Hi all,
This was a week for fury at the dismal state of politics on either side of the pond. In the US, another mass shooting (indeed, two), one targeting children. My twitter feed has been full of enraging and devastating videos and pictures; how on earth is this a political equilibrium? And then you see Twitter take-machines basically saying “yeah, but on the other hand, we’re really, really rich.” In the UK, meanwhile, we’re left with a Government in which the Prime Minister insists that a party in which someone vomited on the walls, a fight broke out and cleaners were (later) abused and insulted was in fact a “work meeting”, and it was perfectly acceptable to hold a boozy leaving do for his colleagues while outlawing funerals of more than six people. What’s worse, the general quality of public policy over the last 24 months renders these revelations totally unsurprising: how else do you explain a Government constantly finding itself astonished by events obvious and predictable several months in advance? Of course, Boris Johnson’s response to breaking the rules is to change the rules, rather than accept the consequences. Leading a country requires both competence and moral quality; indeed, even representing any portion of the electorate does. The observed average quality of politician in both countries could fill a book about negative selection.
1. The US is an exceptional place. As a teenager, the election of black President and the legalisation of gay marriage both seemed inconceivable to me, but such is the American capacity to change that both have happened within just a couple of decades of my teen years; the former not even half a century after the end of segregation. You have to hope that the same capacity to change is applied to the culture around guns. This incredible graph does what words can’t do justice to:
The US is an outlier in so many way; on firearms deaths not a happy one (source). And the fact that guns are the leading cause of mortality in children is so dystopian words fail me. Meanwhile, FiveThirtyEight dig into the data, and it suggests that while support for gun control will likely increase now, it will likely fade out again with time.
2. Pivoting to something a less pessimistic: Planet Money interview Tyler Cowen on how to spot talent. I was having a conversation with a friend about a very famous economist (not Cowen), and I mentioned that I thought one of their best qualities was the ability to spot and nurture talent, completely irrespective of paper qualifications. I do think it’s a real skill, and one we are generally not very good at. And it matters. As Cowen says, “There are estimates that, since 1960, 20- to 40% of the economic growth in this country has come from better allocation of talent.” It ends with the Planet Money crew asking Cowen some of his own favourite job interview questions. (Transcript).
3. I absolutely loved this piece by Tim Harford on the concept of a ‘billable hour’, and the importance of some separation between work and leisure. I haven’t always been good at that (indeed, I write these links while cooking dinner), but he is certainly on to something about the ‘fungibility’ of work time, and the value of deadlines that can’t simply be renegotiated.
4. On to the development stuff: this is a really excellent piece by Tessa Bold and co-authors on the importance of the characteristics of demand to the investments in productivity and quality that suppliers make, applied to agriculture in Uganda. They find that connecting suppliers to a market where higher quality maize attracts a price premium induces an increase in maize quality among farmers connected, with very large effects on profits. When I was at what was then DFID, the (now FCDO) Deputy Chief Economist, Nick Lea used to constantly bang on the importance of tradable goods for development, at least in part for this reason.
5. Also from VoxDev, yet another successful trial of the Targeting the Ultra Poor programme that Matt and I discussed in the first Paper Round, this time in Uganda. The size of the effects are remarkable; what is not (anymore) is that the approach works.
6. David McKenzie’s annual breakdown of the numbers behind academic publishing in development econ journals has dropped and yikes: look at the turnaround times for decisions if a paper has to be reviewed! Most are over 100 days, though if you get rejected before the review stage, your misery might be a little less prolonged.
7. The links end on another sad note: Dervla Murphy, one of my favourite writers (travel or otherwise) has passed away, just a couple of months after her Lunch with the FT (no, I am not going to imply Granger causality here). The FT obit is very good, but the Irish Times one even better, I think. But I think she would be rather disappointed if people only read about her: instead pick up one of her books (I recommend In Ethiopia with a Mule); read about the people she met on her travels. It was her ability to talk to them and get them across on the page without sentimentality that made her so remarkable.
Have a great weekend, everyone!
R
Topics
DISCLAIMER & PERMISSIONS
CGD's publications reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions. You may use and disseminate CGD's publications under these conditions.