What do you think?
Rate this book
Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty
Why do the poor borrow to save? Why do they miss out on free life-saving immunizations, but pay for unnecessary drugs? In Poor Economics, Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, two practical visionaries working toward ending world poverty, answer these questions from the ground. In a book the Wall Street Journal called “marvelous, rewarding,” the authors tell how the stress of living on less than 99 cents per day encourages the poor to make questionable decisions that feed—not fight—poverty. The result is a radical rethinking of the economics of poverty that offers a ringside view of the lives of the world’s poorest, and shows that creating a world without poverty begins with understanding the daily decisions facing the poor.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published April 26, 2011
About the author
Abhijit V. Banerjee
13 books983 followersAbhijit Vinayak Banerjee is an Indian economist. He is currently the Ford Foundation International Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Banerjee is a co-founder of the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (along with economists Esther Duflo and Sendhil Mullainathan) and a Research Affiliate of Innovations for Poverty Action, a New Haven, Connecticut based research outfit dedicated to creating and evaluating solutions to social and international development problems, and a Member of the Consortium on Financial Systems and Poverty. He was awarded 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his experimental approach to alleviating global poverty. He is also the recipient of the inaugural Infosys Prize in the category of Social Sciences (Economics).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,994 reviews
March 8, 2023
هل الكتاب يستحق القراءة؟
نعم.
هل هو ممتع طوال الوقت؟
لا أعتقد.
اقتصاد الفقراء، الكتاب الحائز على جائزة غولدمان ساكس، سعى إلى تشريح حياة الفقراء ودراسة سلوكهم من عدة نواحي: الصحة، التعليم، الاستثمار والاقتراض. الكتاب مقسوم إلى قسمين إحدهما يناقش اقتصاد الفقراء من وجهة نظر الأفراد، والآخر يحلل أطروحات متعلقة بالمؤسسات والجمعيات ذات العلاقة.
الجميل في الكتاب هو أنها يناقش الجانبين: السلبي والإيجابي، مع وضد. وهي أيضًا نقطة ضعف نوعًا ما إذ أنك تخرج منه بدون توجّه واضح. لكن الفصل الأخير يلخص العديد من الانطباعات الجيدة. فيما يلي أذكر بعض المبادئ والأفكار التي طرحها الكتاب.
ماهي دائرة الفقر؟ هل هي موجودة حقًأ أم محض خيال؟ إن كانت موجودة فهل يمكننا كسرها؟ مثلًا هناك عائلة لديها مزرعة تدر عليهم دخلًأ ضئيلًا بسبب ارتفاع تكاليف البذور والأسمدة وضعف المحصول. نجدهم دائمًأ يتكبدون الخسائر والديون. إذا قدمنا لهم تسهيلات بالحصول على الأسمدة لتخفيض التكاليف وزيادة الأرباح، فهل سنساعدهم على الخروج من ذاك المأزق الأبدي؟
هل يجب علينا مساعدة الفقراء من الأساس؟ هناك تيار ينادي بعدم جدوى ذلك. فمساعدتنا لهم تجعلهم أكثر اتكالية وأقل تقديرًا لتلك المساعدات. هناك حالات شوهد فيها إهدار للمساعدات مثل استخدام أغطية الوقاية من البعوض لتغطية العرائس في حفلات الزفاف أو استخدام الواقيات الذكري كبالونات للعب، بل حتى تحاشي أخذ التطعيمات الأساسية مادامت دون مقابل. وفي الضفة الأخرى هناك من يعتقد بأنه على العالم المتقدم أن يساعد الفقراء لكسر حلقة الفقر المزمن، ورفع مستوى معيشتهم من أجل الارتقاء بالإنسانية إلى مستوى أفضل.
هل يتصرف الفقراء كما ينبغي؟ هل حقًا أغلب تصرفاتهم غير منطقية؟ لماذا ينفقون المال في الكماليات؟ أليس جديرًا بهم الإدخار؟ لماذا لا يبحثون عن حلول؟ عن استثمارات جديدة؟ عن خطط بعيدة المدى؟...إلخ. يحلل الكتاب العديد من الأسباب المنطقية لسلوك الفقراء وبقائهم تحت خط الفقر. على سبيل المثال، هناك العديد من التسهيلات التي يحصل عليها ابناء الطبقة الوسطى وليست متاحة للمعوزين، مثل التأمين الصحي، الحسابات البنكية والحصول على التعليم. هناك أيضًا المخاطر العالية التي تحيط بالفقراء: المواسم الزراعية القاسية، الحالات المرضية، تراكم القروض مرتفعة الفائدة...إلخ. جميع ما سبق يتظافر –حسب رأي المؤلفيّن- لإبقاء الفقراء في بؤسهم.
هذا بالإضافة إلى العديد من المعلومات المفيدة، مثل تلك المتعلقة بالتمويل متناهي الصغر، ذلك المجال الذي ذاع صيته قبل سنوات حين فاز البنغلاديشي محمد يونس بجائزة نوبل للسلام. استمتعت بالدراسات الخاصة بالفساد الحكومي ودوره في صناعة الفقر أوإدامته. ولا أنسى إحصائيات المجال التعليمي وبعض المحاولات الرامية إلى تطويره في المناطق الفقيرة، سواء تلك المحاولات التي قامت بها الحكومات أو المنظمات غير الحكومية.
الكتاب مليء بالأرقام والإحصائيات، الصبر عليها له مكافئة ثمينة. يلاحظ أن أغلب الدراسات تمت في الهند بشكل كبير –أحد المؤلفيّن هندي- ثم في بلدان أفريقية. ذُكرت المغرب مرة أو مرتيّن. لا بد أن الكتاب سيكون أكثر أمتاعًا وإفادة لي لو أنه تبحر بشكل أكبر في عالمنا العربي العجيب.
هناك العديد من المعلومات والأقاصيص الشيقة أو المفيدة ليس بمقدوري سردها هنا. أولًا لأنها كثيرة، وثانيًا لأنه لن يكون لك سبب لقراءة الكتاب بعد ذلك. ألا تتفق معي في ذلك؟
نعم.
هل هو ممتع طوال الوقت؟
لا أعتقد.
اقتصاد الفقراء، الكتاب الحائز على جائزة غولدمان ساكس، سعى إلى تشريح حياة الفقراء ودراسة سلوكهم من عدة نواحي: الصحة، التعليم، الاستثمار والاقتراض. الكتاب مقسوم إلى قسمين إحدهما يناقش اقتصاد الفقراء من وجهة نظر الأفراد، والآخر يحلل أطروحات متعلقة بالمؤسسات والجمعيات ذات العلاقة.
الجميل في الكتاب هو أنها يناقش الجانبين: السلبي والإيجابي، مع وضد. وهي أيضًا نقطة ضعف نوعًا ما إذ أنك تخرج منه بدون توجّه واضح. لكن الفصل الأخير يلخص العديد من الانطباعات الجيدة. فيما يلي أذكر بعض المبادئ والأفكار التي طرحها الكتاب.
ماهي دائرة الفقر؟ هل هي موجودة حقًأ أم محض خيال؟ إن كانت موجودة فهل يمكننا كسرها؟ مثلًا هناك عائلة لديها مزرعة تدر عليهم دخلًأ ضئيلًا بسبب ارتفاع تكاليف البذور والأسمدة وضعف المحصول. نجدهم دائمًأ يتكبدون الخسائر والديون. إذا قدمنا لهم تسهيلات بالحصول على الأسمدة لتخفيض التكاليف وزيادة الأرباح، فهل سنساعدهم على الخروج من ذاك المأزق الأبدي؟
هل يجب علينا مساعدة الفقراء من الأساس؟ هناك تيار ينادي بعدم جدوى ذلك. فمساعدتنا لهم تجعلهم أكثر اتكالية وأقل تقديرًا لتلك المساعدات. هناك حالات شوهد فيها إهدار للمساعدات مثل استخدام أغطية الوقاية من البعوض لتغطية العرائس في حفلات الزفاف أو استخدام الواقيات الذكري كبالونات للعب، بل حتى تحاشي أخذ التطعيمات الأساسية مادامت دون مقابل. وفي الضفة الأخرى هناك من يعتقد بأنه على العالم المتقدم أن يساعد الفقراء لكسر حلقة الفقر المزمن، ورفع مستوى معيشتهم من أجل الارتقاء بالإنسانية إلى مستوى أفضل.
هل يتصرف الفقراء كما ينبغي؟ هل حقًا أغلب تصرفاتهم غير منطقية؟ لماذا ينفقون المال في الكماليات؟ أليس جديرًا بهم الإدخار؟ لماذا لا يبحثون عن حلول؟ عن استثمارات جديدة؟ عن خطط بعيدة المدى؟...إلخ. يحلل الكتاب العديد من الأسباب المنطقية لسلوك الفقراء وبقائهم تحت خط الفقر. على سبيل المثال، هناك العديد من التسهيلات التي يحصل عليها ابناء الطبقة الوسطى وليست متاحة للمعوزين، مثل التأمين الصحي، الحسابات البنكية والحصول على التعليم. هناك أيضًا المخاطر العالية التي تحيط بالفقراء: المواسم الزراعية القاسية، الحالات المرضية، تراكم القروض مرتفعة الفائدة...إلخ. جميع ما سبق يتظافر –حسب رأي المؤلفيّن- لإبقاء الفقراء في بؤسهم.
هذا بالإضافة إلى العديد من المعلومات المفيدة، مثل تلك المتعلقة بالتمويل متناهي الصغر، ذلك المجال الذي ذاع صيته قبل سنوات حين فاز البنغلاديشي محمد يونس بجائزة نوبل للسلام. استمتعت بالدراسات الخاصة بالفساد الحكومي ودوره في صناعة الفقر أوإدامته. ولا أنسى إحصائيات المجال التعليمي وبعض المحاولات الرامية إلى تطويره في المناطق الفقيرة، سواء تلك المحاولات التي قامت بها الحكومات أو المنظمات غير الحكومية.
الكتاب مليء بالأرقام والإحصائيات، الصبر عليها له مكافئة ثمينة. يلاحظ أن أغلب الدراسات تمت في الهند بشكل كبير –أحد المؤلفيّن هندي- ثم في بلدان أفريقية. ذُكرت المغرب مرة أو مرتيّن. لا بد أن الكتاب سيكون أكثر أمتاعًا وإفادة لي لو أنه تبحر بشكل أكبر في عالمنا العربي العجيب.
هناك العديد من المعلومات والأقاصيص الشيقة أو المفيدة ليس بمقدوري سردها هنا. أولًا لأنها كثيرة، وثانيًا لأنه لن يكون لك سبب لقراءة الكتاب بعد ذلك. ألا تتفق معي في ذلك؟
December 2, 2019
Poor Economics doesn't simply offer a unilateral view of how to fight global poverty; rather, this book offers views from both sides of the foreign aid debate (i.e. Sachs v. Easterly) and provides examples of different organizations that have dealt with attacking poverty on both small and large scales.
There are five key takeaways from Poor Economics, with regard to any localized campaigns attempting to improve the lives of the poor:
1) Individuals/communities inherently believe that outside organizations/companies claiming to help their economic/health statuses do not make true claims. Info campaigns must educate the poor on critical facts/information, and this information must come from a legitimate & reliable source (i.e. the press) AND must be attractive (e.g. presented in a TV drama).
2) The poor bear responsibility for most/all aspects of their lives. Unlike individuals in the First World or people in the middle- and upper-classes, the poor do not have direct access to proper banking or credit institutions, government aid, etc. Certain institutional/Institutional changes must be made to give the poor better access to these resources (e.g. ease access to banks or offer savings accounts as default options).
3) There are good and legitimate reasons that some markets are missing for the poor or face unfavorable prices in certain markets. This provides the opportunity for technology or institutional organizations to develop a market (such as the case for microcredit lending). Local and national governments need to create conditions to allow such markets to emerge, of course.
4) It should not be assumed that poor countries are destined to fail because they are or have been poor, or that it's because of a long-running history with failure. The failure can be solved through an overhaul of public policy, greater monitoring of workers and politicians, and greater education & involvement of the people themselves within this public sphere.
5) Expectations matter. If we expect people to fail, then they will fail based on the low expectations expected of them and consequently low expectations they expect for themselves. In order to create changes in the lives of the poor, expectations must be changed.
There are five key takeaways from Poor Economics, with regard to any localized campaigns attempting to improve the lives of the poor:
1) Individuals/communities inherently believe that outside organizations/companies claiming to help their economic/health statuses do not make true claims. Info campaigns must educate the poor on critical facts/information, and this information must come from a legitimate & reliable source (i.e. the press) AND must be attractive (e.g. presented in a TV drama).
2) The poor bear responsibility for most/all aspects of their lives. Unlike individuals in the First World or people in the middle- and upper-classes, the poor do not have direct access to proper banking or credit institutions, government aid, etc. Certain institutional/Institutional changes must be made to give the poor better access to these resources (e.g. ease access to banks or offer savings accounts as default options).
3) There are good and legitimate reasons that some markets are missing for the poor or face unfavorable prices in certain markets. This provides the opportunity for technology or institutional organizations to develop a market (such as the case for microcredit lending). Local and national governments need to create conditions to allow such markets to emerge, of course.
4) It should not be assumed that poor countries are destined to fail because they are or have been poor, or that it's because of a long-running history with failure. The failure can be solved through an overhaul of public policy, greater monitoring of workers and politicians, and greater education & involvement of the people themselves within this public sphere.
5) Expectations matter. If we expect people to fail, then they will fail based on the low expectations expected of them and consequently low expectations they expect for themselves. In order to create changes in the lives of the poor, expectations must be changed.
December 8, 2021
"Poor Economics" was one of the most enlightening books I had the pleasure of devouring this year. I'm neither an economics student nor do I profess to have any knowledge regarding the subject. What I have is a keen interest in everything unknown to me. And, this was book sure opened me up to a new cognizance.
On average, the poor people live on 99 cents per day. The fact which is shocking by itself also puts them at a great disadvantage because of a lack of resources and knowledge. To alleviate global poverty, we need to learn how their lives look like to the choices they make so that the government can frame policies in a way that doesn't just look good on paper, but they work practically too.
From their research in the Poverty Action lab along with fieldwork, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo do an outstanding job of explaining the behavior of poor people and reason for their status quo. They use conclusions and evidence drawn from the randomized control trial to explain the steps that can be taken to steer them on the right course.
This book reads like a textbook that combines the research work illustrated using graphs with anecdotes in a very interesting manner. As I said before, I did not know of this subject, but reading this book has opened my perspective about looking at poverty. You don't need an economics background to understand the insights from the book so I highly recommend reading it!
