Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Good Economics for Hard Times: Better Answers to Our Biggest Problems” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Good Economics for Hard Times: Better Answers to Our Biggest Problems

Abhijit V. Banerjee,

Esther Duflo

4.29 · Rating details · 6,347 ratings · 763 reviews

Figuring out how to deal with today's critical economic problems is perhaps the great challenge of our time. Much greater than space travel or perhaps even the next revolutionary medical breakthrough, what is at stake is the whole idea of the good life as we have known it.

Immigration and inequality, globalization and technological disruption, slowing growth and acceleratin ...more

Get A Copy

Kindle Edition, 417 pages

Published November 12th 2019 by PublicAffairs

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Good Economics for Hard Times, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Good Economics for Hard Times by Abhijit V. Banerjee

The Education of an Idealist by Samantha Power

The Economist - Books of the Year, 2019

40 books — 21 voters

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek

The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich A. Hayek

Books By Winners Of Nobel Prizes-Economics

32 books — 10 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.29 ·

Rating details

· 6,347 ratings · 763 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Good Economics for Hard Times: Better Answers to Our Biggest Problems

Dec 03, 2019 Jason Furman rated it really liked it

Shelves: economics, social_science, nonfiction

This book has a huge amount of good economics. It surveys a wide range of areas: labor, tax, growth, politics, immigration, trade, and generally provides up-to-date discussions of some of the latest literature. The discussions of development--particularly India--are subtle, nuanced and thought provoking. A lot of the evidence is in the form of randomized control trials (RCTs), Abhijit Baanerjee and Esther Duflo are as committed to the method and process as they are to any particular conclusions. ...more

flag 164 likes · Like · see review

Jan 02, 2020 Jean rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: audio-book, economics, non-fiction

This book is written by a husband and wife team who just won the Nobel Prize in Economics.

The book is well written and researched. In fact, it is surprisingly easy to read and understand for a lay person. The authors take a global approach to the subject. What impressed me was the fact they actually did research and analyzed data to find out what worked or not. They examined the most crucial issues the world faces such as migration, trade wars, inequality and climate change. They said “the book’ ...more

flag 68 likes · Like · see review

Aug 05, 2020 Roy Lotz rated it really liked it

Shelves: art-of-compromise, dismal-science, misanthropology

Economics is too important to be left to economists.

After listening to a series of lectures on introductory economics, I was struck by the degree to which the basic logic of supply and demand was used to make sweeping pronouncements about human behavior and economic policy. The lecturer, starting from the premise that supply and demand is inexorable, would rule out certain policies as working against the market, while promoting those he considered ‘market-friendly.’ But rarely did he stop to ...more

flag 46 likes · Like · see review

Oct 22, 2019 Thomas rated it liked it

First I need to get this out of my system: incredibly funny to me that it’s taken us this long before the Nobel prize winners for economics of the year were two mfers who simply asked “what if we tried being nice to the poor?”

This book is intriguing in its writing, it gets props on that for sure. It’s fun to read and interesting despite what its ideas might contain.

As for the economics, there’s a lot of Keynesian revivalism because two ding dong economists finally figured out that 40 years of First I need to get this out of my system: incredibly funny to me that it’s taken us this long before the Nobel prize winners for economics of the year were two mfers who simply asked “what if we tried being nice to the poor?”

This book is intriguing in its writing, it gets props on that for sure. It’s fun to read and interesting despite what its ideas might contain.

As for the economics, there’s a lot of Keynesian revivalism because two ding dong economists finally figured out that 40 years of stagnating welfare and exploding inequality isn’t good for the world among their opposing and disagreeing ding dong economist friends. Capitalists who find soft ways of analysing issues Marxists have been noticing for years is always irritating, especially because even in moments where Banerjee and Duflo are trying to sound sympathetic they kinda slip and forget some events are not a moment of pride we should bask in. Simply because policy makers and economists pushed for the kinder approaches to poor people AFTER heavily considering brutalising them out of indifference doesn’t mean these monsters deserve a medal for good behaviour.

With all that being said, the two of them are trying something quite interesting, none of their suggestions go as far left as Id like but they are grounded in how feasibly we can introduce ‘radically’ different ideas without being immediately shut down by the billionaires and conservative leaders that have a stronghold on the economy. Their arguments are grounded in tons of positive experiments on the raising of welfare and how it generates better growth, and for capitalists they aren’t afraid to tackle the debunked myth that billionaires raising their income and wealth through tax cuts every year will magically raise growth.

