I’ve been training, planing, taxi-ing, and busing around Europe for conferences and talks, which turned out to be the perfect amount of time to listen to the twelve podcast episodes. (Free!)
In case you are not sure what I mean, I will do you the favor of telling you very little in advance. No spoilers here. It is a podcast in 12 parts. At first I thought it would be fiction, and wondered what the fuss was about. But it’s basically a 12-episode long version of This American Life. About an actual murder mystery.
My verdict: slightly overhyped, but well done, and well worth listening to on travels or a commute. Far superior to what I watch on flights. Then again, for some reason, the altitude and booze on transatlantic flights make me want to watch Transformers 6. And cry at the ending.
When you finish, you may want to read this article, which summarizes developments since the final episode in December.
There is a chance that news stories about the real case will spoil the whole podcast for you, sometime in 2015. A chance. So I recommend listening sooner rather than later.
Unless of course you’re at 35000 feet, in which case I can’t recommend Transformers 11 enough.
Stephen Fish from Berkeley asks this question in the Washington Post Monkey Cage. The core of his answer:
…the truth is, in the contemporary world, Christians won big. And the frustration and humiliation that Muslims now feel as a result can help explain terrorism. That frustration and humiliation is rooted in politics rather than sex and in modern experience rather than deep history. And it has little to do with the Koran.
I cannot agree more: this helps explain Islamist terrorism, at least in this moment. I believe that humiliation and perceived injustice are much more powerful motivators than many people believe. Though scientific evidence remains elusive.
But I’ll answer Fish’s question in slightly stronger terms: no way. Terror is not Islamist. Terror is a tool, used not only by the weak or humiliated but by the powerful.
We can quibble about definitions, but the big thing to me is the following: it is violence where the intended target is not the person hurt, but the wider audience that identifies with that victim. Terror is a weapon of mass intimidation.
From the Irish Republican Army to the military wing of the African National Congress (of Nelson Mandela fame), terror has usually been a tool of the weak or oppressed.
But look to Robert Mugabe (or any other thuggish dictator who punishes a few opposition supporters to frighten the many). Terror isn’t simple the tool of those out of power.
Colombian Marxists. Italian mafias. Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army. Sierra Leonean rebels. They massacre and beat and mutilate to send messages. The line from acts of war to acts of terror is blurry.
And the United States military? I ask you to consider that the targets of drone strikes are not limited to those blown to smithereens.
Here’s a more extreme version of the same principle. Adopt a rule that no new task can be deferred: if accepted, it must be the new priority. Last come, first served. The immediate consequence is that no project may be taken on unless it’s worth dropping everything to work on it.
Surprisingly often, blog readers tell me they found my own “Just say no” blog post unusually influential. People do not normally go out of their way to say such things, so I notice when they do.
I am pleased to say: four years ago I said “no” to new field projects and new major papers. I stuck to it. As of a couple of months ago, I have no active field projects or people working for me anywhere in the world, other than the research manager who sits beside my office. And that is from a peak of 120 employees two years ago. Color me unstressed and relieved. Also, back spasms of stress not so common anymore. Occupational hazard.
It won’t last. Naturally I am starting new projects. But what I treasure is the time and mental energy that comes from clearing the table of old projects, giving me the time and freedom to be strategic and picky about what I do next, rather than opportunistic. Highly recommended.
An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the country whose army chased Tommy Caldwell’s kidnappers. As the article correctly noted elsewhere, Caldwell was in Kyrgyzstan, not Kyrzbekistan, which does not exist.
Source. Hat tip to the Innovations for Poverty Action communications team.
The letter makes a “big bet”, that technological breakthroughs—especially in vaccines, online education, agricultural extension, and mobile banking—will give the poor unprecedented opportunities.
to preview, my overall grade is a B.
I have three reasons:
- Over-claiming: Making big steps sound like monumental leaps
- Providing solutions that will work best in the countries that will probably grow anyways
- Downplaying the harder barriers these breakthroughs won’t solve
In case you don’t feel like reading the whole long piece, here is the punchline: An ‘A’ grade for “what the world’s richest couple can reasonably do” but a ‘C’ for “delivers on the big bet”.