See on Instagram
On average, the poor people live on 99 cents per day. The fact which is shocking by itself also puts them at a great disadvantage because of a lack of resources and knowledge. To alleviate global poverty, we need to learn how their lives look like to the choices they make so that the government can frame policies in a way that doesn't just look good on paper, but they work practically too.
From their research in the Poverty Action lab along with fieldwork, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo do an outstanding job of explaining the behavior of poor people and reason for their status quo. They use conclusions and evidence drawn from the randomized control trial to explain the steps that can be taken to steer them on the right course.
This book reads like a textbook that combines the research work illustrated using graphs with anecdotes in a very interesting manner. As I said before, I did not know of this subject, but reading this book has opened my perspective about looking at poverty. You don't need an economics background to understand the insights from the book so I highly recommend reading it!
See on Instagram
February 25, 2016
(Note to Self to include this when writing a full blown review for this book).
I recently read an article* published in NY Times on how women economists are NOT recognized for their work when they co-author it with another a male economist. The article goes on to explain how the bias is deep entrenched in the field of economics. Recently, I was having a conversation with a friend, working in the field of finance, on the Indian economy and more particularly about the drought which has hit most states (check the second link**), and I made a reference to this book on how Indian institutions are going weak. He instantly recognized the book and told me the name of the author as Abhijit. When I told him that the book has another author named Esther, he just quipped almost spontaneously that perhaps the co-author would have just helped the other author in finishing up the main work, and perhaps that's why her name almost never shows up. Even good reads shows the author only as Abhijit V. Banerjee (if you find it changed, have it done by me).
This has nothing to do with this book, but says a lot about the field of finance and economics.
If people can make cliches and sweeping assumptions on the work of an author just on the basis of their gender, just consider how grave and ignorant their assumptions would be on the topic of poverty, which most of us just read, see and empathize about, but never have underwent it ourselves, or have studied about it from the ground. This books helps one to break all such cliches, rhetoric and generalizations, and provides an honest account and solutions to what goes on in the ground reality.
Very Highly Recommended!
* NY Times article - (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/ups...)
** About the drought on India - http://indianexpress.com/article/opin...
August 22, 2021
4 ☆
Scott Fitzgerald may have observed "that [the very rich] are different from you and me," but many believe the same about the very poor.
Billions of dollars have been committed to eradicating global poverty, defined here as living on the purchasing power parity equivalent of $1 a day. Two public policy economists have articulated strenuously about the big picture questions - such as "what ultimately caused poverty?" (A grossly simplified explanation follows.) The End of Poverty by Jeffrey D. Sachs advocated for foreign aid to enable impoverished nations to leap out of their "poverty trap" caused by endemic problems (such as climatic conditions leading to tropical diseases and infertile farmland). With books like The Elusive Quest for Growth, William Easterly argued that foreign aid is detrimental because poverty traps do not exist. What these countries need is for their markets to become free so that people can find their own solutions to their problems.
Poor Economics was written by two more economists -- Banerjee and Duflo ("B&D") -- who asserted that the two ideological camps, both highly influential in international policy circles, had failed to address a more crucial question:
B&D have developed randomized control trials (RCT) in 18 countries in order to fill this void. See http://www.pooreconomics.com/data/cou.... Data are from these nations: Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, South Africa, Tanzania, and Timor Leste.
B&D have a much different perspective about those who are nearly penniless and claim that past policies have failed because of the 3 I of ideology, ignorance, and inertia. In the first half of Poor Economics, they examined hunger, health, education, and family size from the viewpoints of the penurious. The second half scrutinized the institutional services that are (un)available such as loans, savings accounts, and government safety nets such as unemployment benefits.
By the end, B&D acknowledged that eradicating global poverty is an enormously complicated issue and that more remained to be learned about the nuances. Although no one cure-all exists (ie. microfinance lending will not lead to an entire country of small entrepreneurs), many minor changes in policies even in the presence of existing inept / corrupt institutions can yield substantial, material improvements. They advocated for many different strategies to be employed.
Though Poor Economics is a decade old, the concepts remain relevant especially since the Covid-19 pandemic has pushed an estimated 150 million more people into extreme poverty (see https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/po...). And because some parts deal with behavioral economics, their applicability to the poor even in higher income nations will also become apparent to the thoughtful reader. I had wanted B&D, however, to include more of the results from their RCTs. And as this book was published in 2011, the ideas may not be as "radical" as they would have been then. If you're already familiar with international development issues, then you may derive limited benefit from this book. Otherwise, this is an excellent foundational resource.
Scott Fitzgerald may have observed "that [the very rich] are different from you and me," but many believe the same about the very poor.
Billions of dollars have been committed to eradicating global poverty, defined here as living on the purchasing power parity equivalent of $1 a day. Two public policy economists have articulated strenuously about the big picture questions - such as "what ultimately caused poverty?" (A grossly simplified explanation follows.) The End of Poverty by Jeffrey D. Sachs advocated for foreign aid to enable impoverished nations to leap out of their "poverty trap" caused by endemic problems (such as climatic conditions leading to tropical diseases and infertile farmland). With books like The Elusive Quest for Growth, William Easterly argued that foreign aid is detrimental because poverty traps do not exist. What these countries need is for their markets to become free so that people can find their own solutions to their problems.
Poor Economics was written by two more economists -- Banerjee and Duflo ("B&D") -- who asserted that the two ideological camps, both highly influential in international policy circles, had failed to address a more crucial question:
Do we know of effective ways to help the poor?
The poor often resist the wonderful plans we think up for them because they do not share our faith that those plans work, or work as well as we claim.
B&D have developed randomized control trials (RCT) in 18 countries in order to fill this void. See http://www.pooreconomics.com/data/cou.... Data are from these nations: Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, South Africa, Tanzania, and Timor Leste.
B&D have a much different perspective about those who are nearly penniless and claim that past policies have failed because of the 3 I of ideology, ignorance, and inertia. In the first half of Poor Economics, they examined hunger, health, education, and family size from the viewpoints of the penurious. The second half scrutinized the institutional services that are (un)available such as loans, savings accounts, and government safety nets such as unemployment benefits.
We have the same desires and weaknesses; the poor are no less rational than anyone else -- quite the contrary. Precisely because they have so little, we often find them putting much careful thought into their choices: They have to be sophisticated economists just to survive.
The poor seem to be trapped by the same kinds of problems that afflict the rest of us -- lack of information, weak beliefs, and procrastination among them.
Yet our lives are as different as liquor and licorice. And this has a lot to do with aspects of our own lives that we take for granted and hardly think about [such as no need to purify our piped-in water, deal with our sewage, worry about advice from our board-certified doctors...]. In other words, we rarely need to draw upon our limited endowment of self-control and decisiveness, while the poor are constantly required to do so.
Not only do the poor lead riskier lives than the less poor, but a bad break of the same magnitude is likely to hurt them more.
By the end, B&D acknowledged that eradicating global poverty is an enormously complicated issue and that more remained to be learned about the nuances. Although no one cure-all exists (ie. microfinance lending will not lead to an entire country of small entrepreneurs), many minor changes in policies even in the presence of existing inept / corrupt institutions can yield substantial, material improvements. They advocated for many different strategies to be employed.
Though Poor Economics is a decade old, the concepts remain relevant especially since the Covid-19 pandemic has pushed an estimated 150 million more people into extreme poverty (see https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/po...). And because some parts deal with behavioral economics, their applicability to the poor even in higher income nations will also become apparent to the thoughtful reader. I had wanted B&D, however, to include more of the results from their RCTs. And as this book was published in 2011, the ideas may not be as "radical" as they would have been then. If you're already familiar with international development issues, then you may derive limited benefit from this book. Otherwise, this is an excellent foundational resource.
June 8, 2014
Radical?
[Through my ratings, reviews and edits I'm providing intellectual property and labor to Amazon.com Inc., listed on Nasdaq, which fully owns Goodreads.com and in 2013 posted revenues for $74 billion and $274 million profits. Intellectual property and labor require compensation. Amazon.com Inc. is also requested to provide assurance that its employees and contractors' work conditions meet the highest health and safety standards at all the company's sites.]
In the paperback edition the title was changed to happy-go-lucky "Poor economics: Barefoot Hedge-fund Managers, DIY Doctors and the Surprising Truth about Life on Less Than $1 a Day".
And for a reason.
This informative, well-meaning and acclaimed book is telling us that fighting poverty is just about little tweaks in the way NGOs run their programmes in developing countries. Tweaks based on the findings of - lo and behold - social psychology and econometrics. For example, remember to give food to the mothers when they bring their children to your vaccine centre.
I cannot think of anything more conservative than this - which explains the award from Goldman Sachs/FT.
A more appropriate title for the book could be "Development without even thinking of challenging the status quo" or "No wealth redistribution: guaranteed".
If you think that a 13% increase in the income of someone who earns $1 a day is a good result, this book will provide you with very useful tips.
[Through my ratings, reviews and edits I'm providing intellectual property and labor to Amazon.com Inc., listed on Nasdaq, which fully owns Goodreads.com and in 2013 posted revenues for $74 billion and $274 million profits. Intellectual property and labor require compensation. Amazon.com Inc. is also requested to provide assurance that its employees and contractors' work conditions meet the highest health and safety standards at all the company's sites.]
In the paperback edition the title was changed to happy-go-lucky "Poor economics: Barefoot Hedge-fund Managers, DIY Doctors and the Surprising Truth about Life on Less Than $1 a Day".
And for a reason.
This informative, well-meaning and acclaimed book is telling us that fighting poverty is just about little tweaks in the way NGOs run their programmes in developing countries. Tweaks based on the findings of - lo and behold - social psychology and econometrics. For example, remember to give food to the mothers when they bring their children to your vaccine centre.
I cannot think of anything more conservative than this - which explains the award from Goldman Sachs/FT.
A more appropriate title for the book could be "Development without even thinking of challenging the status quo" or "No wealth redistribution: guaranteed".
If you think that a 13% increase in the income of someone who earns $1 a day is a good result, this book will provide you with very useful tips.
January 3, 2022
Disappointing. I was very eager to read about rigorous studies that determine what works for fighting poverty. But the authors somehow kept getting off track from this desperately important concept. I still think the work of the Poverty Action Lab is very interesting, but this is just not an exciting book about a "radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty."
The big five lessons from the authors are:
1. The poor lack information (so tell them the truth artfully)
2. The poor lack control and day-to-day life is more difficult for them (so make good behaviors as easy as possible)
3. The poor get poorer: free market institutions like banks don't work well for people with no money (so make necessary things and opportunities cheap or free)
4. Poor countries are not doomed (so do things that are proven to work)
5. Expectations can be self-fulfilling (so start positive feedback loops)
This doesn't sound new to me. This sounds like basic public health.
Prescription for a Healthy Nation: A New Approach to Improving Our Lives by Fixing Our Everyday World Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think
The book delivers some valuable information about very specific questions like whether it's effective to give away bed nets to prevent malaria. The answer is yes. But even this message is muddled with much back and forth about political theory and academic hedging.
Much of the book is about economic theories and debates between the left and right. A lot of it is anecdotal. Much of what is data-based comes from their "18-country data set" but all those 18 countries are poor. This violates the basic logic of epidemiological studies or randomized trials (RCTs), i.e. a 2X2 table with +/- input and +/- outcome. None of these countries has the relevant outcome of Rich. It is hard to learn from a data set like this what makes countries Rich vs. Poor. For that, it is much more worthwhile to read the works of Ha-Joon Chang, who writes about how South Korea went from starving mess to high-tech powerhouse.
. Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
The phrase "purchasing power parity" is repeated every time a dollar amount is converted from another currency. This is insanely irritating. That sort of thing can be said once at the beginning of the book. Such a high degree of precision in language is unnecessary or even misleading, because often these dollar amounts are referring to GIGO calculations.
The big five lessons from the authors are:
1. The poor lack information (so tell them the truth artfully)
2. The poor lack control and day-to-day life is more difficult for them (so make good behaviors as easy as possible)
3. The poor get poorer: free market institutions like banks don't work well for people with no money (so make necessary things and opportunities cheap or free)
4. Poor countries are not doomed (so do things that are proven to work)
5. Expectations can be self-fulfilling (so start positive feedback loops)
This doesn't sound new to me. This sounds like basic public health.
Prescription for a Healthy Nation: A New Approach to Improving Our Lives by Fixing Our Everyday World Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You ThinkThe book delivers some valuable information about very specific questions like whether it's effective to give away bed nets to prevent malaria. The answer is yes. But even this message is muddled with much back and forth about political theory and academic hedging.
Much of the book is about economic theories and debates between the left and right. A lot of it is anecdotal. Much of what is data-based comes from their "18-country data set" but all those 18 countries are poor. This violates the basic logic of epidemiological studies or randomized trials (RCTs), i.e. a 2X2 table with +/- input and +/- outcome. None of these countries has the relevant outcome of Rich. It is hard to learn from a data set like this what makes countries Rich vs. Poor. For that, it is much more worthwhile to read the works of Ha-Joon Chang, who writes about how South Korea went from starving mess to high-tech powerhouse.
. Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of CapitalismThe phrase "purchasing power parity" is repeated every time a dollar amount is converted from another currency. This is insanely irritating. That sort of thing can be said once at the beginning of the book. Such a high degree of precision in language is unnecessary or even misleading, because often these dollar amounts are referring to GIGO calculations.
January 9, 2019
أجمل الكتب تلك التي تُغيّر نظرتك للأشياء، لا بسبب معلوماتها المخالفة لما تعرف، بل بوصفها نافذةً تطلّ منها على زاويةٍ أخرى فترى معالم كانت غائبة عنك.
وهذا ما يفعله هذا الكتاب بنا حيال موضوع الفقر والفقراء. إنّه يأخذنا إلى أعين الفقراء وبيوتهم وعقولهم الفردية والجمعية، ليرى كيف يُفكّرون ويتصرّفون حيال ما يُقدّم إليهم أو يُطلب منهم أو يُنظّر به عليهم. كما أنّه يأخذنا إلى تقصّي آفاق ما يُقدّم للمجتمعات الفقيرة من معونات ومساعدات وبرامج من الحكومات والأغنياء والدول الغنية، ويسعى إلى تقييم ما تحقّقه هذه المساعدات والبرامج من تغيير في حياة تلك المجتمعات.
قدّم الكاتبان (أحدهما هندي الأصل) كلّ ذلك من خلال كتابٍ مُدعّمٍ بالأمثلة والحالات الحقيقية التي تمّت مقابلتها، ونتائج الدراسات المسحية والبحثية ذات العلاقة. فجاء الكتاب نموذجيًا في طرحه للتساؤلات، وبحثه عن الإجابات ومحاولته فهم الواقع لا المثال.