So yeah, on the one hand it’s this awful irony of having to read economists finally get a lightbulb moment and figure out that dismissing the poor and their needs is actually not good and nice, but on the other you can tell Banerjee and Duflo care and they’re really working to make their proposals and ideas as accessible and attainable as possible so that the well being of the poor can improve ASAP.

Highly disagree with this book but its heart is in the right place and this was easily the most engaging thing I’ve read this year. ...more

flag 41 likes · Like · see review

Apr 02, 2020 Geronimo Mansutti rated it did not like it · review of another edition

Good Economics for Hard Times? More like Bad Dogmas for a Boring Read.

This book is more of a political pamphlet than a serious economic analysis of the important issues. The authors are both radical left-wingers (they don't even try to hide it, to their credit), whose answer to every problem in the world is "more government would fix it".

The book is full of sexism, racism and anti-science comments. In both the preface and chapters 2, 3 and 4 they describe Trump supporters as ignorant racists t Good Economics for Hard Times? More like Bad Dogmas for a Boring Read.

This book is more of a political pamphlet than a serious economic analysis of the important issues. The authors are both radical left-wingers (they don't even try to hide it, to their credit), whose answer to every problem in the world is "more government would fix it".

The book is full of sexism, racism and anti-science comments. In both the preface and chapters 2, 3 and 4 they describe Trump supporters as ignorant racists that are good at heart, and just need a bit of government intervention to open their eyes. In chapter 5 they argue that economic growth shouldn't be the goal for policymakers, and then in the next chapter they say that economic growth is bad for the environment anyways, so who wants that?

In chapter 7 the authors try to make an argument (an extremely weak, idiotic argument) against technological progress, defending the luddites that destroyed machines in the Victorian era because they were "killing jobs". And then, in my favourite part of the book, the authors claim on chapter 8 that the reality that "government is corrupt and incompetent" is a fact of life that we should just accept, that the fight against corruption is an "unwarranted obsession" and that we should just shut up and embrace our saviour the government as the only way to live in a dignified way.

Why, you might be asking, would a couple of Nobel-prize winners defend corruption as an inescapable truth of the world? Well, it's basically because admitting that governments are corrupt goes against the idea they promote throughout the whole book: that governments are a noble force for good, and all the problems in the world would be solved if we just let them, alongside a bunch of well-intentioned bureaucrats, design the right policies for every issue (benign policies such as "destroying the super rich", as proposed in chapter 7). It worked well in the USSR, Cambodia, North Korea and Venezuela, am I right?

The most interesting part of the whole read (quite a boring and dense read, by the way) is that the authors do not seem to find the irony in the fact that, even though they argue for an "evidence-based approach", they are completely blind to all the historical evidence against their preferred statist and collectivist recipes. In summary, if you want to read a freedom-hating hard-left socialist wish list, you'll be more entertained checking Bernie Sanders' Twitter than reading this.

Government good, Orange Man Bad. Where is my Nobel? ...more

flag 33 likes · Like · see review

Jun 07, 2020 Greta rated it really liked it

Shelves: non-fiction

The ultimate anti Trump and right populism book

The couple Banerjee and Duflo won the Nobel prize in economics and they start this book with the claim, that we trust our prejudices and opinions more than we trust economists, even when presented with counter arguments. That is why this book shows us how economist come to their conclusions, while looking at extremely relevant and controversial topics of world politics, pointing out where persumptions don‘t line up with reality. The authors are not The ultimate anti Trump and right populism book

The couple Banerjee and Duflo won the Nobel prize in economics and they start this book with the claim, that we trust our prejudices and opinions more than we trust economists, even when presented with counter arguments. That is why this book shows us how economist come to their conclusions, while looking at extremely relevant and controversial topics of world politics, pointing out where persumptions don‘t line up with reality. The authors are not dogmatic or apologetic for any particular ideology, but summarize what the latest economic research tells us, and, more importantly, what it does not or cannot establish with any degree of certainty.

To give you just one example: Many support Trumps „Wall“ politics, because they fear migration waves and to loose their jobs to immigrants. They want to cut down on exports and support a trade embargo towards China in a believe to support the national economy. This book sheds light on migration waves in the last decades all over the world and analyze what motivates people to leave their countries. They evaluate what effect immigration has on the job market and that “Amerika is full” as Trump would put it, is the most popular but also the most flat and inadequate argument possible. Inequality, racism, sexism and their causes are reflected on in all different parts of society and many many more topics are covered.

