Hubbry Logo
Good Economics for Hard TimesGood Economics for Hard TimesMain
Open search
Good Economics for Hard Times
Community hub
Good Economics for Hard Times
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Good Economics for Hard Times
Good Economics for Hard Times
Good Economics for Hard Times
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Good Economics for Hard Times: Better Answers to Our Biggest Problems is a 2019 nonfiction book by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, both professors of economics at MIT. It was published on November 12, 2019 by PublicAffairs (US), Juggernaut Books (India), and Allen Lane (UK). The book draws from recent developments in economics research to argue solutions to the issues facing modern economies and societies around the world, including slowing economic growth, immigration, income inequality, climate change, globalization and technological unemployment.[3] It is their second collaborative book since the publication of their book Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty (2011) and their first since becoming a married couple in 2015. The book's publication comes a month after Banerjee and Duflo were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, shared with Harvard University professor Michael Kremer.[4][5]

Key Information

Summary

[edit]

Banerjee and Duflo draw from recent developments in economics research to argue solutions to the issues facing modern economies and societies around the world, including slowing economic growth, immigration, income inequality, climate change, globalization and technological unemployment. The book argues against the idea that immigrants lower wages and take jobs from native workers. They also argue that people in poverty often make more sound financial decisions than is normally attributed to them.[6]

Publication and promotion

[edit]

In October 2019, Banerjee traveled to India to promote the book, with speaking engagements in the capital of New Delhi and his hometown of Kolkata.[7][8] The trip included a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at his official residence, 7, Lok Kalyan Marg, in New Delhi.[9] Duflo spoke about the book at the London School of Economics on November 5, 2019.[10]

Reception

[edit]

Publishers Weekly praised the book, writing, "Banerjee and Duflo's arguments are original and open-minded and their evidence is clearly presented. Policy makers and lay readers looking for fresh insights into contemporary economic matters will savor this illuminating book."[6]

Kirkus Reviews gave the book a positive review, calling it "Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal."[11]

In his review for The Guardian, Greek economist and politician Yanis Varoufakis praised the book and called it a "methodical deconstruction of fake facts" and an "excellent antidote to the most dangerous forms of economics bashing."[12]

Nicholas Kristof wrote that Banerjee and Duflo "demolish the traditional arguments against higher taxes on the wealthy in an incisive book."[13]

The book has received praise from economists such as William Easterly,[14] Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, Robert Solow, Daron Acemoglu, Pinelopi Goldberg and Raghuram Rajan as well as from legal scholar Cass Sunstein.[3]

Publication history

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Good Economics for Hard Times

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Good Economics for Hard Times is a 2019 book by economists Abhijit V. Banerjee and that employs randomized controlled trials and empirical evidence to examine policy responses to challenges like trade disruptions, , -induced job loss, rising inequality, and . Published by PublicAffairs shortly after the authors received the 2019 in Economic Sciences for advancing experimental methods in , the work extends their rigorous, data-driven approach—initially applied to poverty alleviation in developing countries—to contentious issues in advanced economies. Banerjee and Duflo challenge both optimism and expansive government interventions unsupported by causal evidence, demonstrating through field experiments and meta-analyses that outcomes often defy ideological priors; for instance, they find limited evidence for as a primary driver of stagnation and highlight migration's net economic benefits despite localized fiscal strains. The book has been lauded for promoting "good economics" that prioritizes verifiable causal impacts over theoretical models or political narratives, though critics from macroeconomic traditions argue it underemphasizes aggregate dynamics and systemic incentives.

Authors and Background

Abhijit Banerjee

was born on March 21, 1961, in , , to parents who were both professors of , fostering an early environment steeped in economic discourse. This familial influence, combined with observations of , directed his academic pursuits toward understanding development challenges through rigorous empirical methods rather than abstract theory. Banerjee completed his undergraduate studies at the , earned a master's degree from , and obtained his PhD in from in 1988, where his dissertation focused on economic models of decision-making under uncertainty. He joined the faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1992, rising to the position of Ford Foundation International Professor of Economics, with research emphasizing behavioral influences on economic outcomes and alleviation. In 2003, he co-founded the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) at MIT, an organization dedicated to advancing through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to test interventions aimed at reducing . Banerjee's methodological innovations prioritize RCTs to generate causal evidence on what works in combating global poverty, challenging reliance on untested assumptions in traditional economics. This approach culminated in the 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, shared with Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer, awarded on October 14, 2019, for establishing a new experimental framework that has informed antipoverty programs worldwide by isolating effective interventions from ineffective ones. Prior to this recognition, Banerjee co-authored Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty in 2011, which synthesized RCT findings to argue for targeted, data-driven policies over broad ideological prescriptions in addressing the behaviors and constraints of the poor. These contributions underscore his commitment to empirical rigor, shaped by his Indian roots and academic training, influencing a perspective that favors measurable outcomes over speculative reforms.

Esther Duflo

Esther Duflo was born on October 25, 1972, in , , to French parents—a father and a pediatrician mother—who instilled in her an early interest in addressing through rigorous analysis. She pursued undergraduate studies in history and at the in before arriving at MIT in 1995 as a graduate student, where she earned her PhD in in 1999 under the supervision of , focusing on empirical in developing contexts. Upon completing her , Duflo joined MIT's faculty as an in 1999, rapidly advancing to full professor and establishing herself as a leader in applying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to , a method that emphasized causal identification over correlational assumptions prevalent in prior theoretical models. In 2003, she co-founded the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) with and , serving as co-director to scale global RCT networks that test interventions like programs and , yielding evidence on what causally reduces rather than relying on unverified policy intuitions. Her work navigated institutional skepticism toward field experiments in academia, where traditional macro models dominated, and gender disparities persisted, with women comprising only about 15% of economics faculty at the time; Duflo later noted her path reflected overcoming such underrepresentation through persistent empirical focus. Duflo's contributions culminated in the 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, shared with and , for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty; at age 46, she became the youngest and second woman to receive the , highlighting the empirical rigor of RCTs in isolating intervention effects amid noisy real-world . She married in 2015, formalizing a partnership that had already produced decades of collaborative research on , including joint supervision of students and co-authored studies that prioritized randomized evidence over ideological priors. This union reinforced their shared commitment to causal methods, enabling sustained fieldwork in resource-constrained settings where first-hand challenged prevailing development orthodoxies.