ومن مزايا الكتاب أيضًا طرحه للرأيين المتقابلين بخصوص مشكلة الفقر والمساعدات الموجّهة للمجتمعات الفقيرة. رأيٌ يرى الفقير في مصيدة فقره يحتاج إلى عونٍ "قليل" ليخرج منها، ورأيٌ يرى الفقر مسئولية الفقير أو حكومته ولا نفع يُرتجى من مساعداتٍ سرعان ما تذهب أدراج الرياح طالما بقي الفقير ابن مجتمعه وبيئته وتحت مظلّة سياسة بلاده.
لا يطرح الكتاب وصفاتٍ علاجية، ولا إجاباتٍ شافية، وإنّما رؤىً جديدة من زاويةٍ مختلفة لما يمكن أن يوفّر لاحقًا أساسًا لمثل تلك الإجابات والعلاجات.
يعرّف الكتاب الفقر بما يتناسب مع القوّة الشرائية، لكنّ القراءة في ثناياه وإنزاله على واقعنا العربي (وفي الكتاب أمثلة من دول عربية)، يجعلنا نرى ملامح هذا الفقر في بيئاتنا المتعدّدة، وقربنا من تلك الملامح في كثيرٍ من بيوت الطبقات المتوسطة وما دونها في مجتمعاتنا الغنية نسبيًا مقارنةً بأمثلة الكتاب.
ختامًا، هذا الكتاب من ترجمة دار جامعة حمد بن خليفة في قطر عام 2016. والطبعة نافدة بالكامل، فلا يوجد أيّة نسخة في المكتبات، على حدود ما استطعت من البحث والتنقيب والسؤال. مما اضطرني بعد بحثٍ طويل أن أقرأه ملفًا رقميًا، وما زلتُ حريصًا على اقتنائه مطبوعًا لأهميته بإذن الله تعالى، فيا ليتهم يطبعونه طبعةً ثانية، أو تتولى ذلك أي دار نشرٍ بالاتفاق معهم.
وهذا ما يفعله هذا الكتاب بنا حيال موضوع الفقر والفقراء. إنّه يأخذنا إلى أعين الفقراء وبيوتهم وعقولهم الفردية والجمعية، ليرى كيف يُفكّرون ويتصرّفون حيال ما يُقدّم إليهم أو يُطلب منهم أو يُنظّر به عليهم. كما أنّه يأخذنا إلى تقصّي آفاق ما يُقدّم للمجتمعات الفقيرة من معونات ومساعدات وبرامج من الحكومات والأغنياء والدول الغنية، ويسعى إلى تقييم ما تحقّقه هذه المساعدات والبرامج من تغيير في حياة تلك المجتمعات.
قدّم الكاتبان (أحدهما هندي الأصل) كلّ ذلك من خلال كتابٍ مُدعّمٍ بالأمثلة والحالات الحقيقية التي تمّت مقابلتها، ونتائج الدراسات المسحية والبحثية ذات العلاقة. فجاء الكتاب نموذجيًا في طرحه للتساؤلات، وبحثه عن الإجابات ومحاولته فهم الواقع لا المثال.
ومن مزايا الكتاب أيضًا طرحه للرأيين المتقابلين بخصوص مشكلة الفقر والمساعدات الموجّهة للمجتمعات الفقيرة. رأيٌ يرى الفقير في مصيدة فقره يحتاج إلى عونٍ "قليل" ليخرج منها، ورأيٌ يرى الفقر مسئولية الفقير أو حكومته ولا نفع يُرتجى من مساعداتٍ سرعان ما تذهب أدراج الرياح طالما بقي الفقير ابن مجتمعه وبيئته وتحت مظلّة سياسة بلاده.
لا يطرح الكتاب وصفاتٍ علاجية، ولا إجاباتٍ شافية، وإنّما رؤىً جديدة من زاويةٍ مختلفة لما يمكن أن يوفّر لاحقًا أساسًا لمثل تلك الإجابات والعلاجات.
يعرّف الكتاب الفقر بما يتناسب مع القوّة الشرائية، لكنّ القراءة في ثناياه وإنزاله على واقعنا العربي (وفي الكتاب أمثلة من دول عربية)، يجعلنا نرى ملامح هذا الفقر في بيئاتنا المتعدّدة، وقربنا من تلك الملامح في كثيرٍ من بيوت الطبقات المتوسطة وما دونها في مجتمعاتنا الغنية نسبيًا مقارنةً بأمثلة الكتاب.
ختامًا، هذا الكتاب من ترجمة دار جامعة حمد بن خليفة في قطر عام 2016. والطبعة نافدة بالكامل، فلا يوجد أيّة نسخة في المكتبات، على حدود ما استطعت من البحث والتنقيب والسؤال. مما اضطرني بعد بحثٍ طويل أن أقرأه ملفًا رقميًا، وما زلتُ حريصًا على اقتنائه مطبوعًا لأهميته بإذن الله تعالى، فيا ليتهم يطبعونه طبعةً ثانية، أو تتولى ذلك أي دار نشرٍ بالاتفاق معهم.
November 26, 2023
Although I ain't an economics student, I picked this book to expand my world view. And I'd say that it has been quite helpful in doing so, given the fundamental insights that it offers.
Poor Economics is a well - researched and extensive discourse that contextualizes the realities of the lives of the poor and the real causes of poverty. The book is focused both on the "poor" and the "economics", but more than that it focusses on the "psyche of the poor" - for e.g.., what do they know, what they don't (or don't want to), what do they expect, how they make their choice, etc. The authors have advocated the use of Randomized Control Trial ( which is simply put, an experiment wherein subjects are assigned random groups and monitored under the conditions of the trial to determine the efficacy of the experimental intervention) in order to draw evidence for what actually works. The arguments put forward by the authors seem to be in-line with the ground realities since they've engaged in conversations with the poor; seems like the authors have great empathy for their subject !
I'd also appreciate the fact that the authors have not propounded a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, they've underscored on the use of broad range of solutions / conclusions depending upon the challenge. Meticulous thinking and rigorous evaluations are the simple yet ingenious tools that can help in designing a system whose outcomes may match the intentions. After all, the gap between the intentions and the outcomes is what determines the efficacy of a policy and the transformative potential that it carries.
At times, the book gets marginally technical ( okay, not for you economic "pundits" out there ) but one can always skim through! For all those with a non - economics background, I can assure you that this book will help you to develop multiple perspectives and gain a substantial understanding of the contemporary scenario (as has been the case with me).
Important Terminologies :
1. Time Inconsistency
2. Adverse Selection
3. Moral Hazard
Poor Economics is a well - researched and extensive discourse that contextualizes the realities of the lives of the poor and the real causes of poverty. The book is focused both on the "poor" and the "economics", but more than that it focusses on the "psyche of the poor" - for e.g.., what do they know, what they don't (or don't want to), what do they expect, how they make their choice, etc. The authors have advocated the use of Randomized Control Trial ( which is simply put, an experiment wherein subjects are assigned random groups and monitored under the conditions of the trial to determine the efficacy of the experimental intervention) in order to draw evidence for what actually works. The arguments put forward by the authors seem to be in-line with the ground realities since they've engaged in conversations with the poor; seems like the authors have great empathy for their subject !
I'd also appreciate the fact that the authors have not propounded a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, they've underscored on the use of broad range of solutions / conclusions depending upon the challenge. Meticulous thinking and rigorous evaluations are the simple yet ingenious tools that can help in designing a system whose outcomes may match the intentions. After all, the gap between the intentions and the outcomes is what determines the efficacy of a policy and the transformative potential that it carries.
At times, the book gets marginally technical ( okay, not for you economic "pundits" out there ) but one can always skim through! For all those with a non - economics background, I can assure you that this book will help you to develop multiple perspectives and gain a substantial understanding of the contemporary scenario (as has been the case with me).
Important Terminologies :
1. Time Inconsistency
2. Adverse Selection
3. Moral Hazard
March 19, 2021
كتاب لا ترى العالم بعده كما كنت تراه في السابق
October 3, 2018
So. This is an economics book.
(A rumbling sound is heard as ninety percent of the people reading this review frantically jiggle their mice in an effort to click another link on this page. Any link. Even an ad for laundry detergent.)
Ok, hello to the two remaining readers out there. Thank you for sticking around. I know ‘economics’ is one of the least sexy words in reading, right up there with ‘tax law’ and that economics books are as enticing to most readers as a fat stack of local council permit applications.
Hell, I’m with you on this. I had to study the dismal science that is economics at school, and again in first year university. I can tell you from experience that there is no stimulant on earth short of mainlined honey badger adrenaline that can keep me awake in a lecture on supply/demand graphs.
Poor Economics however is that rare unicorn of reading- an interesting economics book. Like Loretta Napoleoni's works Terror Incorporated and Rogue Economics and Adam Tooze’s Wages of Destruction, Duflo and Banerjee’s work mixes hard economic fact with fascinating examples of real world problems.
If you’ve ever despaired at the seemingly intractable nature of poverty around the world this is a book that will give you hope.
Duflo and Banerjee (D+B) stress the importance of information gathering, of speaking to the poor, of exploring what it is that makes it hard for them to increase their incomes, and in the process they explore some fascinating case studies and trials of attempt to help the poor, and the many success and failures they have witnessed.
A number of my assumptions were overturned, for example; while I thought starvation and malnutrition were first-order issues in addressing poverty, hunger is not the problem it was. Getting enough calories is not an intractable problem for many of the world’s poor, and in some places declines in manual labor have slightly reduced the calorie needs of communities.
Microfinance is also unlikely to be the panacea it has sometimes been claimed to be. While small loans can help the poor expand their small businesses, the nature of these businesses makes expanding them beyond subsistence level difficult. D+B do stress that microfinance can help the poor, just that the stories of poor people founding business empires on a loan of a few hundred bucks are very much outliers - most businesses hit constraints on their expansion quite early on, while others with promise can rarely access loans of the size they need.
Furthermore some well-intentioned interventions- such as a programs in Kenya that promoted marriage in order to reduce teen pregnancy, keep kids in school and limit HIV transmission - can perversely end up increasing to the problems they are trying to solve. (Horrifyingly, this focus on marriage saw more young female students getting involved with older, more financially stable men who were more likely to be carriers of HIV and expected their young wives to drop out of school to care for their children).
There are however, many interventions that can help, from focusing schools on basic skills like reading and mathematics, to subsiding treatments like de-worming tablets that pay big dividends in keeping children healthy and able to attend school for longer. D+B caution the importance of avoiding what they call the three I's: Ideology, ignorance and inertia, all of which can be overcome with programs carefully designed for the reality on the ground, not the imagined reality that so often seems to underpin aid projects.
While global poverty is crushingly resistant to being eradicated D+B offer an optimistic take on improving the lives of the poor, arguing that while there may not be easy big fixes for this problem, there are nonetheless many ways to make people's lives better while slowly changing the deprived situations that so many of our fellow humans have been stuck with. Overall, Poor Economics brings a hopeful message to an area of global policy and justice that sorely needs it.
(A rumbling sound is heard as ninety percent of the people reading this review frantically jiggle their mice in an effort to click another link on this page. Any link. Even an ad for laundry detergent.)
Ok, hello to the two remaining readers out there. Thank you for sticking around. I know ‘economics’ is one of the least sexy words in reading, right up there with ‘tax law’ and that economics books are as enticing to most readers as a fat stack of local council permit applications.
Hell, I’m with you on this. I had to study the dismal science that is economics at school, and again in first year university. I can tell you from experience that there is no stimulant on earth short of mainlined honey badger adrenaline that can keep me awake in a lecture on supply/demand graphs.
Poor Economics however is that rare unicorn of reading- an interesting economics book. Like Loretta Napoleoni's works Terror Incorporated and Rogue Economics and Adam Tooze’s Wages of Destruction, Duflo and Banerjee’s work mixes hard economic fact with fascinating examples of real world problems.
If you’ve ever despaired at the seemingly intractable nature of poverty around the world this is a book that will give you hope.
Duflo and Banerjee (D+B) stress the importance of information gathering, of speaking to the poor, of exploring what it is that makes it hard for them to increase their incomes, and in the process they explore some fascinating case studies and trials of attempt to help the poor, and the many success and failures they have witnessed.
A number of my assumptions were overturned, for example; while I thought starvation and malnutrition were first-order issues in addressing poverty, hunger is not the problem it was. Getting enough calories is not an intractable problem for many of the world’s poor, and in some places declines in manual labor have slightly reduced the calorie needs of communities.
Microfinance is also unlikely to be the panacea it has sometimes been claimed to be. While small loans can help the poor expand their small businesses, the nature of these businesses makes expanding them beyond subsistence level difficult. D+B do stress that microfinance can help the poor, just that the stories of poor people founding business empires on a loan of a few hundred bucks are very much outliers - most businesses hit constraints on their expansion quite early on, while others with promise can rarely access loans of the size they need.
Furthermore some well-intentioned interventions- such as a programs in Kenya that promoted marriage in order to reduce teen pregnancy, keep kids in school and limit HIV transmission - can perversely end up increasing to the problems they are trying to solve. (Horrifyingly, this focus on marriage saw more young female students getting involved with older, more financially stable men who were more likely to be carriers of HIV and expected their young wives to drop out of school to care for their children).
There are however, many interventions that can help, from focusing schools on basic skills like reading and mathematics, to subsiding treatments like de-worming tablets that pay big dividends in keeping children healthy and able to attend school for longer. D+B caution the importance of avoiding what they call the three I's: Ideology, ignorance and inertia, all of which can be overcome with programs carefully designed for the reality on the ground, not the imagined reality that so often seems to underpin aid projects.
While global poverty is crushingly resistant to being eradicated D+B offer an optimistic take on improving the lives of the poor, arguing that while there may not be easy big fixes for this problem, there are nonetheless many ways to make people's lives better while slowly changing the deprived situations that so many of our fellow humans have been stuck with. Overall, Poor Economics brings a hopeful message to an area of global policy and justice that sorely needs it.
October 15, 2019
قرأته عندما وجدته في مكان بارز في المكتبة العامة. ثم علمت أن الإبراز كان بسبب فوز المؤلفين للتو بجائزة نوبل. وهو كتاب رائع ويستحق التكريم بجدارة
January 23, 2012
This kind of book can be annoying, as popular social science tends to fall into one of two camps. The first are those that just repeat a single idea over an over again (e.g. The Tipping Point). The second are those that simply rehash 101 textbooks, adding a few kooky examples or anecdotes (e.g. The Undercover Economist).
To some extent, this book is vulnerable to both those criticisms. The authors make a big push on the importance of empirical evidence in designing interventions – using randomized controlled tests – rather than taking bigger, ideological positions like so many development authors (e.g. Sachs, Easterly). The book also seems a repeat of DEV409 from my Masters. Of course, the second of these criticisms is a bit unfair, as DEV409 is clearly not a 101 course. Also, it’s a bit snobby, as there’s nothing wrong with popularising the basics anyway.