Like any book with complex arguments, this book will be heavily criticized. While the authors undoubtedly lean left, there will be those who feel they don’t lean left far enough, and conservatives will probably label it as “socialist propaganda.” This black and white thinking is quite destructive and the truth lies somewhere in between. The authors summarize the latest economic research on each topic to arrive at intellectually honest interpretations and making this book a model for how economics should be taught and studied. The authors don’t pretend to be all-knowing.

What I slightly criticize is that they barely address undoubtedly negative impacts on our economics, like for example the refugee crisis, causing major global problems and shaping people’s beliefs. That is too one sided. I believe that people are most heavily influenced by what they experience and see. For example seeing refugee camps on the streets, suddenly constantly encountering foreign people that are unemployed, don‘t speak their language and similar. They are often not able to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration or forsee likely developments and political moves. They experience personal problems they can‘t put into the context of history, because they live in todays world and the less educated they are, the less likely they are to research causes, historical and political context. In my opinion many of those factors lead to misguided believes and ignoring the experiences the people are making isn‘t helping. To tell them that everything would be great while they see something different is making it worse not better, because they feel angry and frightened and turn to right populism where they feel heard. Instead we have to enlighten people into putting things into the right context, with the problem that those are exactly the people who don‘t consume enlightening literate and news. The biggest part of those who do are those who don‘t follow right populism ideas to begin with.

I experience this book as extremely valuable. It helps you to understand why populist ideas work and why they are so misguided. Our governments tend to sacrifice common goods for the purpose of economic growth, while they should focus more on the average living standard of the individual. While doing so we would probably be able to establish a more inclusive, open, fair and happy society. ...more

flag 30 likes · Like · see review

Dec 01, 2019 Ryan Boissonneault rated it it was amazing

Aristotle warned us against expecting more precision from a subject than it allows. As Aristotle wrote, “for it is the mark of an educated mind to seek only so much exactness in each type of inquiry as may be allowed by the nature of the subject-matter.”

The idea that economics commands the same level of precision as physics has led to the perpetuation of several misconceptions and dogmas. That the authors fully understand this is a testament to the book. The authors are not dogmatic, nor are the Aristotle warned us against expecting more precision from a subject than it allows. As Aristotle wrote, “for it is the mark of an educated mind to seek only so much exactness in each type of inquiry as may be allowed by the nature of the subject-matter.”

The idea that economics commands the same level of precision as physics has led to the perpetuation of several misconceptions and dogmas. That the authors fully understand this is a testament to the book. The authors are not dogmatic, nor are they apologists for any particular ideology; in each chapter, they summarize what the latest economic research tells us, and, more importantly, what it does not or cannot establish with any degree of certainty.

Like any book with complex arguments and subtle distinctions, the criticism will come from all sides. While the authors undoubtedly lean left, there will be those who feel they don’t lean left far enough, while those on the right are destined to label the book as “socialist propaganda.” The truth, of course, is somewhere in between, as the authors summarize the latest economic research on each topic to arrive at intellectually honest interpretations of the data, making this book a model for how economics should be taught and studied.

The authors don’t pretend to be all-knowing, but if you think that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulates growth, for example, you have more than 40 years of contradictory research and statistics to contend with. Likewise for immigration as the cause of depressed local wages or the reliance on the “free market” for efficient (or desirable) outcomes. The research just does not support these common beliefs or the simplistic theory that holds them up. The real world acts very differently than the economic models predict, so if you’re interested in actual results and statistics—rather than what economic theories tell us should happen—then this book is for you.

So what is the way forward? No one knows for sure, but we do know that sacrificing the common good in the name of economic growth is almost always misguided. In addition to not knowing what stimulates growth in the first place, economic growth (as measured by GDP) means little to most of us if all the growth goes to the super-wealthy. Perhaps the job of the government is not to identify the factors of economic growth so much as to make the standard of living higher for the average person. ...more

flag 28 likes · Like · see review

Mar 11, 2020 Mehrsa rated it it was amazing

Excellent overview of new ways economists are looking at global problems and challenging some problem myths. Also, they won the nobel prize so you should read their book

flag 17 likes · Like · see review

Apr 22, 2020 Daniel rated it it was amazing

I totally enjoyed Banerjee’s Poor Economics, and it was no surprise he was honored with the Nobel price in economics. Here he shared good economics answers for tough questions.

1. Migration. Evidence: migrants do not lower the wages of the poor, because they are also consumers thus increasing both the supply and demand for work. Solution: we should encourage migration.

