapsulating all aspects of life including engineering practice and education. We describe a direction for engineering education with the goal of building a socially just and peaceful society. The particular focus is on ‘transitions’ from ‘business-as-usual’ to equitable societies living within the planetary limits, termed ‘just’ by multiple intersectional grassroots social movements. We uncover the underlying assumptions in current engineering practice and associated education building on ideas expressed in Chap. 1 and demonstrate how engaging with social movements in the realm of engineering education provides a pathway towards creating a just and peaceful world.”

From a paper by Fahmida Mostafiz:

“This paper explores the connection between industrial policy and New Structural Economics (NSE) from the perspective of a transitioning economy. The NSE emphasizes that by leveraging comparative advantages, investing in infrastructure and human capital, diversifying the industrial base, and enacting institutional reforms, transitioning economies can achieve sustainable economic development. For industrial policy to be effective, it must align with these principles. Using Bangladesh as a case study, this paper proposes a theoretical framework that links industrial policy with NSE to foster sustainable economic growth. The framework emphasizes the critical role of government intervention in resource allocation, benefit distribution, and industrial growth, all of which are driven by targeted industrial policies. Additionally, it categorizes Bangladesh’s industries into five groups, prioritizing leading-edge sectors focused on technological advancement and skill development over catching-up industries that address productivity gaps. This paper contributes to the understanding of Bangladesh’s industrial policy through the lens of NSE, shedding light on the underlying dynamics that shape the country’s industrial structure, competitiveness, and future economic trajectory.”

From a paper by Abdisalan Aden Mohamed:

“This paper aims to empirically examine the relationship between GDP and unemployment in Somalia from 2000 to 2021. The study also estimates Okun’s coefficient. To evaluate the association between the unemployment rate and economic growth, we employ the Hodrick–Prescott (HP) filter detrending technique, the Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) test, ordinary least squares (OLS), and fully modified OLS. The findings of this study demonstrate that the series is stationary at the level. However, the results confirm a statistically insignificant negative relationship between unemployment and economic growth. Consequently, our findings suggest that Okun’s law does not apply in Somalia. For robustness, we employ fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS), canonical cointegrating regression (CCR), and dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS). Nevertheless, the relationship between the GDP gap and unemployment is not strong enough to be considered statistically significant, and other factors may also influence unemployment. Therefore, policies aimed at reducing unemployment should take into account various factors, including education and training, labor market regulations, and social protection measures.”

From reddytoread:

“When I first encountered the ideas central to the winners of this year’s three Nobel Prize in Economics[2] around two and a half decades ago I was startled. The excessive economy of their framework for understanding a complex global reality combined with a set of premises that looked starkly ideological. Despite the time that has passed, the reams that have been written, and the imprimatur these ideas have now received, these charges remain pertinent.

The point of view of the authors remains narrowly focused – even fixated – on property rights, seeing them as defining inclusive economic institutions[3] and as underpinning inclusive political institutions[4], the coupled concepts at the center of their understanding of Why Nations Fail, the sizable volume in which two of the authors elaborated and extended their view.[5] It is understandable that this perspective enjoys a resonance among property holders and enthusiasts, both in the economic discipline and more broadly in society, as it is reflection of a common sense that prevails in such quarters, but it provides an inadequate guide to understanding either democracy or development. This is because property rights play more diverse and ambivalent roles in both phenomena than they acknowledge. Their view is ahistorical. It misses essential aspects of the colonial experience (such as the impact of ethnic and racial prejudices and solidarities based on the global color line) and its resulting legacies. It also misunderstands the sources of success of rising nations in the contemporary world, such as the role of developmental states.

I had been interested in political economy, and in particular the role of institutions, as a way of understanding the economics of development – and the world at large – more deeply, throughout my student years.  As did many others, I had drunk deeply at the well of available knowledge, ingesting tracts on social conflict as it affects inflation and other economic outcomes, about how states are captured by particular interests, the economic causes and consequences of colonialism and imperialism, the role of norms, customs and conflict in shaping the use of shared resources, the political and social underpinnings of economic innovation, and many other topics. The enormous range of writings on institutions and economic life was by economic and social historians, political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, legal scholars and some economists too, especially those writing outside of the mainstream (running a gamut from the leftist French “regulation school” to the libertarian Virginia school of political economy). It was not unwelcome that well-positioned mainstream economists, sitting at the institutional apex of the discipline, would be interested in these topics, but what was one to make of their reductionistic approach? Many of the writings I had digested did have the unhelpful view that ‘It is complicated’ and a simple framework that cut through the fog would have its appeal – but could such a perspective in fact be offered while respecting facts about the world?”

Continue reading here.

From The Conversation:

“Economists working on macroeconomic policy – things like taxes and spending, interest rates and border controls on flows of trade and money – often refer to a set of key relationships governments can influence. In the textbooks, each of those relationships is drawn as a curve in a graph.

First is the IS (“investment–saving”) curve. This says that if everything else stays the same, the Reserve Bank can increase economic output and employment by lowering the interest rate. Or it can cause a recession by raising the interest rate. (For simplicity’s sake, the curves here are depicted as straight lines.)

Second comes the Phillips Curve, which is usually drawn sloping upwards to suggest that if everything else stays the same, inflation will rise during economic booms and fall in recessions. In other words, the Reserve Bank or the government can apparently bring inflation down by causing a recession.”

Third comes the trade balance – the current account of the balance of payments (investment income and traded goods and services between New Zealand and the rest of the world).

If everything else stays the same here, as the exchange rate of the dollar falls, the current account strengthens by moving towards or expanding a surplus. If the exchange rate rises, the current account weakens: exports fall and imports increase.”

Continue reading here.