I’m glad I read this book, for four reasons:
First, the central idea is a good one. Given the design of most development work, it’s clear that we still need reminded of the need to move away from large, abstract and unproven ‘best practice’ programmes and towards targeted, measureable and adaptable interventions. The parts of the book that touch upon political economy (which is really all of the second half, and especially chapter 10) were also fairly open-ended, which encouraged me as there’s clearly a lot that we can still do. I hope I have the time and brains to contribute.
On that note, the book is positive and encouraging. That big ideas don’t work shouldn’t discourage us from trying, just to refocus our efforts. My pessimism about development is usually the result of my own mistaken expectations that big ideas might deliver results. Banerjee and Dufflo grant us permission to move away from this by seeking out niche opportunities at the margins.
Third, many of the policy interventions and results in the book are of interest in themselves. I was especially keen on the microfinance bits, as there seems so much potential and – of interest to me – microfinance displays an especially strong link between economic development and institutions.
Finally, the book serves as a reminder that the poor have to work their way through decision processes just as complicated as the rest of us, and often more so. Working in development, it’s easy to despair at people making the ‘wrong’ decisions, without understanding why they do so.
Banerjee and Dufflo say all this more eloquently than me, so here’s a quotation from their conclusion:
"This book is, in a sense, just an invitation to look more closely. If we resist the kind of lazy, formulaic thinking that reduces every problem to the same set of general principles; if we listen to poor people themselves and force ourselves to understand the logic of their choices; if we accept the possibility of error and subject every idea, including the most apparently commonsensical ones, to rigorous empirical testing, then we will be able not only to construct a toolbox of effective policies but also to better understand why the poor live the way they do".
To some extent, this book is vulnerable to both those criticisms. The authors make a big push on the importance of empirical evidence in designing interventions – using randomized controlled tests – rather than taking bigger, ideological positions like so many development authors (e.g. Sachs, Easterly). The book also seems a repeat of DEV409 from my Masters. Of course, the second of these criticisms is a bit unfair, as DEV409 is clearly not a 101 course. Also, it’s a bit snobby, as there’s nothing wrong with popularising the basics anyway.
I’m glad I read this book, for four reasons:
First, the central idea is a good one. Given the design of most development work, it’s clear that we still need reminded of the need to move away from large, abstract and unproven ‘best practice’ programmes and towards targeted, measureable and adaptable interventions. The parts of the book that touch upon political economy (which is really all of the second half, and especially chapter 10) were also fairly open-ended, which encouraged me as there’s clearly a lot that we can still do. I hope I have the time and brains to contribute.
On that note, the book is positive and encouraging. That big ideas don’t work shouldn’t discourage us from trying, just to refocus our efforts. My pessimism about development is usually the result of my own mistaken expectations that big ideas might deliver results. Banerjee and Dufflo grant us permission to move away from this by seeking out niche opportunities at the margins.
Third, many of the policy interventions and results in the book are of interest in themselves. I was especially keen on the microfinance bits, as there seems so much potential and – of interest to me – microfinance displays an especially strong link between economic development and institutions.
Finally, the book serves as a reminder that the poor have to work their way through decision processes just as complicated as the rest of us, and often more so. Working in development, it’s easy to despair at people making the ‘wrong’ decisions, without understanding why they do so.
Banerjee and Dufflo say all this more eloquently than me, so here’s a quotation from their conclusion:
"This book is, in a sense, just an invitation to look more closely. If we resist the kind of lazy, formulaic thinking that reduces every problem to the same set of general principles; if we listen to poor people themselves and force ourselves to understand the logic of their choices; if we accept the possibility of error and subject every idea, including the most apparently commonsensical ones, to rigorous empirical testing, then we will be able not only to construct a toolbox of effective policies but also to better understand why the poor live the way they do".
June 19, 2014
This is one of the best "pop-economics" books I have read in a very long time. Such books typically follow the same recipe: top academic seeks recognition outside the profession and writes the book propounding the theory, enlisting in support loads of evidence consistent with the theory, and curiously brushing off/forgetting to mention most of any evidence even vaguely incompatible with the main argument of the book. The book tends to go on forever repeating the same score in all possible tonalities, and in spite of most attempt to either humour or literary effects is generally rather boring to read. Length seems to be necessary to establish the authors credential with the layman.
This book is very different: Duflo and Banerjee do not try and shovel down the readers' troats the ultimate theory of poverty. They present the evidence, explain how to think about it, and show where a remedy works and where the same approach to the same problem fails miserably. But in all this, they suggest to the reader how to go about thinking of poverty, of its causes and of its consequences and how to approach the evaluation of policies to alleviate it. Yes, the double handed economists approach will be unsatisfactory for anyone looking for the silver bullet, but as we all know in most situation in life silver bullets do not exist, and ther is no one universal solution to problems that have plagued us for centuries.
Above all, this book is interesting and engaging, a very good read, recommended to anyone with even a passing interest in poverty.
This book is very different: Duflo and Banerjee do not try and shovel down the readers' troats the ultimate theory of poverty. They present the evidence, explain how to think about it, and show where a remedy works and where the same approach to the same problem fails miserably. But in all this, they suggest to the reader how to go about thinking of poverty, of its causes and of its consequences and how to approach the evaluation of policies to alleviate it. Yes, the double handed economists approach will be unsatisfactory for anyone looking for the silver bullet, but as we all know in most situation in life silver bullets do not exist, and ther is no one universal solution to problems that have plagued us for centuries.
Above all, this book is interesting and engaging, a very good read, recommended to anyone with even a passing interest in poverty.
February 16, 2019
This book is not what I thought it was or what it promised it would be in the intro. It is not an economic analysis of poverty. I was thinking it would be more in line with books like scarcity that explain the decisionmaking of poor people as a rational response to circumstances. It had elements of that certainly, but it was a book about development. I didn't love the first half of the book, but I thought the second half or third was very useful. Especially their analysis of micro-credit and other development projects. I like their critiques of these programs even though I thought they were too tepid in critiquing the "Everyone is an entrepreneur" model, which I think is total garbage. I loved their focus at the end on structures of power. I think this book could have been bigger and broader and could have connected the political economy of poverty (see Jason Hickel's The Divide and other books), but it was still a useful response to people like Easterly and Sachs.
July 27, 2021
3.5 stars. The downside first: Living in a developing country and far away from policymaking processes, I might not be the main target audience. Some parts are familiar. The authors used a lot of examples from my country so I got annoyed sometimes with the typos on names, places, and religious holidays. The mid parts of the book was a bit hard to digest, not sure why but I felt it took way too long to get into the point/gist of the argument. Or maybe since I suck at economics so my brain could not process the graphs and elaborations.
The upside: I think the book is a useful reminder for everyone, not just the privileged (I assume the ones who read this reviews are among them, including myself) that one should pay attention to details, try to understand the psychology of choices (one of my fave parts of the book), political processes are key, don't trust any magic-bullet-one size-fits-all stuff, and that changes at the margin can make a difference. We'll always face the 3 Is (ideology, ignorance, inertia) but that should not make us stop from innovating and designing good policies and implementing effective practices.
The upside: I think the book is a useful reminder for everyone, not just the privileged (I assume the ones who read this reviews are among them, including myself) that one should pay attention to details, try to understand the psychology of choices (one of my fave parts of the book), political processes are key, don't trust any magic-bullet-one size-fits-all stuff, and that changes at the margin can make a difference. We'll always face the 3 Is (ideology, ignorance, inertia) but that should not make us stop from innovating and designing good policies and implementing effective practices.
May 13, 2020
পড়ে মনে হইলো ইনারা পলিসিমেকিঙের (এবং অর্থনীতির) জগতের গ্যালিলিও। এতদিন সবাই কালেক্টেড ডাটা দেখে, অব্জার্ভেশন আর এর আগ পর্যন্ত করে আসা গবেষণার উপরে দাঁড়ায়ে কাজ করতো, ইনারা কন্ট্রোল গ্রুপ আর এক্সপেরিমেন্টাল গ্রুপে ভাগ করে মানুষের উপর র্যান্ডম পলিসি খাটাইতেছেন। মানে সত্যি সত্যি পরীক্ষা নিরীক্ষা করতেছেন মানুষরে নিয়া।
দুর্ভাগ্য, গরীব ছাড়া গিনিপিগরূপে এই ক্ষেত্রে আর কাউকে হাতের কাছে পাওয়া শক্ত। তবে এতে আপত্তির খুব বেশি কারণ দেখি না। আমি কনভিন্সড যে এটা চমৎকার কাজ করে, এর মাধ্যমে আসলেই পলিসি টেস্টিঙের সুযোগ আছে, এবং মার্ক্সের এশিয়াটিক মোড অফ প্রোডাকশনের মতো ভুলভাল থিওরির হাত থেকে মানুষকে এর মাধ্যমে বাঁচানো যাবে।
এটুকুই। পড়ার জন্য সুপারিশ করবো প্রায় সবাইকে। এবং আমার ধারণা এই আরসিটির (র্যান্ডম কন্ট্রোল ট্রায়াল) প্রয়োগ আরো বাড়ানো যায়, মানে এইটা তো কেবল শুরু, ম্যাক্রো লেভেলেও এটাকে টেনে নিয়ে যাওয়া যায়, একদিন হয়তো এই করে করে 'কোয়ান্টাম' ইকোনমিক্স চলে আসবে, গ্যালিলিওর রাস্তা ধরে যেভাবে আজকের ফিজিক্স এসেছে�� চীনে হয়তো এরকম ম্যাক্রো লেভেল আরসিটি করেও ফেলছে, মান্দারিন তো পড়তে জানি না, কী করে জানবো আমরা!
দুর্ভাগ্য, গরীব ছাড়া গিনিপিগরূপে এই ক্ষেত্রে আর কাউকে হাতের কাছে পাওয়া শক্ত। তবে এতে আপত্তির খুব বেশি কারণ দেখি না। আমি কনভিন্সড যে এটা চমৎকার কাজ করে, এর মাধ্যমে আসলেই পলিসি টেস্টিঙের সুযোগ আছে, এবং মার্ক্সের এশিয়াটিক মোড অফ প্রোডাকশনের মতো ভুলভাল থিওরির হাত থেকে মানুষকে এর মাধ্যমে বাঁচানো যাবে।
এটুকুই। পড়ার জন্য সুপারিশ করবো প্রায় সবাইকে। এবং আমার ধারণা এই আরসিটির (র্যান্ডম কন্ট্রোল ট্রায়াল) প্রয়োগ আরো বাড়ানো যায়, মানে এইটা তো কেবল শুরু, ম্যাক্রো লেভেলেও এটাকে টেনে নিয়ে যাওয়া যায়, একদিন হয়তো এই করে করে 'কোয়ান্টাম' ইকোনমিক্স চলে আসবে, গ্যালিলিওর রাস্তা ধরে যেভাবে আজকের ফিজিক্স এসেছে�� চীনে হয়তো এরকম ম্যাক্রো লেভেল আরসিটি করেও ফেলছে, মান্দারিন তো পড়তে জানি না, কী করে জানবো আমরা!
August 22, 2021
Thay vì trả lời các câu hỏi lớn và trừu tượng, chẳng hạn như "Viện trợ có giúp các quốc gia phát triển không?", 2 tác giả chọn trả lời các câu hỏi vi mô và cụ thể như "Mùng chỗng muỗi phát miễn phí, hay bán với giá trợ cấp, sẽ làm giảm tỷ lệ mắc sốt xuất huyết hơn?".
Thay vì sử dụng phương pháp lập luận thông thường, dựa vào common sense, chẳng hạn như "Nếu người dân thấy cần dùng mùng chống muỗi thì họ sẽ mua nó. Nếu họ không cần và được phát miễn phí thì họ cũng không dùng", 2 tác giả sử dụng phương pháp nghiên cứu khoa học, thường là thử nghiệm đối chứng ngẫu nhiên (randomized controlled trials), trong đó lựa chọn 2 nhóm, 1 nhóm áp dụng chính sách giảm nghèo nào đó (chẳng hạn phát tiền trợ cấp cho bố mẹ nếu bố mẹ cho con đến trường), 1 nhóm đối chứng không áp dụng chính sách đó (không phát trợ cấp) hoặc áp dụng 1 chính sách khác (phát trợ cấp vô điều kiện), từ đó đánh giá xem liệu kết quả (chẳng hạn tỷ lệ trẻ em đến trường) khác nhau ra sao ở các nhóm.
Đó là 2 khác biệt căn bản trong cách tiếp cận của các tác giả. Hai khác biệt đó giúp ta thoát khỏi các cuộc tranh luận lý thuyết không hồi kết do chịu ảnh hưởng của niềm tin và hệ tư tưởng và không có số liệu khoa học để kiểm chứng.
Mặt khác, chúng cũng giúp ta hiểu được cơ chế phức tạp của một quá trình nhân quả. Rõ ràng, hiểu được nguyên nhân nào, chẳng hạn, khiến người dân Ấn Độ không sử dụng hệ thống y tế công cộng mà lại tin dùng các "bác sĩ" tư rởm và các thầy lang, thì mới có thể tìm được cách để khắc phục tinh trạng đó. Cách tiếp cận vi mô, từng bước nhỏ nêu trên trước tiên đòi hỏi sự kiên nhẫn (chắc chắn rồi). Bởi lập luận thông thường cho một câu hỏi lớn là điều dễ hơn nhiều với việc thiết kể và thực hiện hàng chục thử nghiệm nhỏ chỉ để thấy các kết quả mang tính vi mô thay vì các kết quả mang tính cách mạng.
Nhưng đổi lại, cách tiếp cận ấy, đến lượt nó, đem lại hy vọng cải thiện tình trạng cho dù dưới bất kì bối cảnh nào. Có thể dễ dàng thấy hầu hết chúng ta đều bị cám dỗ rơi vào niềm tin rằng các bối cảnh lớn như Điều kiện tự nhiên; Văn hóa; Hệ thống chính trị; quyết định tất cả mọi hiện trạng của một quốc gia. Tức là tin rằng để chấm dứt đói nghèo, tham nhũng, chỉ có thể bằng cách thay đổi chính trị. Hay nói cách khác, chừng nào chưa thay đổi chính trị thì vấn đề đói nghèo, tham nhũng là không thể giải quyết được. Không khó để thấy hệ niềm tin trên khiến ta trở nên yếm thế và từ chối tin, chứ đừng nói thực hiện, các thử nghiệm nhỏ.
