The 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer reaffirms the value of evidence-based policymaking in addressing intractable problems. Even as the pursuit of capital accumulation is underway in the international sphere, the world continues to be plagued with multiple distressing phenomena. Instances such as 700 million people trapped into poverty, or 50% children leaving schools without basic skills in literacy and numeracy are grim reminders of how policymaking at a macro-level could prove inadequate to address such crises.
Often, in instances such as global poverty, economists tend to rely on a macro-level understanding to alleviate poverty. Ideas related to immigration and economic growth are recognized as tools to improve the quality of life among the world’s poor. On the contrary, the relative narrowness of the scope of this year’s winner’s work is owed in part to their method of analysis. Mr. Banerjee and Ms. Duflo explicitly reject big thinking about big questions in their 2011 book “Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty.”
What is unique about the duo’s work is the employability of the approach; Randomized Control Trial (RCT) has been the buzzword among development economists for almost two decades. Inspired by the impact of the RCTs in medical science, the trio has used this technique to test the effect of small interventions on individual behavior. Such trials involve selecting two sets of individuals at random, out of which one is then exposed to policy intervention. The experiment examines the impact of such interventions, often over long periods of time, to gauge the impact of policy and whether or not, it justifies the costs associated with it.
This has proven exemplary in areas such as education and healthcare. For instance, the Nobel Committee highlighted how their “experiment-based approach has transformed development economics over the past decades.” They specifically mentioned the result of one such randomized trial wherein “more than 5 million Indian children have benefited from programmes of remedial tutoring in schools.” Further, the results of another experiment suggest that multi-topic medical training of informal healthcare providers may offer an effective short-run strategy for improved healthcare.
Nonetheless, the effect of such rigour in policy analysis is considerable and as a consequence, the RCT approach has taken over the field of development economics. For Duflo and Banerjee, an important part of their work has been ensuring that the agency of the beneficiaries, usually in developing countries such as India, is put at the centre of any policy design. This is a crucial method in which experimental results often provide better outcome than large-scale data-based inference.
However, this approach is not without its critics. For instance, Angus Deaton, who won the 2015 Nobel prize in economics noted that while RCTs can play a role in building scientific knowledge, they can do so only as part of a cumulative program. While the approach has enamored a large number of development economists for its simplicity, where inferences of what works or not are drawn from field experiments, it has also been criticized for reducing the study of poverty to small interventions unconnected to the life experiences of the poor. But, despite the conditional nature of these studies, it is difficult to deny that policy interventions require better understanding to ensure efficient outcomes, especially in countries with finite state capacities. Thus, in a country like India, where billions in money goes into formulating policies to help the poor, which are often unaccompanied with the real scenario, such research can be enormously valuable in informing public debate and can thus aid in policy making.
India Outbound
october 24, 2019
source https://indiaoutbound.org/the-noble-fight-against-poverty/
No comments:
Post a Comment