2. Trade: Evidence: gains from international trade is only 2.5% GDP for big and self sufficient countries like America, but matt I totally enjoyed Banerjee’s Poor Economics, and it was no surprise he was honored with the Nobel price in economics. Here he shared good economics answers for tough questions.

1. Migration. Evidence: migrants do not lower the wages of the poor, because they are also consumers thus increasing both the supply and demand for work. Solution: we should encourage migration.

2. Trade: Evidence: gains from international trade is only 2.5% GDP for big and self sufficient countries like America, but matters much more for small countries. Trade slows down poverty reduction in poor countries, and also make the less skilled in rich countries poorer! And people who lost their jobs, town and dignity find moving difficult, and become angry and xenophobic. However, trade makes the world a culturally richer place. Tariffs will not help. Solution: Trade Adjustment Assistance, retrain people displaced into new jobs, and subsidise jobs for firms affected by trade.

3. Preference & Discrimination: Evidence: hard to change. Social media makes it worse. Exposure makes it better. Solution: mix the people together, build housing for the poor everywhere, and allow poor children to study outside their district.

4. Growth: Evidence: nobody knows how it happens! Well, except for tax breaks and good infrastructure, that really helps one region but at the expense of others, like Singapore (ahem).

5. Climate change: Evidence: rich countries pumped out CO2, poor countries suffer more. Solution: use less energy, develop clean energy, tax the rich countries to subsidise the poor countries for the harm. I think it will be very touch from the Yellow Vest protest in France (taxing the poor for some elite’s ideal).

7. Robots taking jobs: Evidence: very real. We will have many people with nothing to do, and a small elite doing all the fun work. Solution: Reduce automation. Increase top tax rate back to 70%, shuts down tax haven.

8. Government: Evidence: we need big government to do wealth transfer. But the rich laboured to drain the swamp and they are succeeding. Let the brightest join the government; it is not more corrupt than profit-conscious private companies. But the people with less government support blamed migrants and foreigners, voting in nationalists like Trump who further drains the swamp and benefit the rich. Solution: none

8. Universal Basic Income: Evidence: good for receivers making them healthier and more schooling, but not richer. Also too expensive. People will not work less. Solution: increase the top tax rate. Subsidise childcare and education. Help people move to where jobs are. Respect and involve the needy. Subsidise long term (10 years) for older workers whose jobs have been displaced.

This book have evidence based solutions to all the hard problems. A solid 5 stars.
...more

flag 14 likes · Like · see review

Feb 04, 2020 Laurent Franckx rated it it was amazing

It's one of those interesting twists of fate that Banerjee and Duflo won the Nobel Prize in economics (together with Michael Kremer) a few days after having published their second book targeting a non-specialist audience.
Professors Banerjee, Duflo and Kremer won their prize “for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty”. In short, defying the idea that economics is not suited for the experimental approach, they set up randomized controlled trials (such as is the golden standard ...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Sep 27, 2020 Wick Welker rated it really liked it

Shelves: politics, nonfiction, economics

Confirming to me that economics is an entirely uncertain science.

I definitely enjoyed this but have a lot of reservations about the certainty of literally anything that was said in these pages. This is a book unabashedly written by two economists with a liberal view about how to improve wealth gap and poverty. The is a very subjective analysis of the reasons behind declining economic systems and the poverty that they perpetrate. I don't necessarily disagree with anything said, but as someone who Confirming to me that economics is an entirely uncertain science.

I definitely enjoyed this but have a lot of reservations about the certainty of literally anything that was said in these pages. This is a book unabashedly written by two economists with a liberal view about how to improve wealth gap and poverty. The is a very subjective analysis of the reasons behind declining economic systems and the poverty that they perpetrate. I don't necessarily disagree with anything said, but as someone who doesn't know much about economics, I don't feel like I got the most objective take on things. And that is kind of the point they make: economics is a slippery science and always has been. Over and over again, you get a little data in the form of RCTs peppered over enormously subjective opinions and expert consensus. Economists are used by power structure to justify whatever scheme they want to implement with mostly disastrous consequences (ahem... neoliberalism).

