Economics & Marginalia: October 13, 2023

Hi all,

I've rarely been lost for words at the outset of these links, but watching the news these days really is taking my breath completely away. I don't think I can adequately articulate my feelings, or adequately comprehend how it must feel, so I will not try to write anything here beyond that. It feels odd to go straight into economics, marginalia, and pop culture, but there are things a flippant email about economics is well equipped to deal with and some things its not. So straight into the links:

1. This was Nobel week for the economics profession (and if you're reaching for the 'it's not a real Nobel' line, you can just go straight to the corner and put on the dunce hat; what the heck is a 'real' Nobel anyway? One touched by the divine fingers of Alfred Nobel?) and the award prompted a huge amount of good cheer in the profession: Claudia Goldin won the Nobel, alone, for more-or-less creating the field of the economics of gender. And in a truly perfect coincidence, she won the day her new NBER Working Paper was released. It's title? Why Women Won. Goldin was an extremely popular choice. She is a pioneer, who has opened new directions in economics, a discipline, let us not forget, extremely fond of gatekeeping by asking "how is this economics?" Well, she's shown us exactly how it's economics, why it matters, and a great deal of what we can do about it. Kathleen Beegle and Jessica Goldberg have a very nice appreciation of her, which makes much the same point. And importantly, Claudia is well known as a wonderful mentor and supporter of her students, many of whom have gone on to great things in the profession in her own right.

2. This work from VoxDev, on the gendered effects of trade (specifically import competition) is the kind of question that economics simply didn't ask pre-Goldin. It's important that it's now not only part of our discipline, but the subject of scrutiny by so many good researchers, and that the first of them did such high quality work, showing that it's a field that can be every bit as rigorous as others. Also from VoxDev, another really nice piece of economics that touches on identity, on how and why caste matters for understanding inter-firm networks in India.

3. And more on women in economics: this is a very good Lunch with the FT, in which Jim Pickard interviews Rachel Reeves, who is the Shadow Chancellor (and, as it looks now, the likely next occupant of that particular job). Reeves has also written a book on the subject, The Women who made Modern Economics. She is having a good week, garnering an endorsement from an ex-Bank of England Governor.

4. I think this is superb, on the difficulties of doing research well, and the many ways researchers make choices that have a material effect on their findings, all explored through a specific example of a recent paper using synthetic control methods (it's Andrew Gelman of course).

5. This ProjectSyndicate piece by Avinash Persaud and Chris Humphrey is excellent (you make need to register). It's about how to use the MDBs to their fullest effect, specifcally how to make them a much larger, more important source of finance for the things that matter the most. There's a lot of good stuff here, but I (like Paddy Carter) was particularly struck by this line: "net transfer from MDBs to developing countries is currently close to zero, or even turning negative, once debt repayments are factored in." That is astounding.

6. And a bit more on gender and economics: this CGD podcast, hosted by my colleague Eeshani Kandpal with Amie Baston and Francisco Ferreira is excellent, and really worth an hour of your time. I found the part where Eeshani talks to Francisco about male allyship particularly valuable, and was struck by the specific situations they discuss and how my first thought of how to respond might be inadequate. It's really good and highly recommended.

7. Lastly, I remember discovering that one of my colleagues was also a Frasier fan; it was fantastic, like learning that we both spoke a secret languagen and could make each other laugh with cryptic lines and references. I was genuinely worried about the Frasier reboot, and that it might ruin both Frasier and Only Fools and Horses for me. I am cautiosly optimistic after other Frasier fans have suggested it's not that bad (though of course, the original is some way better than 'not so terrible after all'). Apparently, some people use Frasier as a sleep-aid; I can't manage it as I'm too convulsed by laughter. And on that note...

Have a great weekend, everyone!

R