Intellectual and Nobel Context

The development of Good Economics for Hard Times took place amid heightened economic and political turbulence following the global , which exposed significant shortcomings in the profession's ability to anticipate or mitigate systemic risks. Economists faced widespread criticism for failing to predict the crisis's severity, with mainstream models overlooking vulnerabilities in financial leverage and housing markets, leading to debates about the discipline's overreliance on theoretical assumptions rather than robust empirical testing. This period also saw surging , including the UK's referendum on June 23, 2016, and Donald Trump's U.S. presidential election victory on November 8, 2016, which amplified public skepticism toward established economic orthodoxies on , , and inequality. and Duflo, drawing from their microeconomic focus, sought to address these "hard times" by emphasizing data-driven insights over ideological prescriptions, reflecting a broader frustration with ' predictive limitations. A pivotal shift in empirical economics, termed the "credibility revolution" by and Jörn-Steffen Pischke, gained traction in the late 2000s and 2010s, prioritizing causal identification through rigorous designs like randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over correlational analyses prone to confounding factors. This movement responded directly to post-crisis critiques, advocating for methods that better isolate policy effects amid real-world complexities, contrasting with earlier econometric practices criticized for sensitivity to specification choices. and Duflo's research, centered on RCTs to evaluate interventions in alleviation, embodied this evolution, challenging traditional by testing assumptions against experimental evidence rather than unverified models. The book's intellectual framing was amplified by the October 14, 2019, announcement of the in Economic Sciences, awarded jointly to , Duflo, and for their "experimental approach to alleviating global poverty," which validated RCTs as a tool for credible policy evaluation. Published just weeks later on November 12, 2019, the work leveraged this recognition to underscore economics' potential relevance to contemporary crises, positioning empirical rigor as essential for navigating debates on and inequality without succumbing to theoretical overreach or . This timing highlighted ongoing tensions in the field: while micro-empirical methods like those of the laureates advanced causal understanding in targeted domains, macro-level forecasting failures persisted, motivating calls for integrating evidence-based approaches into broader policy discourse.

Publication Details

Writing and Release Timeline

The manuscript for Good Economics for Hard Times was developed by and during 2018 and 2019, a period marked by escalating global economic tensions, including the onset of the U.S.-China trade war in early 2018. This timeframe coincided with growing anticipation surrounding their research contributions, culminating in the announcement on October 14, 2019. The book was released on November 12, 2019, by PublicAffairs in the United States and simultaneously by , an imprint of , in the . The hardcover edition spans 432 pages and carries the 978-1-61039-950-0. Publication occurred less than a month after the Nobel announcement, positioning the book to capitalize on heightened public and academic interest in the authors' evidence-based approach to policy challenges. Initial reception included recognition in lists of notable economics publications for 2019.

Editions, Translations, and Promotion

The book was initially released in hardcover on November 12, 2019, by PublicAffairs in the United States. A paperback edition followed on August 10, 2021. No major revised editions have been issued as of 2025. By 2020, the book had been translated into more than 17 languages to facilitate its global dissemination. An audiobook version, narrated by James Lurie, was also produced and made available through platforms such as Audible. Promotion efforts included endorsements from prominent figures, such as , who reviewed the book positively on his Gates Notes platform in late 2019. The authors leveraged their 2019 in Economics for visibility, with public events including lectures at institutions like the London School of Economics in 2020 and 2024, and an open forum at the in December 2019. These activities, alongside media appearances tied to the Nobel, supported outreach in the United States, Europe, and the authors' native regions of and .

Methodological Framework

Reliance on Randomized Controlled Trials

and Duflo position randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the foundational methodological tool for addressing questions, adapting the "gold standard" approach from to through of treatments to isolate causal effects. This method, pioneered in their work at the Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), enables rigorous testing of interventions by comparing outcomes in treatment and control groups, thereby minimizing and factors that plague observational studies. In Good Economics for Hard Times, they emphasize RCTs' role in shifting from theoretical models to empirical validation of "what works" in real-world settings. The primary advantage of RCTs lies in their capacity for : by randomly allocating participants, they eliminate and allow economists to attribute observed differences directly to the intervention, rather than relying on correlations that may reflect underlying trends or self-selection. For instance, J-PAL-affiliated RCTs on , such as the 2010 Spandana experiment in involving over 16,000 households, demonstrated that access to increased borrowing but yielded no significant gains in consumption, business profits, or , challenging prior assumptions of transformative impacts. This empirical rigor prioritizes evidence over ideological priors, fostering policies grounded in measurable outcomes. While RCTs excel at micro-level questions, and Duflo extend their framework to macroeconomic issues through field experiments and natural experiments that mimic , such as visa lotteries or policy discontinuities, to approximate causal estimates on topics like effects. These adaptations maintain the emphasis on while addressing the infeasibility of fully randomizing large-scale policies. The authors acknowledge key limitations of RCTs, including challenges in —where effects observed in small trials may not persist at national levels due to generalizability issues—and ethical constraints, such as the difficulty of withholding potentially beneficial treatments from control groups or ensuring equitable in sensitive contexts. Short-term focus can also overlook long-run dynamics, prompting calls for complementary methods like structural modeling to assess broader applicability. Despite these, and Duflo argue that RCTs' transparency and replicability outweigh alternatives, provided results inform iterative policy design rather than dogmatic application.

