The Unassuming Economist

Mark J. Perry summarizes the 10 fun facts about the Nobel Prize:

1. Western Countries Dominate Nobel Awards. […] a) the US and Canada (403 awards) and b) Western Europe (495 awards) together represent the vast majority of the 1,107 country affiliations associated with Nobel laureates, and more than 81% of the total number of laureates since 1901.

2. Top Ten Nobel-Winning Countries. […] The United States is by far the world’s leading country for receiving Nobel Prizes with an astonishing 377 individual laureates over the last 118 years (and 41.7% of all 904 awards), which is almost three times more than the second-highest ranked country — the United Kingdom, with 130 awards (see table above).

3. Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East together account for only 116 Nobel Prizes by country in total (10.5% of the 1,107 total), even though those areas together represent about 85% of the world’s population.

4. Asia. Laureates in Asia alone have been awarded 57 Nobel prizes, or 5.1% of the total prizes by country affiliation with nearly 55% of the world’s population. Nobel Prizes for Japanese laureates (28) represent close to half of all Asian awards, followed by India (1o) and China (8).

5. Middle East. Countries in the Middle East have received 22 Nobel Prizes, with more than half (12) of the awards going to Israeli laureates.

6. Africa is the region of the world with the fewest Nobel Prizes – only 17 in total, and only 7 outside of South Africa, even though Africa has a population of about 1 billion.

7. Jewish Nobel Laureates. Interestingly, Jews and people of Jewish descent represent less than 0.20% of the world’s population, but they represent more than 22% of all Nobel laureates (203 out of 904).

8. Nobel Laureates by Gender. Men have been awarded 847 Nobel Prizes compared to only 51 prizes awarded to female laureates.

9. Research Affiliations of Nobel Laureates. The table [below] shows the top ten research affiliations of Nobel laureates at the time of the announcement.

10. Nobel Prizes by Age. […] The chart below shows the age distribution of the 904 Nobel laureates, whose average age was 58.7 years old when the prize was awarded. By individual age, there are more laureates who received a Nobel Prize at age 61 or 63 years (33 individuals for each age) than any other age, followed by ages 56 years (32 laureates) and 60 years (31 laureates).

Deena Khatkhate, who raised the quality of economic discourse through his work at the Reserve Bank of India and the IMF and his editorship of World Development, has passed away. A review of one of his books by Charles Collyns and myself gives a flavor of Deena’s intellectual contributions and independence of mind.

**

“Life is lived forwards but understood backwards,” wrote the philosopher Kierkegaard. This collection of a life-time’s work of the Indian economist Deena Khatkhate can be understood as an act of rebellion against much of his intellectual inheritance: socialism and central planning, Keynesian macroeconomics, and an adversarial view of North-South relationships. Instead, these essays put forward a spirited (but not uncritical) defense of capitalism and markets, espouse a macroeconomics as much Friedmanite as Keynesian, and urge a constructive approach to relationships between developing and advanced nations.

The last of these themes is illustrated in arguably the best article in the collection, which is on the brain drain—the emigration of skilled workers from developing to advanced countries. In this article, published in F&D in 1971, Khatkhate challenged the prevalent view of the brain drain as an evil, a form of aid from the poor to the rich. He showed that because most emigration occurred from developing countries with a clear excess supply of skilled workers, it was actually a social safety valve for the poor countries. And because it encouraged the “cross fertilization of ideas” between skilled workers from the poor nations and the richer nations, the brain drain could be “a desirable investment.”

There are examples of this prediction coming to pass, such as the success of software exports from countries like India, Ireland, and Israel to more advanced nations. Ashish Arora, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, has shown that this success is due in part to “the reserve army of underemployed engineers and scientists in these countries [that] had previously migrated to the United States and the United Kingdom.” Through their work abroad, this diaspora gained experience with the business practices of their future customers—an earlier brain drain had turned into a brain gain, as Khatkhate predicted.

Other essays on North-South relationships in the book include one on “conflict and cooperation in the inter- national monetary system.” Written in 1987, it anticipates many reforms of the IMF and other international agencies—such as giving “greater voice” to the South in decision making—that have taken place or have come to the front of the agenda. To be sure, Khatkhate was one of many making similar suggestions. But, as he notes in the preface, he “received some flak” for this article since he was employed at the IMF at the time. In any event, Khatkhate soon left the IMF, after two decades of service, and went on to become editor of World Development, a scholarly journal.