Liệu hệ niềm tin đó có đúng? Cần nhớ rằng, dù nhận thức chung là dân chủ đem lại 1 cơ hội lớn hơn để giải quyết vấn đề đói nghèo, nhưng ta có thể thấy những ví dụ về các quốc gia dân chủ đã thất bại trong nỗ lực đó (chẳng hạn như Campuchia trước khi nó rơi vào chế độ độc tài hiện tại), trong khi những các quốc gia dân chủ khác (Châu Âu sau thế chiến II), thậm chí những quốc gia độc tài (Đài Loan, Hàn Quốc trước dân chủ hóa; Trung Quốc), lại thành công.
Hiện trạng đa dạng này dẫn tôi nhớ tới điều mà Karl Popper viết trong Xã hội mở và những kẻ thù của nó, rằng hệ thống chính trị là một dạng công nghệ, và mỗi quốc gia cần làm công nghệ đó tốt hơn bằng cách cho phép các tư tưởng khác biệt được tồn tại, tranh luận (thứ làm nên tính mở của xã hội đó), nhờ đó xã hội ấy có thể liên tục thử nghiệm những thay đổi nhỏ và tìm ra những cách thức để cải tiến công nghệ quản trị của họ. Karl Popper cho rằng một cuộc cách mạng lật đổ hoàn toàn công nghệ quản trị trước đó sẽ là một thảm họa - điều đã trở thành lời tiên tri cho hệ thống các quốc gia cộng sản. Ông tin rằng chỉ có những cải cách nhỏ và kế thừa những đặc tính tốt của công nghệ cũ, trong bối cảnh một xã hội mở, mới làm một xã hội trở nên giàu có, tiến bộ và tốt đẹp hơn. Đó không chỉ là một lý thuyết tự thân đã rất hay, mà còn là một lý thuyết tốt đẹp bởi nó khiến người ta thoát khỏi thái độ yếm thế, kiên nhẫn hơn và hy vọng hơn vào sự tốt đẹp lên của thế giới.
Cuốn sách này của các tác giả, cũng hay và tốt đẹp như vậy.
Thay vì sử dụng phương pháp lập luận thông thường, dựa vào common sense, chẳng hạn như "Nếu người dân thấy cần dùng mùng chống muỗi thì họ sẽ mua nó. Nếu họ không cần và được phát miễn phí thì họ cũng không dùng", 2 tác giả sử dụng phương pháp nghiên cứu khoa học, thường là thử nghiệm đối chứng ngẫu nhiên (randomized controlled trials), trong đó lựa chọn 2 nhóm, 1 nhóm áp dụng chính sách giảm nghèo nào đó (chẳng hạn phát tiền trợ cấp cho bố mẹ nếu bố mẹ cho con đến trường), 1 nhóm đối chứng không áp dụng chính sách đó (không phát trợ cấp) hoặc áp dụng 1 chính sách khác (phát trợ cấp vô điều kiện), từ đó đánh giá xem liệu kết quả (chẳng hạn tỷ lệ trẻ em đến trường) khác nhau ra sao ở các nhóm.
Đó là 2 khác biệt căn bản trong cách tiếp cận của các tác giả. Hai khác biệt đó giúp ta thoát khỏi các cuộc tranh luận lý thuyết không hồi kết do chịu ảnh hưởng của niềm tin và hệ tư tưởng và không có số liệu khoa học để kiểm chứng.
Mặt khác, chúng cũng giúp ta hiểu được cơ chế phức tạp của một quá trình nhân quả. Rõ ràng, hiểu được nguyên nhân nào, chẳng hạn, khiến người dân Ấn Độ không sử dụng hệ thống y tế công cộng mà lại tin dùng các "bác sĩ" tư rởm và các thầy lang, thì mới có thể tìm được cách để khắc phục tinh trạng đó. Cách tiếp cận vi mô, từng bước nhỏ nêu trên trước tiên đòi hỏi sự kiên nhẫn (chắc chắn rồi). Bởi lập luận thông thường cho một câu hỏi lớn là điều dễ hơn nhiều với việc thiết kể và thực hiện hàng chục thử nghiệm nhỏ chỉ để thấy các kết quả mang tính vi mô thay vì các kết quả mang tính cách mạng.
Nhưng đổi lại, cách tiếp cận ấy, đến lượt nó, đem lại hy vọng cải thiện tình trạng cho dù dưới bất kì bối cảnh nào. Có thể dễ dàng thấy hầu hết chúng ta đều bị cám dỗ rơi vào niềm tin rằng các bối cảnh lớn như Điều kiện tự nhiên; Văn hóa; Hệ thống chính trị; quyết định tất cả mọi hiện trạng của một quốc gia. Tức là tin rằng để chấm dứt đói nghèo, tham nhũng, chỉ có thể bằng cách thay đổi chính trị. Hay nói cách khác, chừng nào chưa thay đổi chính trị thì vấn đề đói nghèo, tham nhũng là không thể giải quyết được. Không khó để thấy hệ niềm tin trên khiến ta trở nên yếm thế và từ chối tin, chứ đừng nói thực hiện, các thử nghiệm nhỏ.
Liệu hệ niềm tin đó có đúng? Cần nhớ rằng, dù nhận thức chung là dân chủ đem lại 1 cơ hội lớn hơn để giải quyết vấn đề đói nghèo, nhưng ta có thể thấy những ví dụ về các quốc gia dân chủ đã thất bại trong nỗ lực đó (chẳng hạn như Campuchia trước khi nó rơi vào chế độ độc tài hiện tại), trong khi những các quốc gia dân chủ khác (Châu Âu sau thế chiến II), thậm chí những quốc gia độc tài (Đài Loan, Hàn Quốc trước dân chủ hóa; Trung Quốc), lại thành công.
Hiện trạng đa dạng này dẫn tôi nhớ tới điều mà Karl Popper viết trong Xã hội mở và những kẻ thù của nó, rằng hệ thống chính trị là một dạng công nghệ, và mỗi quốc gia cần làm công nghệ đó tốt hơn bằng cách cho phép các tư tưởng khác biệt được tồn tại, tranh luận (thứ làm nên tính mở của xã hội đó), nhờ đó xã hội ấy có thể liên tục thử nghiệm những thay đổi nhỏ và tìm ra những cách thức để cải tiến công nghệ quản trị của họ. Karl Popper cho rằng một cuộc cách mạng lật đổ hoàn toàn công nghệ quản trị trước đó sẽ là một thảm họa - điều đã trở thành lời tiên tri cho hệ thống các quốc gia cộng sản. Ông tin rằng chỉ có những cải cách nhỏ và kế thừa những đặc tính tốt của công nghệ cũ, trong bối cảnh một xã hội mở, mới làm một xã hội trở nên giàu có, tiến bộ và tốt đẹp hơn. Đó không chỉ là một lý thuyết tự thân đã rất hay, mà còn là một lý thuyết tốt đẹp bởi nó khiến người ta thoát khỏi thái độ yếm thế, kiên nhẫn hơn và hy vọng hơn vào sự tốt đẹp lên của thế giới.
Cuốn sách này của các tác giả, cũng hay và tốt đẹp như vậy.
July 30, 2020
كتاب ممتاز جدا الحقيقة، ترجمة سلسة ومعلومات وتحليلات قيّمة تساعدنا على الفهم.
October 5, 2020
Amartya Sen, the patron saint of Politics, Philosophy and Economics studies approves of this book so that's really all you need to know. Review to come!
December 31, 2020
ปิดท้ายปีด้วยเล่มนี้ อ่านมานานมากเกือบ 3 เดือน ที่ใช้เวลานานไม่ใช่ว่าอ่านยาก ตัวเลข กราฟอะไรเยอะแยะ แต่การย่อยข้อมูลในหนังสือเล่มนี้คือต้องมีเวลาอ่านแบบชิวๆ เงียบๆ เพราะข้อมูลแน่นเข้มข้นมาก ซึ่งพอเวลาในการอ่านแบบนั้นไม่ค่อยมี เลยอ่านได้แบบอาทิตย์ละบทบ้าง ไม่ถึงบทบ้าง (เศร้า)
ส่วนตัวมีความสนใจในด้านการแก้ไขความยากจนเป็นทุนเดิมอยู่แล้วครับ เป็นความสงสัยที่ว่าอะไรคือปัจจัยที่ทำให้การแก้ไขเรื่องนี้ยากมากๆ แก้ไขไม่ได้เสียที มันเป็นเรื่องของปัจเจก หรือเป็นเรื่องของนโยบายที่ผิดพลาด ไม่รู้จริง ทำให้มันกลายเป็นวงจรที่ไม่เคยจบสิ้นและวนเวียนกลับมาอยู่ตลอดเวลา หนังสือเล่มนี้ให้คำตอบสำหรับผมได้เยอะมากๆ และเปลี่ยนการมองปัญหานี้ไปได้เยอะทีเดียว
หนังสือเล่มนี้เขียนโดย 2 ใน 3 ของผู้ได้รับรางวัลโนเบลสาขาเศรษฐศาสตร์ในปี 2019 จากผลงานการแก้ไขความยากจนทั่วโลก(อีกท่านคือ นักเศรษฐศาสตร์ชาวอเมริกัน ไมเคิล เครมเมอร์ ซึ่งเป็นผู้ร่วมวิจัยด้วยกันกับผู้เขียนทั้งสอง) โดยทั้งคู่เป็นสามีภริยา และต่างสอนอยู่ที่สถาบันเทคโนโลยีรัฐแมสซาชูเสตต์ส (MIT)
โดย คณะกรรมการโนเบลระบุว่า “ นักเศรษฐศาสตร์ทั้งสามคนได้ร่วมกันคิดวิธีการใหม่ในการต่อสู้กับปัญหาความยากจน โดยมุ่งเน้นจัดการปัญหาเล็ก ๆ ก่อน อย่างเช่น จะพัฒนาสุขภาพและปรับปรุงการศึกษาของเด็กได้อย่างไร งานศึกษาของนักเศรษฐศาสตร์สามคนนี้นำไปสู่โครงการปรับปรุงด้านการศึกษาที่ช่วยเหลือเด็กชาวอินเดียกว่าห้าล้านคน รวมไปถึงโครงการสนับสนุนด้านสาธารณสุขของรัฐบาลหลายประเทศทั่วโลกในเวลาต่อมา ”
ดังนั้นจึงการันตีคุณภาพของข้อมูลและเนื้อหาในหนังสือเล่มนี้ได้เป็นอย่างดี
ผู้เขียนทั้งสองแบ่งเนื้อหาออกเป็น 2 ส่วนใหญ่ๆ คือ ส่วนภาคปัจเจก และส่วนภาคสถาบัน ในส่วนของปัจเจกนั้นจะพูดถึงปัจจัยที่เรามักนึกถึง เมื่อให้ลองนึกภาพของผู้มีรายได้น้อย เช่น ความอดอยาก สุขภาพที่ไม่แข็งแรง การศึกษา และ การมีลูกเป็นจำนวนมาก ในส่วนนี้จะอธิบายว่าอะไรคือปัจจัยที่เป็นปัญหาจริงๆ ที่ทำให้เกิดปัญหาเหล่านี้ จริงหรือไม่กับภาพจำหรือข้อสรุปของเราต่อปัญหาเหล่านั้น หรือจริงๆแล้วมันเป็นเพียงมายาคติที่เคลือบปัญหาไว้ และทำให้มันไม่เคยถูกแก้ไขได้เลย
ส่วนของสถาบันนั้น จะพูดถึงสถาบันต่างๆที่จะเป็นตัวช่วยให้ความยากจนนั้นหมดไป หรือบางทีอาจจะเป็นตัวซ้ำเติมให้กับความยากจนให้แย่ลงไปอีก ถ้าสถาบันนั้นถูกออกแบบมาอย่างผิดๆ และแก้ไขได้ไม่ตรงจุด จนเป็นการเพิ่มปัญหาให้มากไปกว่าเดิม