Contrast with Theoretical and Ideological Approaches

and Duflo position their framework against economics dominated by untested theoretical models and ideological priors, arguing that such approaches often fail to grapple with real-world complexities. They contend that reliance on a priori assumptions—such as the inherent efficiency of markets or the inevitable wastefulness of —has repeatedly led to predictive errors, exemplified by the profession's widespread failure to foresee the , where models assuming rational actors and efficient markets overlooked systemic risks. This critique underscores their preference for empirical validation over deductive reasoning, insisting that intuitions must be rigorously tested to avoid inherent in ideological commitments. In place of sweeping theoretical constructs, the authors advocate an economics akin to "," focused on diagnosing and repairing specific mechanisms through detailed, evidence-based interventions rather than erecting grand architectures of universal laws. This highlights their view that economic problems demand tinkering with practical details—such as understanding behavioral frictions or institutional incentives—over abstract narratives that prioritize elegance at the expense of accuracy. By emphasizing randomized controlled trials and observational data to overturn entrenched beliefs, like the presumed dependency fostered by , they demonstrate how empirical scrutiny can refine or discard prior convictions, fostering policies grounded in causal evidence rather than doctrinal faith. Their approach implicitly challenges both neoliberal optimism, which presumes self-correcting markets without sufficient safeguards, and socialist inclinations toward expansive state control absent proven efficacy, advocating instead a data-driven that evaluates interventions on measurable outcomes. This balanced avoids ideological extremes, prioritizing causal mechanisms revealed through experimentation over partisan narratives that prioritize moral or theoretical purity. Such positioning reflects a broader call for economists to engage pressing issues like inequality and not through preconceived blueprints, but via iterative testing that acknowledges the limits of theory in capturing human behavior's nuances.

Core Content and Arguments

Thesis on Evidence-Based Policy

In Good Economics for Hard Times, and advance the thesis that economic policymaking must prioritize verifiable evidence from rigorous —such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs)—over reliance on , ideological priors, or political imperatives to effectively tackle pressing challenges like inequality and migration. They argue that "good starts with troubling facts, makes some guesses based on what we already know... [and] uses data to test those guesses," enabling policymakers to identify targeted interventions that deliver incremental, causal improvements rather than pursuing unproven wholesale transformations. This framework reveals complexities often overlooked by theoretical models or partisan agendas, such as persistent labor market frictions or modest aggregate (equivalent to 2.5% of U.S. GDP), which demand nuanced, data-informed responses. A key observation is the "stickiness" of beliefs, whereby individuals and institutions cling to entrenched views despite exposure to disconfirming evidence; for instance, informational campaigns on facts left public opinions largely unaltered, with skepticism toward trade benefits persisting amid economic consensus against tariffs. and Duflo attribute this to mechanisms like echo chambers, repeated (e.g., pro-Trump false stories garnering 30 million views pre-2016), and low trust in experts (25% for economists versus 5% for politicians in U.S. and U.K. surveys). Consequently, they stress the responsibility of economists to bridge this gap through clear, accessible communication that integrates scientific rigor with relatable narratives, avoiding stridency to enhance policy uptake. The authors maintain an optimistic outlook, countering widespread pessimism by highlighting evidence of progress, such as RCTs demonstrating feasible poverty alleviation and health gains, to affirm that "good economics" can yield humane advancements even absent macroeconomic miracles. They wrote the book "to hold on to hope," reminding readers of empirical successes while critiquing intuition-led missteps, like overly optimistic engineering projections for energy efficiency that RCTs showed to underperform (10-20% savings versus predictions). Structurally, the work weaves anecdotes from field experiences with data analyses and policy refinements to exemplify this evidence-centric method, fostering a "least strident" yet hard-headed approach to informing debate without prescriptive overreach.

Immigration and Migration Effects

In Good Economics for Hard Times, and Duflo examine through randomized and quasi-experimental evidence, arguing that migrants often fill labor shortages and contribute to without substantially harming native wages, though effects vary by migrant levels and host-country institutions. They emphasize that blanket restrictions overlook these benefits, while selective policies targeting skilled inflows can maximize gains, even as low-skilled migration poses fiscal challenges in generous welfare systems. Empirical studies confirm immigrants enhance , with foreign-born inventors accounting for approximately 23% of U.S. patents from 1990 to 2016, exceeding their 16% share of inventors, driven by higher patenting rates among skilled migrants. A one-percentage-point increase in immigrant graduates correlates with 9-18% higher patents , as immigrants patent at roughly double the native rate. In the U.S. H-1B program, which admits high-skilled workers, reduced labor costs from visa holders spurred sector growth, , and overall productivity gains. Meta-analyses of immigration's wage impacts on natives find negligible average effects, centered near zero, with heterogeneity by and but no systematic depression for most workers. Immigrants frequently complement native labor, filling gaps in sectors like and tech, thereby supporting rather than displacing it en masse. Short-term fiscal costs arise, particularly from low-skilled inflows in welfare states, where such immigrants impose net lifetime drains—estimated at tens of thousands per person—due to higher benefit usage outweighing contributions initially. High-skilled migrants, however, yield positive fiscal impacts over time. European studies highlight integration hurdles, with initial public spending surges (0.2-1% of GDP) and slow labor market entry, yet long-term growth potential if policies promote skills and . Second-generation immigrants show strong assimilation, with U.S. data indicating earnings trajectories converging to or surpassing natives, alongside higher intergenerational mobility—children of low-income immigrants advancing 5-6 points more than comparable natives. and Duflo advocate against broad bans, favoring evidence-driven reforms like expanded skilled visas to harness these dynamics while mitigating welfare strains through targeted screening.