All the things we want from development–an end to extreme poverty and suffering–is synonymous with political stability, capable states, industry, and financial systems. I can’t see how a country gets from $1000 to $5000 a person (let alone $12000) without them.
The Gates’ priorities–disease eradication, online education, mobile banking, and agricultural inputs–simply don’t attack these fundamental elements of development. They take them for granted. Which means they apply to the countries already bounding ahead.
To their credit, the letter attacks the problems that an outside funder can actually achieve, and what the Gates Foundation does better than almost anyone else. This sounds like exactly what they should do. It’s why I admire them. But let’s not claim that a few new technologies can make unprecedented and fundamental changes in poverty in 15 years. They’ll make little, useful changes. That makes for a humbler, less exciting letter. But I think it’s the right one to write.
Read the full piece. And comments and corrections from the experts welcome.
Specifically, the study found that women whose wedding cost more than $20,000 divorced at a rate roughly 1.6 times higher than women whose wedding cost between $5,000 and $10,000. And couples who spent $1,000 or less on their big day had a lower than average rate of divorce.
Article. As usual, I don’t quibble with causal inference when I prefer to believe the result, whether or not it is true.
I highly recommend our strategy: immediate family only. We had 13 adults and three toddlers, total. Outdoors. Then a nice dinner. The families had never met and it was the last day of a week together. We broke the $1k level, but only barely.
Yes, we would have loved to have our friends. But to get to the third circle (friends you really want to invite) you have traverse the second circle (non-immediate relatives) and reach into the fourth circle (friends you are more ambivalent about seeing).
- Russ Roberts interviews Josh Angrist, king of causality
- Does LaTeX lead to more paper errors than R? (I prefer LyX) (Hat tip to Development Impact blog for the last two)
- AEJ Applied has an astonishingly good special issue devoted to microfinance
- How to avoid sexism in academia, when writing recommendation letters
- The dog that played Toto in The Wizard of Oz was paid a salary higher than the actors who played the Munchkins
- “I’ll have the tabby”: A cafe in NYC allows you to cuddle with house cats
I’m giving some talks next week on some new, not released papers:
- Monday Jan 26, 1230-2pm
- “More sweatshops for Africa? A randomized trial of industrial jobs in Ethiopia”
- Center for Global Development Europe
- Details and registration
- Tuesday Jan 27th, 1-230pm
- “More sweatshops for Africa? A randomized trial of industrial jobs in Ethiopia”
- Oxford University CSAE
- Wednesday Jan 28th, 12.45-2pm
- “Reducing crime and violence: Experimental evidence from behaviour change therapy and cash transfers in Liberia”
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, John Snow Lecture Theatre
No, this is not the beginning of the joke, but rather something more amazing. The black man in question is Daryl Davies, a well-known jazz musician.
Most people in this day and age probably would have turned and ran right out of that good ol’ boy’s bar, but not Davis. He stayed and talked with the Klansman for a long time. “At first, I thought ‘why the hell am I sitting with him?’ but we struck up a friendship and it was music that brought us together,” he says.
That friendship would lead Davis on a path almost unimaginable to most folks. Today, Davis is not only a musician, he is a person who befriends KKK members and, as a result, collects the robes and hoods of Klansmen who choose to leave the organization because of their friendship with him.
- “When Colorado legalized marijuana two years ago, nobody was quite ready for the problem of exploding houses”
- Innovations in trash talk
- Things you will probably only be able to see in NYC: A 24-hour marathon of 24 centuries of American music, sung (continuously) by a drag queen
- “This is what happened in what is probably the world’s first political interview conducted entirely over a service designed largely for its ability to send self-destructing images of your private parts.”
- Economics of Ebola
- When does foreign aid work?
Western societies have worked out internal compromises over time in an endeavour to build durable political societies. …Their thrust is to call a ceasefire in struggles of great historical significance in the name of civility.