Prior to joining the IMF, Khatkhate worked for over a decade—from 1955 to 1968—at the Reserve Bank of India, the country’s central bank. Not surprisingly, therefore, a second major theme of the essays is the role of macroeconomic and financial policies in promoting economic growth. In the 1950s, the Keynesian view advocated running fiscal deficits to promote growth in developing countries. The rationale was that since there were underemployed resources in these economies, heavy government spending could lead to employment of those resources without triggering inflation. However, Khatkhate writes that the negative evidence on the actual impact of government spending convinced him that “all that happened as a result of heavy resort to fiscal deficit was inflation, decline in income, saving and investment.” Khatkhate’s views on monetary policy also differed from the 1960s Keynesian view, emphasizing as they did the need for rules to guide the central bank rather than give it too much discretion.

A third theme is the rhetoric vs. the reality of socialism and central planning. Khatkhate blamed socialism for trying to deliver both growth and equity and delivering neither. The real problem in developing countries, he said, was not so much the skewed income distribution but “improving the standard of the whole mass of people, which is possible only with rapid economic growth.” These views were far from the mainstream when Khatkhate wrote them in 1978. He is not, however, an unvarying defender of capitalism and free markets. On the free mobility of capital, for instance, his views are close to that of his compatriot Jagdish Bhagwati in favoring a cautious approach, given the evidence that hasty liberalization can contribute to financial crises.

From American Enterprise Institute (AEI):

“An important event takes place this week that is recognized annually on CD. Tuesday, July 31 is Milton Friedman’s birthday — he was born on that day in 1912 and would have been 106 years old this year. Unfortunately, Milton died on November 16, 2006, when he was 94 years old. In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal following Professor Friedman’s death, they reported his loss with the same tribute Milton used when Ronald Reagan died, saying “few people in human history have contributed more to the achievement of human freedom.” In honor of his legacy and birthday, here are 20 of my favorite Milton Friedman quotes, along with a bonus video and some special birthday graphics:

1. There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program.

2. Many well-meaning people favor legal minimum-wage rates in the mistaken belief that they help the poor. These people confuse wage rates with wage income. It has always been a mystery to me to understand why a youngster is better off unemployed at $15 an hour than employed at $7.25 (updated). The rise in the legal minimum-wage rate is a monument to the power of superficial thinking.

3. First of all, the government doesn’t have any responsibility to the poor. People have responsibility. This building doesn’t have responsibility. You and I have responsibility. People have responsibility. Second, the question is how can we as people exercise our responsibility to our fellow man most effectively? That’s the problem. So far as poverty is concerned, there has never been a more effective machine for eliminating poverty than the free enterprise system and the free market. The period in which you had the greatest improvement in the lot of the ordinary man was the period of the 19^th and early 20^th century.

4. In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports, and if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad, we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, with automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use.”

Continue reading here.

 

From Dani Rodrik’s preface to Santiago Levy’s Book:

“A few years ago as I was finishing up my book Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science (Norton 2015), I realized that the manuscript contained a serious omission. I had written at length about how and why economists misuse the powerful tools of their discipline, but had said little about the successes. So I decided I would open the book with three vignettes of economics at its best. Each vignette would have its hero: an economist who combined economic models with real-world judgement to make life better for lots of people.

Santiago Levy was one of the three heroes I chose. (The names of the other two heroes will let the reader gauge how demanding was the standard I applied: John Maynard Keynes and William Vickrey.) Santiago was the principal force behind the anti-poverty program Progresa in Mexico that quickly became a model for many other countries. This was an innovative, incentive-based program that was novel at the time, in 1997. It replaced inefficient price subsidies with direct cash grants to poor families as long as their children were kept in school and received periodic health checks. So successful was the program that subsequent Mexican political administrations would seek credit for it by renaming it; hence Progresa would turn into Oportunidades, which eventually became Prospera.”

Continue reading here.

From LSE Business Review:

“Q: What’s your personal interest in the Future of Work?

From my late teens – well before ‘good work’ became the fashionable concept that it is today – I knew the route to happiness was a good job. Work is where most of us spend most of our waking time and it is at the heart of family life. It’s also the driving force behind our local and national economies. Work connects the experiences and living standards of individuals to the economic and social health of the country. Knowing this has driven my own working life. I’ve researched employment, unemployment and job creation for over 40 years now, concentrating on the social and economic conditions needed to create good and long-lasting work.’

Continue reading here. Also see my profile of Christopher Pissarides here.