The poverty of poor economics

 

 

On October 14 the Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the “Nobel prize” in economics to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer for “their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty.”

The prize in economics is not one of the original prizes endowed by Swedish armaments manufacturer Alfred Nobel; it was established in 1969 as a tag along and is endowed by the Bank of Sweden.

Banerjee and Duflo teach at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology while Kremer is at Harvard University. The trio have been at the forefront of pushing the use of randomised control trials in the subdiscipline known as development economics.

Partly as the result of their efforts, an ecosystem has developed in which the vampire squids with tentacles of influence across the globe are the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-Pal), the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), and the World Bank’s development impact evaluation group.

The main idea behind their work is that randomised control trials allow us to know what works and doesn’t work in development because of their “experimental” approach.


Such trials are most well-known for their use in medicine and involve the random assignment of interventions into “treatment” and “control” groups. Just like in medicine, so the argument goes, randomised control trials allow us to know which development pill to swallow because of the rigour associated with the experimental approach.

Banerjee and Duflo popularised their work in a 2011 book, Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty.

Even though other Nobel prize awards often attract public controversy (peace and literature come to mind), the economics prize has largely flown under the radar, with announcements often met with the same shrugging of the shoulders as, for example, the chemistry prize. This year has, however, been different (so was 1976, when the winner was Milton Friedman, that high priest of neoliberalism).

A broad section of commentary, particularly from the Global South, has puzzled over the committee’s decision not only to reward an approach that many consider as suffering from serious ethical and methodological problems, but also extol its virtues and supposed benefits for poor people.

Many of the trio’s randomised control trials have been performed on black and brown people in poor parts of the world. Serious ethical and moral questions have been raised, particularly about the types of experiments that the randomistas, as they are colloquially known, have been allowed to perform.

In one study in western Kenya, which is one-half of the epicentre of this kind of experimentation, randomistas deliberately gave some villages more money and others less to check if people from the villages receiving less would become envious of those receiving more.

The study’s authors, without any sense of shame, titled their paper “Is Your Gain My Pain?” In another study in India, the other half of the epicentre, researchers installed intrusive cameras in classrooms to police teacher attendance (this study was actually favourably mentioned by the Swedish Academy).

There are some superficial rationalisations for this sort of thing, but studies of this kind — and there are many — would never have seen the light of day had the experimental subjects been rich Westerners.

There are also concerns around the extractive nature of the randomised control trials enterprise. To execute these interventions, randomistas rely on massive teams of local assistants (academics, students, community workers, and the like) who often make nontrivial contributions to the projects.

Similarly, those to be studied (the poor villagers) lend their incalculable emotional labour to these projects. It is often unclear whether they have been adequately consulted or if the randomistas have simply struck deals with local officials. The villagers are the ones that have to deal with all the community-level disruptions that the randomistas introduce and then leave behind once they’ve gone back to their cushy lives in the United States and Europe.

And although there is an increasing amount of posturing to compensate for this exploitation, with some researchers gushing about how they and their “native assistants” are bosom buddies, the payoffs of the projects (lucrative career advancement, fame, speaking gigs, and so on) accrue only to the randomistas. The most extreme case is obviously this week’s award.

Beyond the ethics of the Nobel winners, their disciples, and the institutions they have created in their image are two serious methodological problems that fundamentally undermine their findings.

The first is that the vast majority of studies conducted using these methods (our rough guess is more than 90%) have no formal basis for generalisation. In other words, there is no basis to believe that the findings of these studies can be applied beyond the narrow confines of the population on which the experiments are conducted. This is simply fatal for policy purposes.

The prize-giving committee addresses this only in passing by saying that “the laureates have also been at the forefront of research on the issue of [whether experimental results apply in other contexts].”

This is misleading at best and false at worst. There are some advocates of randomised trials who have conducted important research on the problem, but the majority of key contributions are not by advocates of randomised trials and the three awardees have been marginal contributors.

The more important point is simply that if the problem of whether experimental results are relevant outside the experiment has not been resolved, how can it be claimed that the trio’s work is “reducing world poverty”?

The second contradiction is more widely understood: despite the gushing headlines in the Western press, there is simply no evidence that policy based on randomised trials is better than alternatives. Countries that are now developed did not need foreign researchers running experiments on local poor people to grow their economies. There is ample historical evidence that growth, development and dramatic reductions in poverty can be achieved without randomised trials.

Randomistas claim that their methods are the holy grail of development yet they have not presented any serious arguments to show why theirs is the appropriate response. Instead, they take the case that such methods are crucial for policy largely for granted because they think they are doing “science.” But although they are certainly imitating what researchers in various scientific disciplines do, the claim that the results are as reliable and useful for economic and social questions is unsupported.

It is instead a matter of blind faith — as with the conviction many such individuals appear to have of a calling to save the poor, usually black and brown, masses of the world.

We do not have a view on whether these individuals ought to have been awarded the prize — prizes are usually somewhat dubious in their arbitrariness and historical contingency. But the claims made about the usefulness and credibility of the methods employed are concerning, both because they are unfounded and because they inform a missionary complex that we believe is more of a threat to the progress of developing countries than it is an aid.

This is an edited version of an article that originally appeared on Africa is a Country

Subscribe to the M&G

These are unprecedented times, and the role of media to tell and record the story of South Africa as it develops is more important than ever.

The Mail & Guardian is a proud news publisher with roots stretching back 35 years, and we’ve survived right from day one thanks to the support of readers who value fiercely independent journalism that is beholden to no-one. To help us continue for another 35 future years with the same proud values, please consider taking out a subscription.

Related stories

Nobel Literature Prize 2020: Controversy or crowdpleaser?

Names tossed about in the speculation include Caribbean-American author Jamaica Kincaid, Canadian poet Anne Carson, Kenyan writer Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Hungary's Peter Nadas and American novelist Thomas Pynchon.

Artificial intelligence is already responding to our needs

Engineering students are best prepared for the shift in gear, but they will need to learn to change lanes

Why Ethiopians are losing faith in Abiy’s promises for peace

The prime minister may have won the Nobel Peace Prize but he has failed to quell the violence in his own backyard

US-UK-Japan trio win chemistry Nobel for lithium-ion battery

The trio will receive the prize from King Carl XVI Gustaf at a formal ceremony in Stockholm on December 10

Worming into the guts of the unseen

The exhibition ‘Options’ is a search by artist Nolan Oswald Dennis for humanity

MIT honours #MeToo movement trailblazers

The 2018 Media Lab Disobedience Award has been awarded to three leading figures behind the #MeToo and #MeTooSTEM movements
Advertising

Subscribers only

Free State branches gun for Ace

Parts of the provincial ANC will target their former premier, Magashule, and the Free State PEC in a rolling mass action campaign

SAA bailout raises more questions

As the government continues to grapple with the troubles facing the airline, it would do well to keep on eye on the impending Denel implosion

More top stories

Hawks swoop down with more arrests in R1.4-billion corruption blitz

The spate of arrests for corruption continues apace in Gauteng and the Eastern Cape.

Catholic NGO boss accused of racism and abuse in Sudan

The aid worker allegedly called his security guard a ‘slave’

Agrizzi too ill to be treated at Bara?

The alleged crook’s “health emergency” — if that is what it is — shows up the flaws, either in our health system or in our leadership as a whole

SANDF hid R200m expenditure on ‘Covid’ drug it can’t use

Military health officials are puzzled by the defence department importing a drug that has not been approved for treating coronavirus symptoms from Cuba
Advertising

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…

The best local and international journalism

handpicked and in your inbox every weekday