At any rate, from this book, you'll learn a little about the mostly net negative effects of trade wars, how Trump tariffs on China mostly trade one form of labor loss with another (steel workers -> farms). You'll learn that economist have no clue about what causes growth and that politicians respond to stagnation usually by blaming exogenous forces (like immigration) that have nothing to do with down turns. Immigration is almost certainly good for economic growth as it injects the market with a young and enthused labor force. The authors touch on the merits and pitfalls of universal basic income (UBI) as well as reinvestment in social programs. The authors clearly endorse the view that a wealth tax, mostly popular by the public, is a good step in the right direction to combat the concentration of wealth and gaping income and wealth gaps. You'll find a lot of Bernie/Warren type policies outlined in these pages. Again, I don't disagree with the authors but this turned out being mostly an echo chamber of liberal policies that will convince no one that is not already convinced.

What I learned most from this book is an appreciation for the distrust that people have in economists. It is by its very nature an uncertain science full of error. ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Feb 04, 2020 John Calhoun rated it liked it

I learned some interesting factual tidbits from this book, which succeeded best at gathering research findings (especially RCTs, the forte of the authors) in one place. However, I ultimately didn't find a lot of the authors' broader conclusions particularly compelling. And, in many places, I think the authors glossed over nuance too quickly/too unthinkingly liberally.

I agreed with the authors' opening chapter, which makes the point that policy/economics matters and that paying attention to resea I learned some interesting factual tidbits from this book, which succeeded best at gathering research findings (especially RCTs, the forte of the authors) in one place. However, I ultimately didn't find a lot of the authors' broader conclusions particularly compelling. And, in many places, I think the authors glossed over nuance too quickly/too unthinkingly liberally.

I agreed with the authors' opening chapter, which makes the point that policy/economics matters and that paying attention to research results is a good way to make informed choices. Ho-hum.

The first substantive chapter on immigration underwhelmed me. It well-documented the research that low-skilled immigrants don't much hurt low-skilled natives (if at all). It treated the contest between high-skilled immigrants and high-skilled natives too cursorily. Then it spent a bunch of time making the strange argument that border protections don't actually keep so many immigrants out of rich countries like the US because, according to some RCTs, lots of poor Bangladeshis don't leave home when incentivized to do so. Huh?

The second chapter on trade didn't teach me much. We know that it can really screw up some neighborhoods and states. But it didn't focus much on the positive gains of trade. I agreed with the well-trod proposal to increase TAA a lot.

The chapter on how to create economic growth ended with throwing up their hands, which is a fair conclusion. Interesting research on how you can't really use any of the major macro indicators to predict whether a developing country will grow! Also made fair point that the Asian Tiger approach to growth often doesn't work because government doesn't choose industries well. Related good point was that perhaps best way rto understand that experience was that those countries had lots of educated workers and the government oriented them the right way (i.e., reduced misallocated human capital resources). Thus it's harder for a less educated developing country today to pull that off.

The chapter on inequality made the good point that the problem with job losses isn't just financial, it's also to one's sense of self-worth. Also made the good point that UBI is probably unaffordable. Didn't convince me on paying workers to stay in their redundant jobs.

Overall, I liked but didn't love this book because it brought together some interesting research but was often either too cursory or too ideological/uncritical. ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Jan 01, 2021 Wendelle added it