…After the Holocaust, Jews were brought into the Western political fold. It became conventional to speak of a Judeo-Christian heritage in the West, when it had been customary to speak of a longstanding conflict between Judaism and Christianity before. So, today the law in many European countries, including France, criminalises Holocaust denial. But no law criminalises the denial of colonial genocide, including widespread colonial massacres in Algeria, the country of origin of the largest number of French Muslims.
The political and social compact in Europe has been evolving historically. The state stepped in to moderate the conflict between ardent Christians and secular Christians. Jews were included in this compact after the Holocaust. Muslims have never been part of this compact. The Muslim minority in Europe is the largest in France, around 10 per cent. In the Mediterranean city of Marseille, it is roughly 30 per cent. It represents the weakest and the most disenfranchised section of French society.
…Of course, it is possible to include Muslims in the social and political compact in France. But that will take a major political, intellectual and cultural struggle. Centers of power – and people – in France will have to accept that it is possible to be French and Muslim, that it is OK for a pious Muslim woman to wear a ‘hijab’, as it is for a Catholic nun – so long as this act of piety does not banish either from participation in the public sphere. In other words, we are talking of a political struggle for meaningful citizenship.
One of the more interesting economics job market papers this year is from Réka Juhász at LSE. In brief, she shows that Britain’s naval blockade of France protected its infant cotton industry from British manufacturing giants, stimulating the French industry for good.
I find that in the short-run regions (départements) in the French Empire which became better protected from trade with the British for exogenous reasons during the Napoleonic Wars (1803-15) increased capacity in a new technology, mechanised cotton spinning, to a larger extent than regions which remained more exposed to trade.
Temporary protection had long term effects. …I first show that the location of cotton spinning within France was persistent, and firms located in regions with higher post-war spinning capacity were more productive 30 years later.
Second, I find that after the restoration of peace, exports of cotton goods from France increased substantially, consistent with evolving comparative advantage in cottons.
Third, I show that as late as 1850, France and Belgium – both part of the French Empire prior to 1815 – had larger cotton spinning industries than other Continental European countries which were not protected from British trade during the wars; this suggests that adoption of the new technology was far from inevitable.
Before you think, “Yes! More temporary protection for infant industries in developing countries!”, I’m reminded of something I was told in grad school (I wish I remember by whom).
Trade protection is like herpes. Once you’ve got it you can never get rid of it.
Juhász found the elusive temporary herpes.
P.S. Coincidentally, I happen to be partway into Sven Beckert’s Empire of Cotton. It is very, very good so far. An early candidate for a best book of the year and essential reading for development economists/political scientists.
P.P.S. If any of you know who said the herpes quote that I would appreciate having my memory corrected. I want to say Rudi Dornbusch, but that’s only because it sounds like the kind of thing he would say.
We study the causal effect of school curricula on students’ stated beliefs and attitudes. We exploit a major textbook reform in China that was rolled out between 2004 and 2010 with the explicit intention of shaping youths’ ideology.
To measure its effect, we present evidence from a novel survey we conducted among 2000 students at Peking University. The sharp, staggered introduction of the new curriculum across provinces allows us to identify the effects of the new educational content in a generalized difference in differences framework.
We examine government documents articulating desired consequences of the reform, and identify changes in textbook content and college entrance exams that reflect the government’s aims.
These changes were often effective: study under the new curriculum is robustly associated with changed views on political participation and democracy in China, increased trust in government officials, and a more skeptical view of free markets.
Before you disapprove: The Chinese are merely fine tuning what the Americans and Europeans have done brilliantly for decades or longer.
The paper, by Cantoni, Chen, Yang, Yuchtman, and Zhang.
The 24-year-old student, Victor Van Rossem, received a friend suggestion on his Facebook for 49-year-old Neal D. Retke, a person Rossem had no connection with besides a mutual acquaintance, the Daily Mail reported.
Van Rossem found Retke interesting after browsing through his photos and thought he had a diverse set of hobbies and likings.
“I became fascinated by him. He had a long beard and looked a little unusual,” Van Rossem told the Daily Mail. “He looked like someone I wanted to meet — a very eccentric person.”
