All economists are at to the lowest degree somewhat familiar with the piece of work of Tony Atkinson, who died a twelvemonth agone on Jan 1, 2017. The Annual Review of Economics offers a tribute inwards "economics-110216-100949">Tony Atkinson on Poverty, Inequality, as well as Public Policy: The Work as well as Life of a Great Economist," past times Anthony Barnes Atkinson as well as Nicholas Stern (2017, pp. 1-20). More specifically, Lord Stern interviews Sir Tony. Here are simply about snippets, alongside many of the lively exchanges that caught my eye.
The Value of Measuring as well as Publicizing Poverty
Atkinson: [I]t’s i regulation I piece of work on: I won’t do something unless I truly see, firstly, that it’s something where I truly desire to know the reply because I think it’s intellectually interesting but, secondly, that at that spot is simply about potential way inwards which it’s feeding into what truly happens.
The European Social Indicators is a practiced instance of that, because it came almost because the EU was, nether Jacques Delors, becoming quite concerned almost social dimensions as well as the fact that at that spot was pregnant poverty inwards the European Union, which Delors did quite a lot to identify. There was movement, every bit it were, at the get-go of the 2000s to give it simply about to a greater extent than priority. And it turned out past times coincidence or past times endangerment that the Belgians had the presidency, as well as the Belgian Minister of Social Affairs was i of my sometime students. ... Well, economists mightiness good say, “Oh, it’s inexpensive talk.” We know that at that spot are 125 1000000 people inwards the EU living inwards poverty, according to criterion measures. But actually, it changed the climate of give-and-take because each province is peer-reviewed every twelvemonth every bit to what their performance is according to indicators, as well as it is to a greater extent than than mildly embarrassing when, every bit inwards FRG at the moment, poverty is going upward quite rapidly.
Restoring Official Measurements of Inequality inwards the United Kingdom, as well as Elsewhere
Atkinson: [C]learly, since almost the early on 1990s, I’ve been trying to larn the authorities as well as other bodies to restore income distribution to beingness something that they truly discover information on. You receive got to remember, inwards this country—the UK—we dropped the income distribution statistics somewhere inwards the 1980s. After that, at that spot were none.On the importance of looking at deviations from pure full general equilibrium thinking
Stern: We had a Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income as well as Wealth—
Atkinson: —which I was a fellow member of, indeed. And nosotros were sacked.
Stern: By Margaret Thatcher?
Atkinson: Yes, indeed. And afterward that, the income distribution statistics were stopped. The OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation as well as Development], for example, afterward putting their toe inwards the H2O inwards the 1970s, didn’t provide to the plain of study for simply about other xx years. So the study that I did with Tim Smeeding as well as Lee Rainwater inwards 1995 for OECD (Atkinson et al. 1995) was the foremost fourth dimension they’d had a publication on income distribution for xx years.
Atkinson: I tin recall the lecture given past times Jacques Dreze, which y'all may receive got been at, which was called “the theater inwards full general equilibrium theory.” He said, “How do y'all larn the theater into full general equilibrium theory? Well, y'all blow upward a newspaper bag, as well as and thence y'all puncture it. ... And so, you’ve allow all the air out. The theater has no existent existence.”The Importance of Knowing How Economic Data is Generated
Atkinson: I think the other thing is that our agreement of information on the to a greater extent than macro side is much inferior to what it was. In the early on days of national accounts, they were constructed past times people who did macroeconomics, every bit well, people similar Richard Stone, Paul Samuelson, James Meade, as well as thence on.On the problems of narrowness as well as publication pull per unit of measurement area for immature economists
Stern: The best of the best.
Atkinson: Exactly. They were doing piece of work on constructing national accounts, thence they knew perfectly good what they were using. Keynes, for example, knew how his younger colleagues were making upward those numbers. I fearfulness that, today, that’s i of the areas where people simply don’t empathize what they’re using, as well as the rootage of the numbers should non simply hold out a footnote point. ... And I came across this when I wrote a review of how authorities output is measured, because the United States—still, every bit I empathize it—measures authorities output according to the input. Some US economists state this is a full general policy, but it is not; the European Union, as well as the UK every bit component of it, has been using an output-based mensurate for quite a long time. When nosotros looked at this issue, nosotros discovered that almost one-half the difference inwards the recorded increment rates betwixt the UK as well as the US was due to this difference inwards method.
Stern: Are nosotros truly helping do the all-around economist inwards a way that, perhaps, came to a greater extent than naturally earlier?
Atkinson: One has to recognize at that spot was this question, again, almost alter over time. When y'all as well as I were students, nosotros could truly read the major journals—there were probably, at most, a dozen—and i could at to the lowest degree cast one’s pump downward as well as see what was going on. They were all a lot less fatty than they are today, too. So, I think i has to recognize the plain of study is partly the victim of its success. The profession is thence much bigger, as well as there’s thence much to a greater extent than enquiry going on. But I think this has come upward at a cost. We receive got larn every bit good specialized, as well as people define themselves every bit beingness specialized economists, whereas I simply think of myself every bit an economist.
Now, if y'all come across people, they’ll say, “I’m a task economist,” or, “I’m an IO [industrial organization] economist,” every bit if they belong to that tribe. I think that’s fine, but of course of didactics y'all as well as thence larn seminars taking house on task economics, which truly would’ve benefited enormously from the seminar on industrial arrangement that happened at the same time. And people simply don’t verbalise to each other, as well as I think that’s a loss; at to the lowest degree all my cohorts had an appreciation of what was going on elsewhere.
Stern: Is at that spot something nosotros could do?
Atkinson: Well, I think it’s partly a inquiry of training; that is, i needs to receive got to a greater extent than courses teaching people the appreciation of something rather than the identification of a thesis topic. But also I think the loss, inwards many places, of the full general seminar is an instance of an consequence with the academic departments; when I was there, Harvard, to its credit, did receive got 3 full general seminars a term, which were good attended. Probably sixty or lxx people, at least, would come upward to them. And the talks were, on the whole, at really appropriate levels. Of course, at that spot are diverse forms of diffusion through media; they all serve this function. But I think it’s possibly to a greater extent than an consequence of persuading younger economists that this is something they ought to receive got to a greater extent than seriously than they do. ...
Whenever I verbalise to a would-be graduate student, I say, “What is it y'all desire to know?” I’m sure y'all do the same. Not having an reply to that inquiry is a weakness, and, inwards simply about way, it’s partly due to the professionalization. People are doing economics every bit a profession rather than because they’re truly interested inwards the answers. ...
Well, I think the seat of immature economists is truly really hard at the moment, at to the lowest degree every bit far every bit the academic sphere is concerned, because we’ve directly moved to a pretty unforgiving sentence based on magazine publication. This agency they’re nether nifty pressure, which is oft really hard for them to satisfy inwards the feel that everyone is trying to discover inwards altitude journals. I think this pull per unit of measurement area affects the selection of plain of study affair as well as the fashion of economics. It’s much easier to publish, I suspect, theoretical than applied economics inwards major journals; it is for sure easier to discover theory than applied economics concerned with countries other than the US. I think that immature economists are beingness pressured into a really hard province of affairs where their academic careers are related to things that are oft quite opposed to what they desire to do. If y'all enquire them what the inquiry is that they desire an reply to, many of them receive got a really practiced response: They’re doing economics because at that spot is something they truly desire to discovery out, they’re truly concerned almost simply about detail issue, or they’ve read something that truly inspired them as well as that they desire to follow up. I oft discovery it really hard to suggest them. My instinct is to say, “Follow your instincts,” but, on the other hand, they may never larn jobs.Sumber http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/
Comments