Trade, Globalization, and Protectionism

Banerjee and Duflo argue that international trade generates net economic benefits through specialization and comparative advantage, increasing global welfare and national income, with gains estimated at approximately 2.5% of GDP for large economies like the United States. However, these benefits are not uniformly distributed, creating concentrated losers among workers in import-competing industries, which fuels populist backlashes against globalization. The authors emphasize empirical evidence showing that while aggregate growth occurs, localized disruptions persist without adequate policy responses, challenging the assumption that market forces alone facilitate smooth adjustment. A prominent example cited is the "China shock," where China's manufacturing export share rose from 2.3% in 1991 to 18.8% by 2013 following its 2001 World Trade Organization entry, leading to 2–2.4 million U.S. manufacturing job losses by 2015, particularly in commuting zones exposed to Chinese competition. Studies by Autor, Dorn, and Hanson document these effects, including wage reductions of about $549 per adult in affected areas and elevated social costs such as increased disability claims, with limited reallocation to other sectors due to geographic immobility and skill mismatches. Similar patterns emerged in India after 1990s liberalization, where poverty rose in rural districts dependent on local production. Despite these pains, the authors note that overall U.S. employment recovered through growth in other areas, underscoring that while trade causes sectoral shifts, it does not reduce total jobs economy-wide. Existing adjustment mechanisms, such as U.S. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs, have largely failed, delivering minimal benefits like only 23 cents per affected adult and proving ineffective for older workers who often shift to rather than retraining. and Duflo critique the inadequacy of such underfunded efforts, advocating instead for comprehensive safety nets including generous unemployment insurance, portable healthcare, childcare subsidies, housing mobility support, and even experiments to cushion displaced workers without resorting to . Protectionist measures like tariffs are dismissed as counterproductive, citing historical precedents such as the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act and recent 2018 U.S. steel and aluminum duties, which 65% of surveyed economists opposed for raising consumer costs and harming exporters (e.g., 16% of U.S. agricultural exports valued at $140 billion went to China in 2017). While acknowledging the WTO's role in poverty reduction through expanded trade, the authors stress that globalization exacerbates inequality—evident in rising top income shares (U.S. top 10% at 41% by 2015, up from 27% in 1978; India's top 1% at 21.3%)—and does not self-correct via wage equalization or mobility, necessitating complementary fiscal policies like progressive taxation and active labor market interventions to sustain public support for open trade.

Automation, Jobs, and Inequality

and Duflo assess automation's labor market effects by reviewing , arguing that while technological advances have displaced specific tasks, they have historically generated new opportunities rather than causing net job destruction. They highlight the introduction of automated teller machines (ATMs) during the and , which expanded bank branch networks by reducing fixed costs and shifted teller roles toward advisory services, resulting in teller rising from approximately 500,000 in 1985 to over 1 million by the early 2000s despite predictions of widespread redundancy. This pattern, they contend, suggests that and may similarly complement human labor in unforeseen ways, though the pace of recent innovations raises risks of transitional disruptions. The authors emphasize skill-biased technological change as a primary driver of inequality, where automation augments high-skill tasks while automating routine ones, thereby increasing demand for educated workers and widening wage gaps independent of globalization. Empirical data indicate that the U.S. college wage premium grew from about 40% in 1980 to over 65% by 2016, correlating with technological adoption in sectors like manufacturing and services rather than trade shocks alone. They attribute much of the U.S. manufacturing employment decline—from 19.5 million jobs in 1979 to 12.4 million by 2016—primarily to productivity-enhancing automation, estimating that technological factors accounted for 75-85% of losses, with Chinese import competition contributing only modestly to aggregate unemployment as displaced workers shifted sectors. Regarding policy responses, and Duflo advocate investments in and targeted retraining to address skill mismatches, warning that (UBI) remains untested at national scales in advanced economies and may fail to incentivize adaptation to evolving job demands. Small-scale pilots, such as those in (2017-2018) providing €560 monthly to 2,000 unemployed individuals, showed minimal employment effects and no clear path to scalability amid fiscal constraints. In contrast, they favor evidence-based expansions of vocational programs, citing randomized evaluations demonstrating that subsidized training can boost long-term earnings for low-skill workers by 10-20% without significant deadweight costs. This approach, they argue, aligns with causal evidence on human capital's role in mitigating automation's polarizing effects, prioritizing adaptability over unproven redistribution mechanisms.