The student sent Retke a message, but the Austin resident didn’t respond. So Van Rossem made the 5,000-mile trip along with a friend to ask him in person if the two men could be friends.
They became friends. Story, including the a documentary they made.
- I thought this Ross Douthat piece on Charlie Hebdo was terrific
- What we learn about infrastructure investment from the history of African railroads
- Morten Jerven makes some great points on the IMF-and-Ebola debate, and I comment
- I just learned that some kind soul (with apparently a lot of time on their hands) made me a Wikipedia page. (No it wasn’t me, though I confess I could not resist editing it a little.) Since the hive mind should probably be doing this, and not me, I encourage my favorite hive people (you) to do your damage. You may be relieved to know that it is flagged for “possibly not a notable academic”, so I’ll enjoy the page while it lasts…
- I’m guessing that Finnish people have a different opinion of America that you expected:
— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) January 8, 2015
Columbia professor Tal Gross in the Washington Post:
Since most students can type very quickly, laptops encourage them to copy down nearly everything said in the classroom. But when students stare at the screen of their laptops, something is lost. The students shift from being intellectuals, listening to one another, to being customer-service representatives, taking down orders. Class is supposed to be a conversation, not an exercise in dictation.
This is not just vague worrying on my part. There’s now good research on the topic. Take, for instance, a recent study by two psychologists, Pam Mueller at Princeton University and Daniel Oppenheimer at UCLA. Mueller and Oppenheimer asked 67 undergraduates to watch videos of lectures. Half the students were randomly assigned to watch the lectures while taking notes on a laptop, while the other students were asked to watch the lectures while taking notes with paper and pen. Afterward, the students were all given an exam. The students who took notes longhand scored much higher on conceptual questions than did the students who used a laptop.
The full post is worth reading.
A couple of years ago, I had the same idea as Gross did. I also thought, “Students know this too. I bet if I raise the issue and let them vote on laptop use, they’ll wisely commit themselves to a laptop ban.”
The results? Laptops 85, Laptop ban 0.
Make that a win for “Chris’s naivete” and a loss for commitment devices.
I’m not teaching this semester, so my big decision will wait for the fall: Am I a democrat or benevolent autocrat? I have yet to decide.
Hat tips to Anna Nazarov and Claire Adida.
That’s the title of my new post on Vox, elaborating my old “advice to undergraduates” page. Number 10 is “Blow your mind”:
At the end of each year of college, you should look back at your thoughts and opinions 12 months before and find them quaint. If not, you probably didn’t read or explore or work hard enough.
I know I’ve succeeded when I read a blog post or paper I wrote a year ago and I see three points I should have made, and one I shouldn’t have. I know I’ve succeeded when I change my opinions because the facts I know changed. Better yet, I really know I’ve succeeded when I can see how a handful of new ideas have reshaped the way I understand the world.
Come to think of it, this is not a bad rule for life after college, too.
In retrospect, this blog has been the perfect commitment device. You people keep me honest.
Yet here I go again, in The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog.
I actually spend one of the 13 weeks of my development class talking about the mistakes of the World Bank and IMF in the 1980s and 1990s. So I’m an unusual defender.
But I don’t think of it so much of it as a defense of the IMF as promoting a particular way of thinking about public finance and development: that poor governments face hard choices, have have deep capacity problems, and that while organizations like the IMF might have made things worse in the past, it doesn’t do to ignore the fundamental problems.
Especially in weak states. If I have one refrain, it’s that you can’t take what you’ve learned in strong states and apply it in fragile ones.
There have been some good points on all sides. This is going to be my last word. An excerpt:
I want to suggest a rule of thumb for any public finance question: When someone suggests “This country should spend more on X”, the most important thing you can ask is the unpleasant accounting question: “Where should that money come from?” More loans? More aid? Less spending on something else? The next thing you should do is take back the point I conceded, and ask whether spending equals results. Because of tradeoffs: money wasted on one thing is money not spent saving lives in other ways. Anything less doesn’t add up, IMF or not.