Development Reading Roundup: Stiglitz sets the Academic Sandbox Ablaze, Brookings is Decidedly Less Controversial

Submitted by Derek Newberry on September 12, 2006 - 17:05.
Published in:
stiglitzI am forever humbled by the ability of those in academia to engage in and inspire catfights that rival some of the verbal battles I observed tutoring elementary school children last year. Few bring it out worse than Joseph Stiglitz, who recently released his new book Making Globalization Work, the follow-up to his fiery denunciation of the Washington Consensus brand of economic liberalization in Globalization and its Discontents.

Stephen Kotkin of the NY Times wins the award for bad kitty scratch: “If a prize in politics were awarded for self-righteousness, Joseph E. Stiglitz, despite stiff competition, might be near the top of the list.” The Economist jumps into the fray, criticizing Stiglitz for having solid writing but offering vague and unexplained solutions.

I, for one, enjoyed Stiglitz’s last book and I made a point of attending his lecture as a freshman when he came to speak at GWU; although if he is reading this I want to clarify that I fell asleep because of exhaustion after an all-nighter studying econ, not because of his delivery. See his recent Guardian article for a preview of his latest, it should be an interesting, if controversial read.

Perhaps less exciting, but more substantive,brookings Brookings released a report on the role of the private sector in development. This is a roundup of several papers the institute had previously released surrounding a conference exploring various angles of enterprise in development. Having checked out several of the papers, I can say that from what I have seen, this work goes beyond the standard platitudes and sweeping statements about how innovative private sector solutions can reach the underserved, etc, etc, etc and actually discusses real proposals for initiatives that can be taken by governments and financial institutions to make lasting impacts.

The downside is that these papers, unlike Stiglitz’s work, aren’t flamboyant enough to inspire the kind of vitriolic responses that bloggers like myself love to write about… I might have to wait for the next Sachs book.
Derek Newberry's blog | | printer friendly version | 1462 reads
. . . . .
"The Economist" on Stiglitz and global warming
Submitted by _ruddyconsult on September 13, 2006 - 10:15.
I have just read "The Economist" on Stiglitz. The critique portrays his take on global warming as follows: "any nation that does not impose a carbon tax to combat global warming should face tariffs from other countries that do." Contradicting itself in the same printed issue, "The Economist" maintains that one of the unique aspects of the global warming problem is the need to convince all the potential free riders in the world.
reply
Issues with "The Economist"
Submitted by Derek Newberry on September 13, 2006 - 10:42.
Interesting point there- I will say this: I love the Economist for covering a huge span of news globally and doing a better job of discussing the most pressing issues than the US media. However, I do sometimes get annoyed with the amount of loaded opinions they throw into their coverage, some of which they don't take the time to substantially support with more than a few talking points worth of evidence.

One of the consequences of this is, as you point out, it looks bad when a variety of writers are expressing different, sometimes conflicting opinions but writing as a monolithic voice. Plus I hear they have a history of issuing harsh critiques of Stiglitz.
reply
Economist ccommentary
Submitted by Tayo on September 13, 2006 - 12:54.
So funny that you mention the Stiglitz talk at GW. I was at that too. I doubt that I paid close attention to what he said because I was so excited just to be there. In any case, I didn't catch the Economist issue to which you refer, though I really wish I had. Was it a survey item? I suspect that the Economist's survey section sometimes exhibits the contradictions to which you refer. If that's the case, I'm not sure it's a bad thing. Contradiction within a publication that represents an arguably "monolithic" voice suggests that there is more than one valid perspective. Opposing opinions are key characteristics of good debate. That's my 2 cents. In any case, I'll do my best to get a hold of the article.
reply
Globalisation is a fact of life
Submitted by brawcast on September 15, 2006 - 02:33.
I agree wtih Stiglitz (at least, what i've understood from my brief reading here) that the world's nations need to get around the table and face some potentially catostrophic events unless we change the way we manage the planet. But with our global ecological footprint already at 20% overshoot, I really don't see how sustainable growth is achievable. Which leaves one real solution: consume less. So that's where I probably part with Stiglitz.
reply

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Basic HTML tags are accepted.
  • To ensure that you are human, your comment must first be previewed, then posted to the site. Please click "Preview" to see how your comment will look when posted.