Climate Change Responses

Banerjee and Duflo recognize anthropogenic global warming as a real phenomenon driven primarily by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, with atmospheric CO2 levels reaching 415 parts per million in 2019, up from pre-industrial levels of about 280 ppm, contributing to an observed temperature increase of approximately 1.1°C since the late 19th century. However, they contend that many integrated assessment models underpinning apocalyptic forecasts overestimate damages by neglecting historical evidence of human adaptation to environmental stresses and underappreciating potential technological breakthroughs, such as advanced nuclear power or genetically engineered crops that enhance agricultural resilience without high emissions. Empirical data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on renewable energy subsidies in developing contexts reveal mixed results, with adoption rates often low due to high upfront costs and unreliable supply, suggesting that mandates or blanket incentives inefficiently allocate resources without spurring genuine innovation. The authors advocate for carbon pricing mechanisms, such as a revenue-neutral starting at levels equivalent to $40–$50 per ton of CO2 in high-emission economies, as a cost-effective way to internalize externalities and incentivize emission reductions, with revenues redirected toward adaptation funds or lump-sum rebates to mitigate regressive impacts on low- households. This approach contrasts with comprehensive regulatory overhauls like expansive "green deals," which they critique as politically driven and economically burdensome, potentially costing trillions in GDP without proportional global emission cuts, given historical correlations between and CO2 output in developing nations where emissions remain below 2 tons annually versus over 15 tons in the U.S. For the global poor, who face disproportionate risks despite contributing minimally to emissions—accounting for less than 10% of cumulative CO2 since 1850— and Duflo prioritize fostering to build resilience, as evidenced by studies showing that a 10% increase correlates with 7–9% higher capacity for disaster recovery investments like flood-resistant . Regulatory barriers exacerbate underutilization of low-carbon technologies; for instance, stringent safety and environmental reviews have delayed nuclear deployment despite its near-zero operational emissions and reliability, with global capacity stagnating at around 370 gigawatts since 2010 while coal-fired plants continue expanding in . Similarly, opposition to , often rooted in non-scientific concerns, limits yield improvements that could reduce land use and emissions from , where RCTs in and demonstrate 20–30% productivity gains from drought-resistant varieties without increased pesticide needs. Optimal policy thus integrates mitigation via incentives with adaptation strategies, avoiding zero-growth decarbonization mandates that could entrench in emission-poor but vulnerability-high regions.

Role of State Intervention

In cases of market failures, such as information asymmetries in healthcare, where individuals lack knowledge to make optimal decisions, state intervention can improve outcomes through targeted mechanisms like subsidies or informational campaigns. and Duflo highlight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that conditional cash transfers—payments contingent on behaviors like school attendance or vaccinations—effectively increase investments among the poor, with studies in programs like Mexico's Progresa showing sustained gains in and . Unconditional cash transfers, by contrast, have been found to spur by alleviating credit constraints for low-income individuals, who often possess untapped business ideas but face borrowing barriers; evidence from RCTs in indicates recipients invest in small enterprises, leading to higher incomes without reducing work effort. Competitive markets generally allocate resources efficiently, as evidenced by price signals guiding production in sectors with low , yet empirical data reveals that monopolies and concentrated erode these benefits by stifling and inflating prices. and Duflo cite studies showing reduced correlates with slower growth and higher consumer costs, advocating for antitrust enforcement to restore market dynamics rather than pervasive regulation. However, the authors caution against expansive state overreach, noting that bureaucratic implementation often introduces distortions and inefficiencies, as seen in complex welfare programs prone to capture or misallocation. They favor scalable, pilot-tested interventions—like direct transfers over intricate schemes—to minimize such risks, emphasizing that evidence consistently supports simple tools addressing specific failures without supplanting market incentives.

Reception

Positive Assessments

Bill Gates praised Good Economics for Hard Times in May 2020 for addressing solvable global challenges such as inequality and , describing the authors as "two brilliant economists" whose work complements narratives on growing up poor by emphasizing actionable evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). He highlighted the book's focus on empirical insights into issues like and , noting its potential to inform practical interventions amid economic uncertainty. Reviews from financial and academic institutions commended the book's empirical foundation and ability to bridge ideological divides with data-driven conclusions. A assessment in November 2019 lauded its expansion of RCT methodologies to broader policy domains, arguing that cutting-edge economic research provides reliable guidance on contentious topics like and migration, countering simplistic narratives. Similarly, an IMF & Development review by in March 2020 appreciated its rigorous synthesis of micro-level evidence to tackle macroeconomic debates, praising the accessibility that makes complex findings usable for policymakers. Academic and media outlets recognized the volume's contributions to evidence-based economics. A review in November 2020 described it as advancing the "new development economics" paradigm through Banerjee and Duflo's RCT expertise, offering nuanced, probability-weighted answers to hard problems like climate and inequality rather than ideological certainties. in November 2019 called it a "masterly tour" of contemporary on challenges, valuing its rejection of both market and unchecked interventionism in favor of tested approaches. The book's empirical emphasis and clear prose contributed to its commercial success, achieving bestseller status on lists including and the in late 2019.

Mixed and Negative Reviews

The Kirkus review praised the book's evidence-based arguments but noted it as "occasionally wonky," indicating that technical discussions on topics like and can feel dense and less engaging for non-expert readers. and Duflo advocate for "smarter, more politically aware " to navigate hard times, implicitly recognizing that randomized evidence, while robust, often encounters resistance in polarized debates over , inequality, and , potentially tempering the feasibility of their proposed interventions. Post-publication reflections, including amid the , have highlighted limitations in extrapolating micro-level findings to abrupt macroeconomic shocks, as unforeseen events like global lockdowns challenged assumptions about labor markets and state responses that the book analyzes through controlled studies.

Criticisms and Debates

Overemphasis on Micro-Empirics

Critics argue that the (RCT) methodology championed by and Duflo, while effective for isolating narrow causal effects at the micro level, inadequately addresses macroeconomic and systemic dynamics central to "hard times" challenges like shocks or inequality. RCTs typically evaluate small-scale interventions under controlled conditions, but scaling them up introduces general equilibrium effects—such as market distortions from widespread —that reverse or nullify pilot outcomes. For instance, agricultural RCTs showing yield boosts from subsidies often overlook how national rollout floods markets, depressing prices and harming non-subsidized farmers. External validity remains a core limitation, as RCT designs prioritize through in lab-like settings, sidelining political, cultural, and institutional feedbacks that shape real-world . A of development RCTs published in top journals from 2009–2014 found that most neglected representativeness across sites, units, or outcomes, undermining applicability to diverse national contexts. In and Duflo's framework, this micro-focus risks overconfidence in findings that fail under broader implementation, where incentives for or evasion—unmodeled in trials—emerge prominently. Empirical evidence underscores these scaling failures, particularly in , where RCTs initially suggested modest income gains from small loans, fueling global expansion. Yet, when scaled nationally, such programs triggered debt bubbles and over-indebtedness crises, as seen in India's 2010 meltdown, where repayment rates plummeted amid aggressive lending and household saturation effects absent in pilots. RCTs struggled to forecast these dynamics, revealing their inadequacy for systemic risk assessment. Proponents of alternatives advocate integrating RCTs with structural economic modeling, where theory-derived frameworks are stress-tested against to capture equilibrium interactions, rather than relying solely on fragmented experiments. This hybrid approach, drawing from macroeconometrics, better accommodates causal realism by simulating policy spillovers and feedbacks, addressing RCT blind spots without discarding empirical rigor.