some key takeaways:
1)influx of immigration is more likely to depress opportunities for high-skilled native workers than low-skilled native workers
2)low-skilled immigration doesn't drive down low-skilled wages because they produce accompanying effect of increase in demand in low-skilled labor (because they also buy stuff and spend money in their new host country)
3) free trade is good, but only if beneficiaries of comparative advantage within society (usually those possessing capital in rich count some key takeaways:
1)influx of immigration is more likely to depress opportunities for high-skilled native workers than low-skilled native workers
2)low-skilled immigration doesn't drive down low-skilled wages because they produce accompanying effect of increase in demand in low-skilled labor (because they also buy stuff and spend money in their new host country)
3) free trade is good, but only if beneficiaries of comparative advantage within society (usually those possessing capital in rich country) are taxed appropriately to redistribute benefits to job losers within country
4) free trade isn't so simply 'good' because theory is marred by real-life phenomena of sticky labor market and need of newcomer suppliers to cultivate their reputation in the market (such as new-entry vendors in the Amazon marketplace)
5) free trade gains are positive but small for a huge market like the US
6) norms can reinforce poor behavior in an irrational feedback loop as people fear the consequences of ostracism despite recognizing the senselessness of the norm (see the behavior of Republicans still backing Trump's claims of electoral fraud, and behavior of people who fear intermarriage with members outside of their own caste)
7) norms can oppress the weakest members of a community and uphold abusive power structures in the name of community cohesion
8)Benjamin Franklin ("the most ignorant stupid sort of their own nation") and Jefferson ("discourage their settling together in large masses") hated German immigration
9) we avoid facing our own prejudices by selecting against information that makes us confront our biases
10) there are economic spillover effects when highly educated people with skills and bubbling ideas are clustered together in the same city
11) the general consensus among most economists is that there is no relationship between tax cut levels and the growth rate of the economy for the US case, circa 1960-2000-- which should defeat the long-held notion that tax cuts are necessary to spur innovation
12) "tax cuts benefitting the top 10 percent produce no significant growth in employment and income, whereas tax cuts for the bottom 90 percent do"
13) again for the people at the back: no data-based economist 'seriously believes' that tax cuts for the wealthiest lead to durable economic growth
14) Permanent monopolies, such as Amazon, block innovation and economic growth because of barriers to entry for more competitive firms and lack of incentive for the behemoth to innovate
15) there is no surefire recipe for economic growth
16) there is no proof that the internet technologies usher new growth
17) carbon tax should be redirected as lump-sum compensation to lower-income people to help them become amenable to the idea of changed energy habits
18) "we suspect the current drive towards replacing human actions with robots cannot be prevented from taking a serious toll on the already dwindling stock of desirable jobs for low-skilled workers, it could lead to a rise in unemployment or multiplication of poorly paid, unstable jobs"
19) "the evolution of inequality is not the byproduct of technological changes we do not control, but the result of policy decisions"
20) "it seems to us that high marginal income tax rates, applied only to very high incomes, are a perfectly sensible way to limit to the explosion of top income inequality", such that financiers would still migrate to firms that pay them the highest, and talented non-financiers would be encouraged to allocate their gifts and skills to less lucrative but more socially useful professions. However, this will lead people to do tax evasion
21) wealth tax is essentially a tax on investment income, because passive wealth becomes used as investment ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jan 04, 2020 Miebara Jato rated it it was amazing

Esther and Abhijit are couples. They are also the 2019 winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics. In their previous book, Poor Economics, the duo set new outlines for fighting global poverty and help developing countries improve everything from school enrollment to immunisation rates. This current book examines the current global challenges with a broad analysis of available economic research. The authors methodically proffered humane and unambiguous solutions to these crucial problems humanity pr
Esther and Abhijit are couples. They are also the 2019 winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics. In their previous book, Poor Economics, the duo set new outlines for fighting global poverty and help developing countries improve everything from school enrollment to immunisation rates. This current book examines the current global challenges with a broad analysis of available economic research. The authors methodically proffered humane and unambiguous solutions to these crucial problems humanity presently faces. But Esther and Abhijit didn't pretend their recommendations are the absolute or magic wand.

Economists sometimes carried themselves as the reservoirs of answers to humanity's problems. The economics profession has literally ventured into all aspects of man's socio-economic being (e.g., computer economics, healthcare economics, agriculture economics, family economics, to mention a few).

Maynard Keynes proposed an economist must be at once, "mathematician, historian, statements, philosopher… Contemplate the particular in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought."

But Aristotle had this to say about experts and their education: “For it is the mark of an educated mind to seek only so much exactness in each type of inquiry as may be allowed by the nature of the subject-matter.”

Unfortunately, economists are more or less trained to think along with the admonition of Keynes than with Aristotle. But while economists pride themselves the torchbearers for humanity's crucial problems, their reputation dwindles in the publics' eye.

A 2017 YouGov poll in the UK confirmed economists are the least trusted professionals. In a similar poll conducted in the U.S. a year later, Esther and Abhijit asked ten thousand people; again, just 25 per cent of people trusted economists. Only politicians ranked lower.

How did the opinion of economists, especially on global issues, become least respected by the general public? In part, as the authors argue, the opinion of economists are too detached from those of the public. "This trust deficit is mirrored by the fact that the professional consensus of economists (when it exists) is often systematically different from the views of ordinary citizens."

But more than having answers to issues that are mostly at odds with ordinary citizens, economists are failing to play their role. After the 2008 crash, the Queen queried the Royal Economic Society in a conference: "Why did no one see it coming?"

Perhaps, economists are not empowered to make those predictions. However, because economists fail to raise the alarm for impending economic doom or their predictions not always turns out accurate does not mean economics do not have answers to the crucial global challenges. Economics and economic policy are central to the present global crisis (income inequality, migration, trade wars, climate change, the threat of artificial intelligence (AI) to jobs), This book is an attempt to redefine the role of economists and economic policy as a panacea to the worlds critical problems.

