Gearing up for the G20 summit on April 2, World Bank President Robert Zoellick made a speech this morning in London on the growth outlook for the developing world and what the G20 can do about it. Prospects look dim - newly released forecasts from the World Bank project growth of 2.1 percent in the developing world in 2009.
So what can be done about it? Among many other things, Zoellick has been calling for the creation of a Vulnerability Fund. Rich countries would place 0.7% of any stimulus package into this fund to support social safety net programs, infrastructure, SMEs, and the like in developing countries. This proposal has not gone without criticism - the most scathing (that I am aware of) comes from Bill Easterly:
President Zoellick does mention briefly the critical issue in both the NYT and FT: some “safeguards to ensure that the money is well spent,” which don’t currently exist. In the FT, he makes the inspirational call for an “Age of Responsibility,” but the Responsibility seems to apply only to rich donors, there is nothing about holding the World Bank responsible.
Continue reading "Keynesian multipliers and market economies with a human face" »
Comments (0)
Delicious
E-mail
Facebook
A new collection of articles from Brookings provides policymakers some advice heading into the G20 summit on April 2. One of the articles - Tame Protectionism and Revitalize Trade - urges the G20 leaders to avoid making high-minded but empty commitments to free trade and instead take a defensive posture. Author Paul Blustein argues in particular that leaders need to avoid subsidizing industries that aren't systematically important. Or as he perhaps more colorfully puts it:
...the G-20 needs to...draw a distinction between “mortal” and “venial” sin—promising never to commit the former, while treating the latter as forgivable. To qualify for venial sin treatment, subsidies should meet a series of tests. The two most important are that 1) the industry being subsidized is systemically critical to the national economy, and 2) the subsidy being provided is clearly temporary, and will be withdrawn by a specified time period (say, two years).
Continue reading "Sins of trade protectionism" »
Comments (0)
Delicious
E-mail
Facebook
Some months ago I discussed a paper on the myth of the entrepreneurial middle class. Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, two of the rockstars in the field of evaluation, argued in the paper that what development requires is "good jobs":
A good job is a steady, well-paid job—a job that allows one the mental space needed to do all those things the middle class does well. This is an idea that economists have often resisted, on the grounds that good jobs may be expensive jobs, and expensive jobs might mean fewer jobs. But if good jobs mean that children grow up in an environment where they are able to make the most of their talents, one might start to think that it may all be worth it.
The idea of a "good job" gets more support from a recent article in Seed Magazine by Sendhil Mullainathan, a professor at Harvard. In Poor Decision Making, he argues:
Continue reading "More support for good jobs" »
Comments (1)
Delicious
E-mail
Facebook
Recent comments