รายละเอียดของทั้งสองส่วนนั้นเยอะมากๆครับ มีการลงรายละเอียด ตัวอย่างการทดลองที่ผู้เขียนทั้งสองลงพื้นที่ พูดคุยและออกแบบโมเดลมาใช้ในการแก้ปัญหา เราจะได้เห็นว่าอะไรคือปัญหาที่แท้จริงที่ควรถูกแก้ไข ในรายละเอียดปลีกย่อยนี่ผมไม่ขอกล่าวถึงนะครับ อยากให้ลองไปอ่านกัน แต่ถ้าให้สรุปแบบคร่าวๆว่าอะไรคือปัจจัยสำคัญที่ทำให้การแก้ปัญหาความยากจนไม่สำเร็จเสียที คำตอบของผมคือคำว่า “ โอกาส” ครับ
โอกาสในที่นี้คือคนคิดนโยบาย หรือ คนทั่วๆไปอย่างเราที่ไม่ใช่ผู้มีรายได้น้อยนั้นมองคำว่าโอกาสแตกต่างจากพวกเขา เรามักคิดว่าถ้าทำแบบนี้จะทำให้คุณเปลี่ยนแปลงชีวิตได้นะ เก็บออมซิ พาลูกเรียนสูงๆซิ อย่ามีลูกเยอะให้มีค่าใช้จ่ายมากๆซิ ถ้าทำนะ โอกาสพลิกฟื้นชีวิต และรายได้ รวมถึงเงินออมย่อมมากขึ้นแน่นอน แต่อะไรเหล่านี้พวกเขามองไม่เหมือนกันกับเราครับ การเป็นผู้มีรายได้น้อยนั้น เป็นความจริงว่าเขานั้นมีรายได้ที่น้อยกว่าเส้นวัดความยากจน แต่ความต่างของผู้มีรายได้น้อยและคนชนชั้นกลางหรือชนชั้นอื่นๆ ไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องของการมีเงินน้อยหรือเงินเยอะ แล้วที่เหลือในชีวิตจะเหมือนกันหมด เรื่องเงินเป็นเพียงส่วนหนึ่งของความไม่เหมือนกัน มันยังมีเรื่องของสังคม วัฒนธรรม และอื่นๆอีกมากมายที่ส่งผลให้การมองโลกนั้นแตกต่างกัน โดยสิ้นเชิง เป็นเรื่องถูกต้องที่ว่าการอดออม ย่อมทำให้มีเงินเก็บที่มาขึ้น เอาไปใช้จ่ายที่จำเป็น แต่ความคิดนี้ส่วนนึงต้องตั้งอยู่ในฐานว่าคุณมีงานมั่นคง ต้นทุนชีวิตที่อยู่ในระดับที่สามารถเปลี่ยนชี���ิตได้ แต่ถ้าคุณไม่มีสิ่งเหล่านั้นเลย การเก็บออมเป็นเวลาหลายสิบปีอาจไม่ใช่คำตอบก็ได้ เพราะเขาไม่เห็นถึงโอกาสจากการเก็บออมเหล่านั้นได้เลยว่ามันจะเปลี่ยนแปลงชีวิตได้ยังไง เพราะทุกวันนี้แค่มีเงินให้พอใช้ในแต่ละวันก็แทบเป็นไปไม่ได้แล้ว ซึ่งการมองปัญหาที่แตกต่างกันนี้ไม่ใช่เรื่องของการมองปัญหาในระยะสั้นหรือมองระยะไกล มันมีรายละเอียดที่มากกว่านั้นเย��ะครับ
ฉะนั้นเมื่อผู้ออกนโยบายหรือผู้ที่ต้องการช่วยเหลือกับผู้รับการช่วยเหลือ (ในความหมายเชิงนโยบาย) มองปัญหาคนละด้าน มองกันคนละแบบ การช่วยเหลือจึงไม่เคยตอบโจทก์หรือเข้าใจปัญหาจริงๆเลย ทำให้มันไม่เกิดประสิทธิภาพ และบางทีอาจไปซ้ำเติมปัญหาให้แย่ลงไปกว่าเดิมอีกด้วย ความเข้าใจในรายละเอียด และเข้าใจในความคิดของผู้ที่มีรายได้น้อยจึงเป็นปัจจัยสำคัญในการแก้ปัญหา แต่ใครละจะทุ่มเทแรงกายแรงใจหลายสิปปีเพื่อหาความจริงเหล่านี้ คนๆนั้นก็คือผู้ที่ได้รับรางวัลโนเบลทั้ง 3 นี่ยังไงละครับ และนี่คือหนังสือที่เป็นผลจากความพยายามตลอดหลายปี เพื่อเข้าใจและต้องการแก้ไขปัญหาความยากจนให้หมดไปจริงๆ
หนังสือเล่มนี้เหมาะเป็นอย่างยิ่งสำหรับผู้มีอำนาจออกนโยบายที่จำเป็นต้องอ่าน และยังเหมาะกับคนทั่วไป เพื่อเข้าใจชีวิต ความคิดและสังคมของผู้มีรายได้น้อย และไม่ด่วนสรุปชี้หน้าว่าพวกเขาเป็นเพียงแค่คนขี้เกียจ และคิดน้อย มันมีอะไรมากกว่านั้นเยอะครับ มากกว่านั้นเยอะเลย
ส่วนตัวมีความสนใจในด้านการแก้ไขความยากจนเป็นทุนเดิมอยู่แล้วครับ เป็นความสงสัยที่ว่าอะไรคือปัจจัยที่ทำให้การแก้ไขเรื่องนี้ยากมากๆ แก้ไขไม่ได้เสียที มันเป็นเรื่องของปัจเจก หรือเป็นเรื่องของนโยบายที่ผิดพลาด ไม่รู้จริง ทำให้มันกลายเป็นวงจรที่ไม่เคยจบสิ้นและวนเวียนกลับมาอยู่ตลอดเวลา หนังสือเล่มนี้ให้คำตอบสำหรับผมได้เยอะมากๆ และเปลี่ยนการมองปัญหานี้ไปได้เยอะทีเดียว
หนังสือเล่มนี้เขียนโดย 2 ใน 3 ของผู้ได้รับรางวัลโนเบลสาขาเศรษฐศาสตร์ในปี 2019 จากผลงานการแก้ไขความยากจนทั่วโลก(อีกท่านคือ นักเศรษฐศาสตร์ชาวอเมริกัน ไมเคิล เครมเมอร์ ซึ่งเป็นผู้ร่วมวิจัยด้วยกันกับผู้เขียนทั้งสอง) โดยทั้งคู่เป็นสามีภริยา และต่างสอนอยู่ที่สถาบันเทคโนโลยีรัฐแมสซาชูเสตต์ส (MIT)
โดย คณะกรรมการโนเบลระบุว่า “ นักเศรษฐศาสตร์ทั้งสามคนได้ร่วมกันคิดวิธีการใหม่ในการต่อสู้กับปัญหาความยากจน โดยมุ่งเน้นจัดการปัญหาเล็ก ๆ ก่อน อย่างเช่น จะพัฒนาสุขภาพและปรับปรุงการศึกษาของเด็กได้อย่างไร งานศึกษาของนักเศรษฐศาสตร์สามคนนี้นำไปสู่โครงการปรับปรุงด้านการศึกษาที่ช่วยเหลือเด็กชาวอินเดียกว่าห้าล้านคน รวมไปถึงโครงการสนับสนุนด้านสาธารณสุขของรัฐบาลหลายประเทศทั่วโลกในเวลาต่อมา ”
ดังนั้นจึงการันตีคุณภาพของข้อมูลและเนื้อหาในหนังสือเล่มนี้ได้เป็นอย่างดี
ผู้เขียนทั้งสองแบ่งเนื้อหาออกเป็น 2 ส่วนใหญ่ๆ คือ ส่วนภาคปัจเจก และส่วนภาคสถาบัน ในส่วนของปัจเจกนั้นจะพูดถึงปัจจัยที่เรามักนึกถึง เมื่อให้ลองนึกภาพของผู้มีรายได้น้อย เช่น ความอดอยาก สุขภาพที่ไม่แข็งแรง การศึกษา และ การมีลูกเป็นจำนวนมาก ในส่วนนี้จะอธิบายว่าอะไรคือปัจจัยที่เป็นปัญหาจริงๆ ที่ทำให้เกิดปัญหาเหล่านี้ จริงหรือไม่กับภาพจำหรือข้อสรุปของเราต่อปัญหาเหล่านั้น หรือจริงๆแล้วมันเป็นเพียงมายาคติที่เคลือบปัญหาไว้ และทำให้มันไม่เคยถูกแก้ไขได้เลย
ส่วนของสถาบันนั้น จะพูดถึงสถาบันต่างๆที่จะเป็นตัวช่วยให้ความยากจนนั้นหมดไป หรือบางทีอาจจะเป็นตัวซ้ำเติมให้กับความยากจนให้แย่ลงไปอีก ถ้าสถาบันนั้นถูกออกแบบมาอย่างผิดๆ และแก้ไขได้ไม่ตรงจุด จนเป็นการเพิ่มปัญหาให้มากไปกว่าเดิม
รายละเอียดของทั้งสองส่วนนั้นเยอะมากๆครับ มีการลงรายละเอียด ตัวอย่างการทดลองที่ผู้เขียนทั้งสองลงพื้นที่ พูดคุยและออกแบบโมเดลมาใช้ในการแก้ปัญหา เราจะได้เห็นว่าอะไรคือปัญหาที่แท้จริงที่ควรถูกแก้ไข ในรายละเอียดปลีกย่อยนี่ผมไม่ขอกล่าวถึงนะครับ อยากให้ลองไปอ่านกัน แต่ถ้าให้สรุปแบบคร่าวๆว่าอะไรคือปัจจัยสำคัญที่ทำให้การแก้ปัญหาความยากจนไม่สำเร็จเสียที คำตอบของผมคือคำว่า “ โอกาส” ครับ
โอกาสในที่นี้คือคนคิดนโยบาย หรือ คนทั่วๆไปอย่างเราที่ไม่ใช่ผู้มีรายได้น้อยนั้นมองคำว่าโอกาสแตกต่างจากพวกเขา เรามักคิดว่าถ้าทำแบบนี้จะทำให้คุณเปลี่ยนแปลงชีวิตได้นะ เก็บออมซิ พาลูกเรียนสูงๆซิ อย่ามีลูกเยอะให้มีค่าใช้จ่ายมากๆซิ ถ้าทำนะ โอกาสพลิกฟื้นชีวิต และรายได้ รวมถึงเงินออมย่อมมากขึ้นแน่นอน แต่อะไรเหล่านี้พวกเขามองไม่เหมือนกันกับเราครับ การเป็นผู้มีรายได้น้อยนั้น เป็นความจริงว่าเขานั้นมีรายได้ที่น้อยกว่าเส้นวัดความยากจน แต่ความต่างของผู้มีรายได้น้อยและคนชนชั้นกลางหรือชนชั้นอื่นๆ ไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องของการมีเงินน้อยหรือเงินเยอะ แล้วที่เหลือในชีวิตจะเหมือนกันหมด เรื่องเงินเป็นเพียงส่วนหนึ่งของความไม่เหมือนกัน มันยังมีเรื่องของสังคม วัฒนธรรม และอื่นๆอีกมากมายที่ส่งผลให้การมองโลกนั้นแตกต่างกัน โดยสิ้นเชิง เป็นเรื่องถูกต้องที่ว่าการอดออม ย่อมทำให้มีเงินเก็บที่มาขึ้น เอาไปใช้จ่ายที่จำเป็น แต่ความคิดนี้ส่วนนึงต้องตั้งอยู่ในฐานว่าคุณมีงานมั่นคง ต้นทุนชีวิตที่อยู่ในระดับที่สามารถเปลี่ยนชี���ิตได้ แต่ถ้าคุณไม่มีสิ่งเหล่านั้นเลย การเก็บออมเป็นเวลาหลายสิบปีอาจไม่ใช่คำตอบก็ได้ เพราะเขาไม่เห็นถึงโอกาสจากการเก็บออมเหล่านั้นได้เลยว่ามันจะเปลี่ยนแปลงชีวิตได้ยังไง เพราะทุกวันนี้แค่มีเงินให้พอใช้ในแต่ละวันก็แทบเป็นไปไม่ได้แล้ว ซึ่งการมองปัญหาที่แตกต่างกันนี้ไม่ใช่เรื่องของการมองปัญหาในระยะสั้นหรือมองระยะไกล มันมีรายละเอียดที่มากกว่านั้นเย��ะครับ
ฉะนั้นเมื่อผู้ออกนโยบายหรือผู้ที่ต้องการช่วยเหลือกับผู้รับการช่วยเหลือ (ในความหมายเชิงนโยบาย) มองปัญหาคนละด้าน มองกันคนละแบบ การช่วยเหลือจึงไม่เคยตอบโจทก์หรือเข้าใจปัญหาจริงๆเลย ทำให้มันไม่เกิดประสิทธิภาพ และบางทีอาจไปซ้ำเติมปัญหาให้แย่ลงไปกว่าเดิมอีกด้วย ความเข้าใจในรายละเอียด และเข้าใจในความคิดของผู้ที่มีรายได้น้อยจึงเป็นปัจจัยสำคัญในการแก้ปัญหา แต่ใครละจะทุ่มเทแรงกายแรงใจหลายสิปปีเพื่อหาความจริงเหล่านี้ คนๆนั้นก็คือผู้ที่ได้รับรางวัลโนเบลทั้ง 3 นี่ยังไงละครับ และนี่คือหนังสือที่เป็นผลจากความพยายามตลอดหลายปี เพื่อเข้าใจและต้องการแก้ไขปัญหาความยากจนให้หมดไปจริงๆ
หนังสือเล่มนี้เหมาะเป็นอย่างยิ่งสำหรับผู้มีอำนาจออกนโยบายที่จำเป็นต้องอ่าน และยังเหมาะกับคนทั่วไป เพื่อเข้าใจชีวิต ความคิดและสังคมของผู้มีรายได้น้อย และไม่ด่วนสรุปชี้หน้าว่าพวกเขาเป็นเพียงแค่คนขี้เกียจ และคิดน้อย มันมีอะไรมากกว่านั้นเยอะครับ มากกว่านั้นเยอะเลย
March 12, 2021
จริงๆ มายไม่เคยสนใจเรื่องความเหลื่อมล้ำมาก่อนเลยค่ะเพราะรูัสึกว่าเป็นเรื่องไกลตัว และห่างไกล คือไม่เข้าใจด้วยแหละว่าความเหลื่อมล้ำมันคืออะไร แล้วมันสร้างผลกระทบอะไรกับเราได้บ้าง มายสารภาพบาปมาตรงนี้เลยว่าเคยคิดว่าคนจนจนเพราะไม่ขยัน ขี้เกียจ และทำตัวเองทั้งนั้น ถ้าเราขยันและดิ้นรนมีหรือที่ไม่มีทางลืมตาอ้าปากได้
มายยอมรับว่าตัวเองในตอนนั้นตื้นเขินมาก แต่ก็อยากเถียงให้ตัวเองในตอนนั้นด้วยเหมือนกันว่า เมื่อ 4-5 ปีที่แล้วยังไม่ได้มีหนัง parasite ที่ทำให้คำว่า "เหลื่อมล้ำ" เข้าใจง่าย มายมาตาสว่างเพราะหนังเรื่องนีัเลยค่ะ แล้วพยายามมากๆ ที่จะเข้าใจว่าปัญหาความยากจน ความเหลื่อม มันต้องทำยังไงถึงจะแก้ได้ มันเป็นแค่เรื่องของกฎหมาย รัฐบาล และนักวิชาการเท่านั้นหรือ?
คำตอบคือไม่ใช่เลย ความเหลื่อมล้ำ ความยากจนเป็นเรื่องของเราทุกคน mindset แบบที่มายเคยมี มายเชื่อว่ายังมีอีกหลายคนที่ยังมีอยู่ และการทำความเข้าใจเสียใหม่ในปัจจุบันก็ไม่ใช่เรื่องยากเกินความสามารถอีกต่อไป เราสามารถเรียนรู้ได้ว่าคนจนไม่ได้จนเพราะขี้เกียจ แต่การที่ยังมีคนจนอยู่เป็นเพราะระบบมันไม่เอื้อให้คนตัวเล็กมีพื้นที่โตหรือเปล่า?