One of the good things about Good Economics in Bad Time is that the arguments are lucid and down to earth. The clarity of the authors' thoughts is exceptional. It's rare to read superbly intelligent economists confessing they don't have answers to, for example, "what causes economic growth".

A must-read for policymakers.
...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jul 09, 2020 Laura Noggle rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2020, nonfiction

The authors are a husband and wife team who won the Nobel Prize in Economics “for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty.”

“Herd behavior generates informational cascades: the information on which the first people base their decision will have an outsized influence on what all the others believe.”

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Jan 11, 2020 Veronica rated it really liked it

Shelves: readerly, economics

The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum all manner of morbid symptoms appear.
Gramsci

- An influx of new workers will shift the demand curve right since the newcomers spend money and thus increase overall consumption. The influx increases the demand for labor and increases the supply of laborers. With the arrival of migrants, native low-skilled workers may engage in occupational upgrading: employers reorganize production to make effective use of the new workers.

“There is

...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jun 26, 2020 Otto Lehto rated it really liked it

Much like their previous book, Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty, Good Economics for Hard Times is a fluently structured and eloquently written piece of popular economics. It synthesizes a wide reading of the theoretical and empirical literature. It is full of insights, wide in scope, and moderate in tone. Its policy conclusions straddle the line between economic elitism and populism. On the one hand, the authors respect economic expertise enough to follow i Much like their previous book, Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty, Good Economics for Hard Times is a fluently structured and eloquently written piece of popular economics. It synthesizes a wide reading of the theoretical and empirical literature. It is full of insights, wide in scope, and moderate in tone. Its policy conclusions straddle the line between economic elitism and populism. On the one hand, the authors respect economic expertise enough to follow its data even where it contradicts the "man on the street." On the other hand, they respect democracy enough to attempt to speak to the "man on the street" in a language that he can understand without condescension, paternalism, and other elitist vices.

The authors argue that while economic science often overreaches and pretends to possess expertise that it does not possess, can nonetheless be used correctly to provide policy relevant guidance on various issues in a way that improves on common sense or established wisdom. Instead of relying on theoretical models of economic actors, they prefer the experimental methodology of careful empirical testing and randomized control trials (RCT's). The book discusses several aspects of economic policy, including free trade, immigration, technological change, social inequality, and welfare redistribution. All the while, it discusses hundreds of studies and offer fair and balanced interpretations of them based on a careful reading of some of the best available evidence.

The book's definition of "good economics" reflects a moderate, centre-left, perspective. The authors advocate for many policies that enjoy widespread consensus support among professional economists. In many ways, a lot of what they write is uncontroversial among the economics profession although a lot of the people still wish to deny the validity of its findings. It is odd that they spend so little time defending the basic integrity of economics against common perceptions. A lot of what they say depends upon technical facts that are hard to explain to a layman. Instead, they prefer to emphasize the populist point that the layman is often right to be skeptical of the economist. I agree - but sometimes the economist is right to be skeptical of the layman! The authors also make occasional nods to radical and heterodox positions such as Universal Basic Income (which they advocate for poor countries but not for the rich) and confiscatory, progressive wealth taxation on the ultra rich (similar to Piketty). These are controversial but not unheard of positions within mainstream economics. Even their "radical" ideas are pretty mainstream. The only exception is their incredible defense of the EU Common Agricultural Policy which most economists think (IMO correctly) has been one of the worst policy disasters of the past half a century.

Their ideological slant, if you can call it that, is most evident when they focus so much on the questions of inequality, the destructive side of capitalism, and the environmental danger of climate change. Even here, however, they mostly reflect a moderate and balanced consensus position. That said, I think they fail to adequately address the undeniable positive impact of free trade and privatization. Despite their negative impact on inequality, free market policies have increased global wealth and the livelihoods of the poor. And when it comes to the 90's-2000's wave of globalization, they suddenly paint the Reagan-Thatcher revolution in uncharacteristically black and white terms. Suddenly, the rhetoric of the book starts sounding more populist and even partisan. This sticks out like a sore thumb since the rest of the rhetoric is so nuanced.