Neglect of Broader Economic Theory

Critics of Good Economics for Hard Times contend that its prioritization of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and micro-level empirical data marginalizes core economic principles, including incentive structures and dynamic market processes. and Duflo's methodology, while rigorous in isolating causal impacts of specific interventions, treats economic systems as amenable to piecemeal testing akin to clinical trials, potentially overlooking how policies alter behaviors through distorted incentives—such as reduced private savings or innovation when public programs crowd out voluntary actions. This approach risks confirming by selecting interventions that "work" in controlled settings without probing underlying mechanisms or long-term distortions. A key objection centers on the neglect of general equilibrium effects, where RCT findings fail to anticipate spillovers or feedback loops in scaled implementations; for example, subsidizing one group's access to resources may raise prices or diminish supply for others, effects invisible in isolated trials. has argued that such empirics, by focusing on narrow "what works" questions, divert attention from macro-level systemic factors like institutional incentives that shape traps or inequality, rendering the book's policy insights brittle outside experimental confines. Similarly, emphasizes that data interpretation demands theoretical priors to navigate interdependencies—such as how education subsidies interact with labor markets—lest empiricists cherry-pick supportive evidence while ignoring contradictory patterns. From perspectives aligned with Austrian economics, the book's dismissal of non-empirical baselines exacerbates this shortfall, as RCTs cannot falsify the efficacy of outcomes in complex, adaptive systems where harnesses beyond planners' grasp. Proponents of this view, invoking F.A. Hayek's critique of socialist calculation, assert that targeted fixes presume a in measuring dispersed, subjective information that markets spontaneously coordinate via prices, a process untestable through aggregated data. Empirical gaps extend to unquantifiable elements like cultural norms or moral hazards fueling inequality, which RCTs sideline in favor of observable metrics, thus understating markets' decentralized error-correction relative to interventionist overreach.

Policy Prescriptions and Ideological Bias

Critics have argued that the policy recommendations in Good Economics for Hard Times exhibit a left-leaning ideological tilt, favoring government intervention and progressive priorities such as expanded , redistribution through welfare expansion, and subsidized climate measures, often by selectively emphasizing empirical studies that align with these views while downplaying countervailing evidence on fiscal, cultural, and incentive costs. and Duflo advocate for liberalizing policies, citing randomized evaluations and observational data indicating minimal negative wage impacts on native low-skilled workers from even large inflows of migrants, and asserting broad economic gains from increased labor supply. However, this stance has been critiqued for overlooking assimilation challenges and non-economic costs, including elevated rates linked to certain migrant cohorts in ; for instance, causal analyses of large refugee inflows in from 2015–2016 found no immediate crime increase but a detectable rise in overall rates one year later, particularly in property and violent offenses, attributable to demographics like young male from high-crime-origin countries. Similarly, studies of asylum seeker waves in the late 1990s and 2000s identified higher propensity among refugees compared to economic migrants, suggesting that the book's focus on aggregate economic metrics neglects causal links between rapid, unvetted inflows and public safety strains, which empirical data from and other nations corroborate through overrepresentation of foreign-born individuals in post-2010. On redistribution, Banerjee and Duflo downplay work disincentives, drawing on micro-empirical findings to argue that safety nets like cash transfers do not substantially reduce labor supply and can boost via reduced traps, proposing reforms to universalize benefits while maintaining incentives. Critics contend this reflects cherry-picking of randomized trials, which often capture short-term effects in controlled settings but ignore longer-term behavioral responses; experimental demonstrates that imposed redistribution—such as progressive taxation funding transfers—creates measurable disincentives to effort, with participants in real-effort tasks reducing output by 10–20% when facing high marginal tax rates and redistribution, an effect attenuated but not eliminated even under democratic consent mechanisms. In the U.S. context, fiscal analyses reveal that expansive redistribution via means-tested programs imposes effective marginal tax rates exceeding 70% for low-income households, correlating with persistent non-participation in labor markets and welfare cliffs that discourage upward mobility, costs the book arguably underweights in favor of equity gains. Regarding climate policy, the authors endorse carbon pricing and targeted public investments in and , informed by cost-benefit evaluations of interventions like subsidies for renewables, while acknowledging uncertainty in long-term projections. This approach has drawn fire for undervaluing market-driven innovation and scalable low-carbon options like , which empirical assessments show could abate emissions at lower lifecycle costs than intermittent renewables when factoring in storage and reliability; for example, France's nuclear fleet since the 1970s has achieved per-capita emissions 50% below Germany's despite similar industrialization, highlighting how regulatory hurdles and biases—often amplified in academic policy circles—stifle dispatchable baseload sources in favor of politically favored but empirically costlier paths. Such prescriptions, per detractors, embody a progressive optimism that privileges interventionist fixes over evidence of dynamism in transitions, potentially inflating fiscal burdens without proportional emissions reductions. Overall, these critiques posit that the book's empirical rigor, while advancing micro-level insights, succumbs to institutional biases in toward state-centric solutions, normalizing assumptions of benign action amid hard trade-offs.