จริงๆ นอกเรื่องไปไกล แต่คำถามที่ค้างคาใจมาย เช่น ไอ้ mindset คนจนเพราะขี้เกียจมาจากไหน ทำไมคนจนถึงควบคุมตัวเองไม่ให้ซื้อเหล้าซื้อเบียร์หรือพฤติกรรมที่ทำร้ายตัวเองไม่ได้โอ๊ยย เธอจ๋า อย่าว่าแต่คนจน ดิชั้นยังไม่สามารถควบคุมตัวเองไม่ให้กินของหวานทั้งๆ ที่ปากบอกจะลดน้ำหนักไม่ได้เลย-และใช่ค่ะ ดิฉันจน (ฮือๆๆ) แต่นั่นแหละ มันคือเรื่องเดียวกัน เพราะ (จากหนังสือหน้า265) "หลายสิ่งที่คนจนอยากได้มากๆ เช่น ตู้เย็น จักรยาน การให้ลูกเรียนในโรงเรียงดีๆ ล้วนมีราคาแพง ดังนั้น เมื่อคนจนมีเงินเพียงเล็กน้อยอยู่ในมือ สิ่งล่อใจต่างๆ ก็จะมีอิทธิผลเหนือจิตใจได้มาก"
คุณคะ คุณเห็นมั้ยว่าคนจนเองก็เป็นคนเหมือนกัน เขาก็เหมือนกับพวกเรา ไม่มีอะไรแตกต่างกันเลย เราต่างพยายามดิ้นรนให้มีชีวิตรอดในประเทศเส็งเคร็งนี้ด้วยกันทั้งนั้น อยากให้ทุกๆ คนได้อ่านเพื่อทำความเข้าใจ เมื่อเราเข้าใจเราถึงจะมี empathy (not sympathy) เมื่อเรามี empathy เราจะแก้ไขปัญหาได้อย่างตรงจุดมากขึ้น ไม่ใช้เอะอะๆ แจกเงินอย่างเดียว (แต่การแจกเงินก็มีประโยชน์ของมันด้วยเหมือนกัน แต่ข้อเสียที่ตามมาก็อีกนั่นแหละ)
แล้วถ้าถามว่า อ่านหนังสือเล่มนี้แล้วจะแก้ไขปัญหาความยากจนได้อย่างไร โอ๊ย คุณคะ นี่มันไม่ใช่ปัญหาระดับชาติ แต่เป็นระดับโลก ไม่มียาชนิดไหนที่ให้สูตรสำเร็จ 1 แล้วแก้ได้ 100 หรอกค่ะ นั่นมันหลอกลวงผู้บริโภค! เพราะงั้น ปัญหาความยากจนจึงต้องดูทั้งบริบท วัฒนธรรม สภาพสังคม การเมือง และอีกหลายอย่าง แน่ว่ามันยาก แต่ไม่ใช่เรื่องเป็นไปไม่ได้ มันอาจจะเป็นไปได้ในอีก 10 ปี 20ปี หรือ 100ปี แต่กว่าจะถึงวันนู้น มายไม่อยากเป็นคนที่บ่นแล้วไม่ยอมเข้าใจปัญหาเพียงอย่างเดียวจึงเริ่มต้นอ่านเล่มเพื่อสังคมที่ดีข้างหน้าค่ะ (สวยมาก มงลงไปเลยจ้า 55555)
มายยอมรับว่าตัวเองในตอนนั้นตื้นเขินมาก แต่ก็อยากเถียงให้ตัวเองในตอนนั้นด้วยเหมือนกันว่า เมื่อ 4-5 ปีที่แล้วยังไม่ได้มีหนัง parasite ที่ทำให้คำว่า "เหลื่อมล้ำ" เข้าใจง่าย มายมาตาสว่างเพราะหนังเรื่องนีัเลยค่ะ แล้วพยายามมากๆ ที่จะเข้าใจว่าปัญหาความยากจน ความเหลื่อม มันต้องทำยังไงถึงจะแก้ได้ มันเป็นแค่เรื่องของกฎหมาย รัฐบาล และนักวิชาการเท่านั้นหรือ?
คำตอบคือไม่ใช่เลย ความเหลื่อมล้ำ ความยากจนเป็นเรื่องของเราทุกคน mindset แบบที่มายเคยมี มายเชื่อว่ายังมีอีกหลายคนที่ยังมีอยู่ และการทำความเข้าใจเสียใหม่ในปัจจุบันก็ไม่ใช่เรื่องยากเกินความสามารถอีกต่อไป เราสามารถเรียนรู้ได้ว่าคนจนไม่ได้จนเพราะขี้เกียจ แต่การที่ยังมีคนจนอยู่เป็นเพราะระบบมันไม่เอื้อให้คนตัวเล็กมีพื้นที่โตหรือเปล่า?
จริงๆ นอกเรื่องไปไกล แต่คำถามที่ค้างคาใจมาย เช่น ไอ้ mindset คนจนเพราะขี้เกียจมาจากไหน ทำไมคนจนถึงควบคุมตัวเองไม่ให้ซื้อเหล้าซื้อเบียร์หรือพฤติกรรมที่ทำร้ายตัวเองไม่ได้โอ๊ยย เธอจ๋า อย่าว่าแต่คนจน ดิชั้นยังไม่สามารถควบคุมตัวเองไม่ให้กินของหวานทั้งๆ ที่ปากบอกจะลดน้ำหนักไม่ได้เลย-และใช่ค่ะ ดิฉันจน (ฮือๆๆ) แต่นั่นแหละ มันคือเรื่องเดียวกัน เพราะ (จากหนังสือหน้า265) "หลายสิ่งที่คนจนอยากได้มากๆ เช่น ตู้เย็น จักรยาน การให้ลูกเรียนในโรงเรียงดีๆ ล้วนมีราคาแพง ดังนั้น เมื่อคนจนมีเงินเพียงเล็กน้อยอยู่ในมือ สิ่งล่อใจต่างๆ ก็จะมีอิทธิผลเหนือจิตใจได้มาก"
คุณคะ คุณเห็นมั้ยว่าคนจนเองก็เป็นคนเหมือนกัน เขาก็เหมือนกับพวกเรา ไม่มีอะไรแตกต่างกันเลย เราต่างพยายามดิ้นรนให้มีชีวิตรอดในประเทศเส็งเคร็งนี้ด้วยกันทั้งนั้น อยากให้ทุกๆ คนได้อ่านเพื่อทำความเข้าใจ เมื่อเราเข้าใจเราถึงจะมี empathy (not sympathy) เมื่อเรามี empathy เราจะแก้ไขปัญหาได้อย่างตรงจุดมากขึ้น ไม่ใช้เอะอะๆ แจกเงินอย่างเดียว (แต่การแจกเงินก็มีประโยชน์ของมันด้วยเหมือนกัน แต่ข้อเสียที่ตามมาก็อีกนั่นแหละ)
แล้วถ้าถามว่า อ่านหนังสือเล่มนี้แล้วจะแก้ไขปัญหาความยากจนได้อย่างไร โอ๊ย คุณคะ นี่มันไม่ใช่ปัญหาระดับชาติ แต่เป็นระดับโลก ไม่มียาชนิดไหนที่ให้สูตรสำเร็จ 1 แล้วแก้ได้ 100 หรอกค่ะ นั่นมันหลอกลวงผู้บริโภค! เพราะงั้น ปัญหาความยากจนจึงต้องดูทั้งบริบท วัฒนธรรม สภาพสังคม การเมือง และอีกหลายอย่าง แน่ว่ามันยาก แต่ไม่ใช่เรื่องเป็นไปไม่ได้ มันอาจจะเป็นไปได้ในอีก 10 ปี 20ปี หรือ 100ปี แต่กว่าจะถึงวันนู้น มายไม่อยากเป็นคนที่บ่นแล้วไม่ยอมเข้าใจปัญหาเพียงอย่างเดียวจึงเริ่มต้นอ่านเล่มเพื่อสังคมที่ดีข้างหน้าค่ะ (สวยมาก มงลงไปเลยจ้า 55555)
May 10, 2020
Probably one of the biggest nemises of all intelligent thought is over-simplification. An easy example is one guy giving a detailed long explanation of something, and another underpnning it by saying "so you are saying ... *Insert a small sentence*". This is most visible in interviews where interviewer seems to sometimes doing it intentionally to save his ignorant, lazy audience the effort of understanding a complex thought.
The trouble is it encourages a dislike for intellectualism - the ignorant start thinking their ignorance is as good as someone's life time of studies. Twitter takes it to a whole new league - because there, no one knows differenc ebetween wits and wisdom. And there is really no room for a thought that might require more than 140 characters to express itself.
No wonder, Banerjee and Duflo's winning Nobel prize was not loved by genuis people on twitter. Most of them argue all banerjee has ever said is *insert some simplistic idea about removing poverty like freebies* which is hardly new.
I have my own reasons to dislike most of intellectuals - they often seem to be waiving theories in air. But these two don't suffer that problem either.
Instead of giving sweeping theories, they are just sharing the observations on a number of ground realities - talking about things that have worked and things that have not worked, about the experiments they carried out etc.
I don't want to go into details and to try to summarise or it would seem to be a case of over-simplification, so I will leave with this quote:
"This book is, in a sense, just an invitation to look more closely. If we resist the kind of lazy, formulaic thinking that reduces every problem to the same set of general principles; if we listen to poor people themselves and force ourselves to understand the logic of their choices; if we accept the possibility of error and subject every idea, including the most apparently commonsensical ones, to rigorous empirical testing, then we will be able not only to construct a toolbox of effective policies but also to better understand why the poor live the way they do. Armed with this patient understanding, we can identify the poverty traps where they really are and know which tools we need to give the poor to help them get out of them."
The trouble is it encourages a dislike for intellectualism - the ignorant start thinking their ignorance is as good as someone's life time of studies. Twitter takes it to a whole new league - because there, no one knows differenc ebetween wits and wisdom. And there is really no room for a thought that might require more than 140 characters to express itself.
No wonder, Banerjee and Duflo's winning Nobel prize was not loved by genuis people on twitter. Most of them argue all banerjee has ever said is *insert some simplistic idea about removing poverty like freebies* which is hardly new.
I have my own reasons to dislike most of intellectuals - they often seem to be waiving theories in air. But these two don't suffer that problem either.
Instead of giving sweeping theories, they are just sharing the observations on a number of ground realities - talking about things that have worked and things that have not worked, about the experiments they carried out etc.
I don't want to go into details and to try to summarise or it would seem to be a case of over-simplification, so I will leave with this quote:
"This book is, in a sense, just an invitation to look more closely. If we resist the kind of lazy, formulaic thinking that reduces every problem to the same set of general principles; if we listen to poor people themselves and force ourselves to understand the logic of their choices; if we accept the possibility of error and subject every idea, including the most apparently commonsensical ones, to rigorous empirical testing, then we will be able not only to construct a toolbox of effective policies but also to better understand why the poor live the way they do. Armed with this patient understanding, we can identify the poverty traps where they really are and know which tools we need to give the poor to help them get out of them."
June 10, 2013
Full of individual stories about the way the poor cope with their life. I normally classify such books as "sad". Not this one. The book is offering something that I haven't seen in many other books that are dealing with poverty. It is exploring first the left extreme of the spectrum that focuses on collectivism, then the right that is focused on the individualism, and finally tries to put itself somewhere in between. Each side is backed by examples of its supporters. The main heroes of the book are, not surprisingly, on the left Jeffrey Sachs and on the right William Easterly. Despite this, it has to be acknowledged that Banjeree and Duflo did a really good job when it comes to criticizing Easterly and Sachs' views. However, they conclude that when it comes to helping the poor "details matter" and state that most economists that are dealing with poverty are too general and not specific enough with their recipes for sustaining the development in poor countries. In the same time they do little to come up with concrete suggestions as to what can be done and provide only vague recommendations making it harder for me to see where is this "radical rethinking" that the title of the book is so concerned with.
November 14, 2019
هذا الكتاب يضعك في قلب التحديات التي يواجهها الفقراء في الدول النامية، مقسم إلى عدة محاور: التغذية، التعليم، الصحة، الاستثمار والعمل.
المميز فيه أنه يستعرض العراقيل التي تحد من الجهود الرامية إلى مكافحة الفقر، ليس فقط من جانب المؤسسات المعنية، بل أيضا من صميم التركيبة النفسية للفقراء، وهذا جانب لا تتطرق إليه المواد الإعلامية في التلفاز في تقاريرها حول اقتصاد الدول النامية.
جدير بالذكر أن الكتاب من تأليف أبهيجيت بانرجي، وأستر دوفلو، وهما اثنين من ثلاثة حصلوا على جائزة نوبل للاقتصاد لعام ٢٠١٩، نظير أبحاثهم التي ساهمت بشكل كبير في مكافحة الفقر حول العالم.
المميز فيه أنه يستعرض العراقيل التي تحد من الجهود الرامية إلى مكافحة الفقر، ليس فقط من جانب المؤسسات المعنية، بل أيضا من صميم التركيبة النفسية للفقراء، وهذا جانب لا تتطرق إليه المواد الإعلامية في التلفاز في تقاريرها حول اقتصاد الدول النامية.
جدير بالذكر أن الكتاب من تأليف أبهيجيت بانرجي، وأستر دوفلو، وهما اثنين من ثلاثة حصلوا على جائزة نوبل للاقتصاد لعام ٢٠١٩، نظير أبحاثهم التي ساهمت بشكل كبير في مكافحة الفقر حول العالم.
January 12, 2012
I mentioned this book on my blog here, http://livingeden.blogspot.com/2011/1..., and now I finally read it!
I'll admit I was a little disappointed that the book wasn't as detailed as her lecture on the actual experiments the Poverty Action Lab has been involved in. There was much more on larger picture topics and brief summaries of experiments and how they contributed to the dialogue on how to address that particular topic within development circles.
That said, it was still a fascinating read and I felt like it's been the best thing I've read to help me catch a vision of what life is like for the international poor- those living on less than $.99 per day. (If you want to shed some light on what life is like for the poor in America, I'd suggest Nickle and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich or Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage by Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas.)
Here's the thing that just drives me crazy when I read about/think about the poor: the little inconveniences and set backs they face. I mean, the little things that can ruin MY day, like not being able to get in to see the doctor that day, or a fee I wasn't expecting, or a price hike on my favorite yogurt, are the kinds of things that determine whether or not the poor get to EAT that day, or whether they'll be able to keep their business open. And those inconveniences are in addition to all the work the poor have to do to make the right choices for their welfare that we take for granted. For instance, they have to chlorinate their own water- every time they want to drink it or cook with it- if you forget, you can get water-borne diseases which can give you diarrhea which kills millions of children every year. They have to make an effort to buy iodized salt. They can't eat fortified cereals every morning, so getting adequate micronutrients is a chore. There's no social welfare program (like social security) to back you up, and banks are essentially inaccessible to the poor. When they can manage to save money, they have to use their (now very limited) supply of self-discipline to not spend it. It's so unfair that it makes my insides wriggle.
However, this book was full of relatively easy, simple, and inexpensive ways to ameliorate those inconveniences. Like putting cheap chlorine dispensers next to the public water source, or subsidizing iodized and iron rich salt, or simple information campaigns with usable information ("Sex with older men is more likely to give you HIV" decreased the number of high school girls who had sex, got pregnant, dropped out of school, and contracted HIV compared with the control group.) Deworming children, at the cost of about $1.50 per child per year, increased their average yearly wage by the 10's of percents.
Banajerjee and Duflo propose focusing on these small forms of assistance and little nudges towards making the right decision rather than trying to find some large-scale magic bullet to eradicate poverty. Let's get this generation a little healthier and a little more educated, and get some simple policies in place and then we'll be a little step higher for the next generation. I found it hard to disagree. They often mention Jeffrey Sachs and his book "The End of Poverty" (which is currently on my bookshelf) as an opposing view. I'm curious to see what Sachs has to say.