Impact and Legacy

Influence on Policy Discussions

and Duflo's advocacy for unconditional cash transfers, grounded in randomized controlled trials demonstrating their effectiveness in alleviating immediate hardship without disincentivizing work, informed public discourse during the early response in the United States. In April 2020, Duflo emphasized direct payments to low-income households as a rapid mechanism to sustain consumption and prevent economic contraction, aligning with empirical evidence from prior experiments in developing contexts. This perspective contributed to the inclusion of one-time $1,200 payments per adult in the signed on March 27, 2020, marking a shift from pre-pandemic skepticism toward broader acceptance of transfers as stabilizers, with subsequent rounds in December 2020 and March 2021 totaling over $800 billion in direct aid. Globally, the book's emphasis on scalable, evidence-tested interventions spurred expansions in J-PAL's policy engagements, particularly in addressing inequality and vulnerabilities post-2019. J-PAL North America's Evidence for Climate Action , initiated to evaluate equitable mitigation strategies, drew on the randomized evaluation framework Banerjee and Duflo championed, influencing partnerships with governments on targeted subsidies and adaptation measures for low-income populations. By 2022, J-PAL had scaled initiatives in over 80 countries, incorporating lessons from the book on integrating micro-empirical findings into macro-policy for inequality reduction, such as conditional transfers linked to and health outcomes. In policy debates, the work reinforced empiricist arguments for pragmatic reforms over ideological extremes, particularly in and migration discussions amid post-COVID recovery efforts. Referenced in analyses of recovery frameworks, such as the World Economic Forum's 2020 Dashboard for a , the book's findings on targeted aid's role in boosting resilience without fueling supported centrist proposals for phased, data-driven fiscal support through 2025. This helped counter populist demands for by highlighting evidence that conditional openness with safety nets sustains growth, as seen in recovery plans emphasizing evidence-based labor market interventions.

Academic and Broader Economic Discourse

The publication of Good Economics for Hard Times in 2019 further solidified the dominance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in , extending and Duflo's experimental methodology—recognized by the committee as having "entirely" transformed the field—to broader policy domains such as and migration. This reinforcement encouraged replications of RCT designs in evaluating interventions, with subsequent research building on the book's synthesis of over 100 studies to test causal mechanisms in real-world settings. However, methodological debates persist, as critics contend that while RCTs excel at micro-level identification, their external validity diminishes when applied to macroeconomic aggregates, potentially overstating generalizability without complementary theoretical frameworks. In post-Nobel academic discourse, the book challenged prevailing macroeconomic complacency by prioritizing granular over stylized models, influencing a wave of that integrates micro-data into analyses of growth and inequality since . This legacy is evident in expanded empirical scrutiny of development policies, where the authors' insistence on "testing before leaping" has spurred hybrid approaches combining experiments with structural modeling. Yet, some economists argue this empiricist tilt risks neglecting foundational theory, echoing broader tensions in the profession between data-driven and theory-led grand narratives. Beyond academia, the book popularized a distinction between "good economics"—rooted in verifiable —and ideologically motivated assertions, framing economic as a tool for dispelling myths on issues like automation's labor impacts. Its enduring relevance persists into 2025, as ongoing discussions of technological disruption and inequality continue to reference its call for cautious, evidence-based responses amid evolving global challenges.

References

  1. https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/abhijit-v-banerjee/good-economics-for-hard-times/9781549152627/
  2. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2020/03/book-review-of-good-economics-for-hard-times-by-abhijit-banerjee-and-esther-duflo-dervi
  3. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/press-release/
  4. https://www.gatesnotes.com/good-economics-for-hard-times
  5. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/banerjee/facts/
  6. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/banerjee/biographical/
  7. https://economics.mit.edu/people/faculty/abhijit-banerjee/short-bio
  8. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/person/banerjee
  9. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/summary/
  10. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/duflo/biographical/
  11. https://economics.mit.edu/people/faculty/esther-duflo
  12. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/person/duflo
  13. https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghanmccormick/2019/10/19/what-does-esther-duflos-nobel-prize-mean-for-gender-equity-in-economics/
  14. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/duflo/facts/
  15. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/11/should-economists-have-foreseen-the-financial-crisis/
  16. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/12/why-economic-models-have-never-been-able-to-predict-a-downturn
  17. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15794/w15794.pdf
  18. https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/Fri_1530_PerezQuiros_July.pdf
  19. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.24.2.3
  20. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/54195
  21. https://news.mit.edu/2019/esther-duflo-abhijit-banerjee-win-2019-nobel-prize-economics-1014
  22. https://www.amazon.com/Good-Economics-Times-Abhijit-Banerjee/dp/1610399501
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1572308922000158
  24. https://gdsnet.org/BanerjeeandDufloGoodEconomicsforHardtimes2019.pdf
  25. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-Economics-Hard-Times-Problems/dp/0241306892
  26. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/good-economics-for-hard-times-abhijit-v-banerjee/1132104095
  27. https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/presci/v99y2020i5p1509-1511.html
  28. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/good-timing-great-economists
  29. https://businesslibrary.uflib.ufl.edu/2019bks
  30. https://www.mcnallyjackson.com/book/9781541788947
  31. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2020/10/unsw-s-wallace-wurth-lecture--good-economics-for-hard-times
  32. https://www.audible.ca/pd/Good-Economics-for-Hard-Times-Audiobook/B07ZWHFTSM
  33. https://www.gatesnotes.com/personal/economics/reader/good-economics-for-hard-times
  34. https://www.lse.ac.uk/events/good-economics-for-hard-times
  35. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/12/03/sp120219-open-forum-good-economics-for-hard-times
  36. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2020/11/23/book-review-good-economics-for-hard-times-better-answers-to-our-biggest-problems-by-abhijit-v-banerjee-and-esther-duflo/
  37. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2019/10/advanced-economicsciencesprize2019.pdf
  38. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/policy-insight/microcredit-impacts-and-promising-innovations
  39. https://www.nber.org/papers/w22392
  40. https://www.nber.org/papers/w24670
  41. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2019/html/ecb.sp191128~9216194199.en.html
  42. https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/12/05/economics-as-a-social-science/
  43. https://lotzintranslation.com/2020/08/06/review-good-economics-for-hard-times/
  44. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2020/06/MIT-poverty-fighters-abhijit-banerjee-and-esther-duflo
  45. https://www.aibrary.ai/podcasts/good-economics-for-hard-times/summary-good-economics-for-hard-times-3
  46. https://www.thehindu.com/books/books-reviews/good-economics-for-hard-times-better-answers-to-our-biggest-problems-review-have-plumbers-need-architect/article31247920.ece
  47. https://www.wsj.com/articles/good-economics-for-hard-times-review-sticky-markets-tricky-solutions-11574021736
  48. https://news.mit.edu/2019/good-economics-hard-times-1112
  49. https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/abhijit-v-banerjee/good-economics-for-hard-times/9781541762879/
  50. https://sobrief.com/books/good-economics-for-hard-times
  51. https://swiftread.com/books/good-economics-for-hard-times
  52. http://ftp.iza.org/dp3921.pdf
  53. https://www.nber.org/digest/apr17/winners-and-losers-h-1b-visa-program
  54. https://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2025/wp2025-07.pdf
  55. https://papers.tinbergen.nl/04134.pdf
  56. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/The-Fiscal-Impact-of-Immigration-An-Update.pdf?x85095
  57. https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrants-and-USBorn
  58. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/macroeconomic-implications-recent-surge-immigration-eu
  59. https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2021/number/1/article/the-long-term-growth-impact-of-refugee-migration-in-europe-a-case-study.html
  60. https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/60/5/1415/381652/The-Economic-Assimilation-of-Second-Generation-Men
  61. https://elisajacome.github.io/Jacome/ImmigrantMobility_AER.pdf
  62. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-notes/14803574
  63. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.103.6.2121
  64. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3155386
  65. https://wid.world/
  66. https://www.lse.ac.uk/Events/Events-Assets/PDF/2019/03-MT/20191105-Esther-Duflo-slides.pdf
  67. https://www.fastcompany.com/90680001/these-nobel-prize-winning-economists-explain-why-direct-cash-transfers-are-so-vital-to-fighting-poverty/
  68. https://etonomics.com/2020/05/19/good-economics-for-hard-times-by-duflo-and-banerjee/
  69. https://www.sobrief.com/books/good-economics-for-hard-times
  70. https://www.gatesnotes.com/books/economics/reader/good-economics-for-hard-times
  71. https://www.ft.com/content/3cb678e2-0d13-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67
  72. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107725/1/lsereviewofbooks_2020_11_23_book_review_good_economics_for_hard_times.pdf
  73. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/abhijit-v-banerjee/good-economics-for-hard-times/
  74. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/22/economics-development-rcts-esther-duflo-abhijit-banerjee-michael-kremer-nobel/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6019115/
  76. https://www.3ieimpact.org/blogs/external-validity-policy-demand-there-research-needs-boost-supply
  77. https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article/33/1/34/4951685
  78. https://www.opml.co.uk/insights/rct-or-not-rct-question
  79. https://hbr.org/2018/06/can-impact-investing-avoid-the-failures-of-microfinance
  80. https://voxdev.org/topic/methods-measurement/path-scale-randomised-control-trial-scalable-programme
  81. https://ejpe.org/journal/article/download/487/336/1186
  82. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/poor_economics_needs_a_theory
  83. https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/Deaton_Cartwright_RCTs_with_ABSTRACT_August_25.pdf
  84. https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-book-titled-as-Good-Economics-for-Hard-Times-by-Abhijit-Banerjee-and-Esther-Duflo
  85. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/11/good-economics-for-hard-times-abhijit-banerjee-esther-duflo-review
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537123001410
  87. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/59323/1/CEP_Bell_Fasani_Machin_Crime-and-immigration_2013.pdf
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268123001713
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292121001021
  90. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3398138
  91. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/rethinking-redistribution
  92. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/12/6/20992071/abhijit-banerjee-esther-duflo-good-economics-hard-times-interview
  93. https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/circles-of-credulity-bias-desperation-fuel-small-modular-nuclear-dreams-4a5f9913334d
  94. https://www.reddit.com/r/academiceconomics/comments/kq72wf/criticisms_of_academic_economists_and_whether_i/
  95. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2020/04/09/covid-19-low-income-help-cash-transfers-esther-duflo
  96. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/page/j-pal-north-america-evidence-climate-action-project
  97. https://www.povertyactionlab.org/blog/7-25-25/using-evidence-shape-climate-policy-five-takeaways-j-pal-europes-policy-roundtable
  98. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Dashboard_for_a_New_Economy_2020.pdf
  99. https://www.emerald.com/reps/article/6/1/59/454478/The-role-of-trade-narratives-in-poverty-reduction
  100. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/limits-of-randomized-controlled-economics-trials-by-andres-velasco-2019-11
  101. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/changing-the-culture-of-economics-the-2019-nobel-laureates/
  102. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsE5t6qhGC65fEpzN/growth-and-the-case-against-randomista-development
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.