Also, here's the word on microcredit, according to Banjerjee and Duflo. It's great for giving small loans to the poor to run small businesses. However, many of these businesses fail because so many of their neighbors go into the same business and there's not enough demand. Microcredit loans do not encourage risk-taking (and bigger businesses mean bigger risks) since most loans have to start to be repaid only a week after taking out the loan, and the other debtors in your lending group don't want you to do anything to jeopardize their ability to make a payment. Microcredit loans aren't usually practical for educational purposes (like a tuition payment) since you may or may not have the money to start paying it back a week later. In studies they did, they found microcredit users purchased more consumer goods, but didn't spend much more on education or health. Essentially, they say, microcredit loans are a way for the poor to ensure they have a job, which is no small thing, and is a useful service, but it's not a cure-all for poverty.
I'll admit I was a little disappointed that the book wasn't as detailed as her lecture on the actual experiments the Poverty Action Lab has been involved in. There was much more on larger picture topics and brief summaries of experiments and how they contributed to the dialogue on how to address that particular topic within development circles.
That said, it was still a fascinating read and I felt like it's been the best thing I've read to help me catch a vision of what life is like for the international poor- those living on less than $.99 per day. (If you want to shed some light on what life is like for the poor in America, I'd suggest Nickle and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich or Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage by Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas.)
Here's the thing that just drives me crazy when I read about/think about the poor: the little inconveniences and set backs they face. I mean, the little things that can ruin MY day, like not being able to get in to see the doctor that day, or a fee I wasn't expecting, or a price hike on my favorite yogurt, are the kinds of things that determine whether or not the poor get to EAT that day, or whether they'll be able to keep their business open. And those inconveniences are in addition to all the work the poor have to do to make the right choices for their welfare that we take for granted. For instance, they have to chlorinate their own water- every time they want to drink it or cook with it- if you forget, you can get water-borne diseases which can give you diarrhea which kills millions of children every year. They have to make an effort to buy iodized salt. They can't eat fortified cereals every morning, so getting adequate micronutrients is a chore. There's no social welfare program (like social security) to back you up, and banks are essentially inaccessible to the poor. When they can manage to save money, they have to use their (now very limited) supply of self-discipline to not spend it. It's so unfair that it makes my insides wriggle.
However, this book was full of relatively easy, simple, and inexpensive ways to ameliorate those inconveniences. Like putting cheap chlorine dispensers next to the public water source, or subsidizing iodized and iron rich salt, or simple information campaigns with usable information ("Sex with older men is more likely to give you HIV" decreased the number of high school girls who had sex, got pregnant, dropped out of school, and contracted HIV compared with the control group.) Deworming children, at the cost of about $1.50 per child per year, increased their average yearly wage by the 10's of percents.
Banajerjee and Duflo propose focusing on these small forms of assistance and little nudges towards making the right decision rather than trying to find some large-scale magic bullet to eradicate poverty. Let's get this generation a little healthier and a little more educated, and get some simple policies in place and then we'll be a little step higher for the next generation. I found it hard to disagree. They often mention Jeffrey Sachs and his book "The End of Poverty" (which is currently on my bookshelf) as an opposing view. I'm curious to see what Sachs has to say.
Also, here's the word on microcredit, according to Banjerjee and Duflo. It's great for giving small loans to the poor to run small businesses. However, many of these businesses fail because so many of their neighbors go into the same business and there's not enough demand. Microcredit loans do not encourage risk-taking (and bigger businesses mean bigger risks) since most loans have to start to be repaid only a week after taking out the loan, and the other debtors in your lending group don't want you to do anything to jeopardize their ability to make a payment. Microcredit loans aren't usually practical for educational purposes (like a tuition payment) since you may or may not have the money to start paying it back a week later. In studies they did, they found microcredit users purchased more consumer goods, but didn't spend much more on education or health. Essentially, they say, microcredit loans are a way for the poor to ensure they have a job, which is no small thing, and is a useful service, but it's not a cure-all for poverty.
July 25, 2014
Banerjee and Duflo have written a great book that aims to see poverty as a “set of concrete problems that, once properly identifed and understood, can be solved one at a time.” Using the best economic and observational evidence (often taken from randomised trials) they build a case for what actually works in helping overcome poverty, taking up the fight against what they argue are the biggest barriers – ignorance, ideology and inertia.
It is thoughtful and rigorous, though possibly slightly too technocratic at times. Occasionally I thought they needed a little more sociologist than economist in them (for example when considering the way people internalise and conform to social expectations) to toughen up their analysis, but over all this is a very welcome addition to development literature.
They draw 5 broad conclusions about poverty and ways to address it:
1) The poor often lack critical pieces of information and believe things that are not true.
2) The poor bear responsibility for too many aspects of their lives. “The richer you are, the more the “right” decisions are made for you.
3) Some markets are missing for the poor, or the poor face unfavourable prices for critical goods.
4) Most program failures are not inevitable, but the result of a flaw, and one or more of ignorance, ideology and inertia.
5) Expectations of what people can and cannot do often end up turning into self-fulfilling prophecies.
Building on 2) above, their take-down of the self-congratulation of the wealthy and concomitant stigmatisation of poor people is outstanding:
They bring their analysis down to specific recommendations about concrete programs that will make a difference in the lives of poor people, such as improving the nutritional yields of foods that people like to eat, increasing access to immunisation, giving away bednets and giving cash transfers (conditional or otherwise).
It's a great read, skewering inappropriate poverty diagnoses and poorly-designed interventions, but offering powerful examples of hope and transformation.
I read it in the same fortnight as Getting Better by Charles Kenney earlier this year and it really works as a great micro-economic companion piece to his macro-economic take on global development and the fight against poverty.
It is thoughtful and rigorous, though possibly slightly too technocratic at times. Occasionally I thought they needed a little more sociologist than economist in them (for example when considering the way people internalise and conform to social expectations) to toughen up their analysis, but over all this is a very welcome addition to development literature.
They draw 5 broad conclusions about poverty and ways to address it:
1) The poor often lack critical pieces of information and believe things that are not true.
2) The poor bear responsibility for too many aspects of their lives. “The richer you are, the more the “right” decisions are made for you.
3) Some markets are missing for the poor, or the poor face unfavourable prices for critical goods.
4) Most program failures are not inevitable, but the result of a flaw, and one or more of ignorance, ideology and inertia.
5) Expectations of what people can and cannot do often end up turning into self-fulfilling prophecies.
Building on 2) above, their take-down of the self-congratulation of the wealthy and concomitant stigmatisation of poor people is outstanding:
Our real advantage comes from many things that we take as given. We live in houses where clean water gets piped in – we do not need to remember to add Chlorin to the water supply every morning. The sewage goes away on its own – we do not actually know how. We can (mostly) trust our doctors to do the best they can and can trust the public health system to figure out what we should and should not do. We have no choice but to get our children immunized – public schools will not take them if they aren’t – and even if we somehow manage to fail to do it, our children will probably be safe because everyone else is immunized. Our health insurers reward us for joining the gym, because they are concerned that we will not do it otherwise. And perhaps most important, we do not have to worry where our next meal will come from. In other words, we rarely need to draw upon our limited endowment of self-control and decisiveness, while the poor are constantly being required to do so. (68)
They bring their analysis down to specific recommendations about concrete programs that will make a difference in the lives of poor people, such as improving the nutritional yields of foods that people like to eat, increasing access to immunisation, giving away bednets and giving cash transfers (conditional or otherwise).
It's a great read, skewering inappropriate poverty diagnoses and poorly-designed interventions, but offering powerful examples of hope and transformation.
I read it in the same fortnight as Getting Better by Charles Kenney earlier this year and it really works as a great micro-economic companion piece to his macro-economic take on global development and the fight against poverty.
July 31, 2021
This is a non-fic about poverty and ways to eradicate it, ones that worked and others that failed. I read is as a part of monthly reading for July 2021 at Non Fiction Book Club group.
The authors, Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, are a couple that won the 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (together with Michael Kremer, among other things making them possibly he youngest economists to win it. Their main research is about different aspects of poverty and possible ways to alleviate it. Their preferred method is randomized control trials (RCTs), a great tool to check whether treatments work, but with some inherent problems – usually a small sample size, difficulties with simple and well-defined alternatives.
The book is split in two parts, first discussing aspects of poverty and the second discussing institutions that can help to get people out of it. Note that most studies were performed in the 1990s or early 2000s (the book is from 2011), so often there is some fresher studies, if anyone is interested.
The first part looks at 4 aspects: hunger, diseases, education and family size. It is great as a critique of simplistic approaches to the subject from either Left (give poor more money, food or goods) or Right (poor deserve what they got; any intervention only worsens). If a majority of recent economic books aimed for a broad readership is left-leaning, this one is surprisingly unbiased.
There follows an interesting piece on each of the aspects:
Poor people may limit own diet to collect money for a TV set, or spend money on festivals – people don’t blindly follow Maslow’s pyramid. Additional money can be spend not on more food but on tasty items
Low vaccination rates maybe due to reasons other that just lack of info or stupidity; even simple tweaks like offering 2 pounds of dal (dried beans, a staple in the area, worth less than half the daily wage earned by working in a public works site) for each immunization and a set of stainless steel plates for completing the course increased the immunization rate in the village where the camps were set up sevenfold (to 38 percent).
Goals for schools often are set to get kids enrolled, not what to teach them. As a result, in Kenya, 27 percent of children in fifth grade could not read a simple paragraph in English, and 23 percent could not read in Kiswahili (the two languages of instruction in primary school), 30 percent could not do basic division. In Pakistan, 80 percent of children in third grade could not read a first-grade-level paragraph. Parents see education primarily as a way for their children to acquire (considerable) wealth. They also tend to believe that the first few years of education pay much less than the next ones, no instead of broad education, they go all-in to get one child to get higher education, while others don’t even get a few years of primary schools.
One issue that immediately arises when we think about fertility choice, however, is whose choice? Women preferences for fertility are quite different from those of men, so when a study provided 836 married women in Zambia, with a voucher guaranteeing free and immediate access to a range of modern contraceptives through a private appointment with a family-planning nurse, where part of women received the voucher in private, others in the presence of their husbands. Compared to cases where husbands were involved, women who were seen alone were 23 percent more likely to visit a family-planning nurse, 38 percent more likely to ask for a relatively concealable form of contraception (injectable contraceptives or contraceptive implants), and 57 percent less likely to report an unwanted birth nine to fourteen months later.
The second part of the book deals with institutions that are opposite to a usual government top-down approach, like micro-credits, voluntary school helpers, and the like.
The authors, Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, are a couple that won the 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (together with Michael Kremer, among other things making them possibly he youngest economists to win it. Their main research is about different aspects of poverty and possible ways to alleviate it. Their preferred method is randomized control trials (RCTs), a great tool to check whether treatments work, but with some inherent problems – usually a small sample size, difficulties with simple and well-defined alternatives.
The book is split in two parts, first discussing aspects of poverty and the second discussing institutions that can help to get people out of it. Note that most studies were performed in the 1990s or early 2000s (the book is from 2011), so often there is some fresher studies, if anyone is interested.
The first part looks at 4 aspects: hunger, diseases, education and family size. It is great as a critique of simplistic approaches to the subject from either Left (give poor more money, food or goods) or Right (poor deserve what they got; any intervention only worsens). If a majority of recent economic books aimed for a broad readership is left-leaning, this one is surprisingly unbiased.
There follows an interesting piece on each of the aspects:
Poor people may limit own diet to collect money for a TV set, or spend money on festivals – people don’t blindly follow Maslow’s pyramid. Additional money can be spend not on more food but on tasty items
Low vaccination rates maybe due to reasons other that just lack of info or stupidity; even simple tweaks like offering 2 pounds of dal (dried beans, a staple in the area, worth less than half the daily wage earned by working in a public works site) for each immunization and a set of stainless steel plates for completing the course increased the immunization rate in the village where the camps were set up sevenfold (to 38 percent).
Goals for schools often are set to get kids enrolled, not what to teach them. As a result, in Kenya, 27 percent of children in fifth grade could not read a simple paragraph in English, and 23 percent could not read in Kiswahili (the two languages of instruction in primary school), 30 percent could not do basic division. In Pakistan, 80 percent of children in third grade could not read a first-grade-level paragraph. Parents see education primarily as a way for their children to acquire (considerable) wealth. They also tend to believe that the first few years of education pay much less than the next ones, no instead of broad education, they go all-in to get one child to get higher education, while others don’t even get a few years of primary schools.
One issue that immediately arises when we think about fertility choice, however, is whose choice? Women preferences for fertility are quite different from those of men, so when a study provided 836 married women in Zambia, with a voucher guaranteeing free and immediate access to a range of modern contraceptives through a private appointment with a family-planning nurse, where part of women received the voucher in private, others in the presence of their husbands. Compared to cases where husbands were involved, women who were seen alone were 23 percent more likely to visit a family-planning nurse, 38 percent more likely to ask for a relatively concealable form of contraception (injectable contraceptives or contraceptive implants), and 57 percent less likely to report an unwanted birth nine to fourteen months later.
The second part of the book deals with institutions that are opposite to a usual government top-down approach, like micro-credits, voluntary school helpers, and the like.
January 30, 2020
I should have read this book long time ago. Nevertheless, it is still an excellent book to reflect on the big picture of the field of development economics for a student like myself and for anyone who wants to work on making policies that try to help the poor. The complex issue of poverty with all its difficulties that the involved agents face requires a thorough investigation in carefully designed experiments rather than using conventional understanding of how economics works in the more privileged parts of the world. I will quote the book itself because this summarizes very well the authors' message: "If we resist the kind of lazy, formulaic thinking that reduces every problem to the same set of general principles; if we listen to poor people themselves and force ourselves to understand the logic of their choices; if we accept the possibility of error and subject every idea, including the most apparently commonsensical ones, to rigorous empirical testing, then we will be able not only to construct a toolbox of effective policies but also to better understand why the poor live the way they do."
Highly recommend for everyone!
Highly recommend for everyone!
June 1, 2013
No this is not about how useless economics had become under the hegemony of the Chicago School of Free Market Fundamentalism. This is about the economics of being poor. And refreshingly instead of focusing on the theories of poverty and the decision making of the poor, it is based on large scale, many country research asking those on less than a $1 a day how they make decisions on how they spend their money, what food to eat, what health care to seek, what education to try to get their children. And not only asking them but also studying what they actually do and the institutional and situational structures that keep them poor. Above all it uncovers just how rational seemingly counter productive behavior is. And I think the book has massive implications for studying poverty in richer countries using the same methodology. It has some interesting solutions but it tends to see incremental, experimental, see if it works approaches and not the grand plans of its just down to Grameen Banks whatever. Read it if you give a shit about the poor.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,994 reviews