My favourite chapter of the book is the chapter on "Cash and Care." As the name implies, the section focuses on the impact of cash transfers versus in-kind welfare measures on various social indicators. They argue passionately against excessive paternalism and therefore see the value in giving cash directly to poor people. This also explains their partial support for some kind of UBI. At the same time, they argue that cash policies are often not enough to really help poor people. So, they argue that careful "care" policies may be required on top of "cash" policies to overcome market failures and "frictions" (or "transaction costs") that tend to keep poor people stuck in suboptimal positions despite the best efforts to help them. In particular, they think that money is not useful for community building, jobs, meaning, etc... This seems right to me. A mixed approach has been proven to work the best in many studies. However, here too, I wish that the authors would have spent as much time talking about government failures in welfare state governance as they do talking about market failures. How do they expect governments to be able to deliver on their promises? What kind of checks and balances are required to keep care policies within socially beneficial bounds? The presence of widespread government failure is one of the main reasons why many "care" policies have failed in the past and why "cash" policies may still be preferable in most instances - including in rich countries like Scandinavia and the United States. The fact that prevalent market failures prevent cash transfers from reaching an "efficient" outcome does not speak against cash transfers if the efficiency of "care" programs is undermined even more by government failures. No one has yet "proven" the appropriate mix of the two approaches.

Overall, I like the book because it offers reasonable policy advice based on solid evidence. It is moderate and balanced in its analysis (with a handful of exceptions). It leans left-wing but only moderately so. All the policy positions are supported by evidence. There is no doubt that the authors have made a good faith effort to draw warranted conclusions (and only them) from the empirical evidence, even if the evidence remains ambiguous. The methodology of data driven empiricism, which the authors follow, can lead to false conclusions if it overstates the capacity of statistics and RCT's to generate reliable knowledge. To that extent, the authors are leading the science down a potentially wrong or unfruitful path. But even theoretical economics must check its conclusions against empirical evidence to update its priors. Always be ready to follow the evidence. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jul 17, 2020 Pratibha Jadeja rated it it was amazing

"Economics is too important to be left to economists."

"We, the economists, are often too wrapped up in our models and our methods and sometimes forget where science ends and ideology begins."

What stood out for me in this remarkable book is Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo's humility. The book focuses on policy debates and topics that receive enormous media attention- immigration, trade and tariffs, inequality, taxation, etc. But the way it does is by building enough historical context, explaini ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Nov 28, 2019 Marks54 rated it it was amazing

This is a book by the two most recent winners of the Nobel Prize for economics. They are husband and wife and they have made their careers by studying economics largely among poor people
(a southern rather than northern focus). They also coauthored “Poor Economics”, which also is well worth reading. They are highly unusual among the economists who gain the most traction in the US for multiple reasons: 1) they do experiments (RCTs), 2) they are interested in how theory and practice fit together, This is a book by the two most recent winners of the Nobel Prize for economics. They are husband and wife and they have made their careers by studying economics largely among poor people
(a southern rather than northern focus). They also coauthored “Poor Economics”, which also is well worth reading. They are highly unusual among the economists who gain the most traction in the US for multiple reasons: 1) they do experiments (RCTs), 2) they are interested in how theory and practice fit together, especially in terms of empirical support; 3) they are wary of simple nostrums that have come to economic policies and writings and instead start from notions of dignity, even for poor people; 4) they do not believe that economics has all the answers - although economics does have something to add to current policy debates. And finally, they write very well and have produced a book which is relatively easy to read - an accomplishment for economics trade books. The book is very accessible, even to those wary of tables and regression charts.

So what is the intuition here? The book is a collection of chapters devoted to different topical areas, all of which are widely discussed in current discourse on political economy. You can guess them - immigration, trade, economic growth (or the lack thereof), taxes, the role of government, and programs for the poor. In each one, the authors try to sort out what the current “best thinking” and research results suggest is the “state of the art”. This is compared with both economic orthodoxy and popular political notions about economic topics. They show that what economists claim about policies is often inconsistent with what the best thinking and research in the area shows. This in turn is often strongly out of line with popular thinking on the same topics.

The punchline is that paying attention to economic research and current thinking is worthwhile and capable of improving policy making. ...but the individual is not excused from drawing their own judgments and being an informed consumer of economic research. One should never take what “TV economists” talk on about as the last word - or even a good word. For example, there appears to be no credible evidence that tax cuts contribute to sustained and meaningful growth. It is not clear that economists - or anyone else - have superior insights on what causes growth and what can be done to promote growth in a country.

There is an entire literature emerging on the need for intelligent but skeptical treatment of what economics does or does not offer to public policy. This book is a fine addition to that literature and is well worth reading. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jun 07, 2020 Rick Wilson rated it it was amazing

Shelves: finance, best-of-2020, highly-recommended, developing-economies

One of the few books I’ve gotten from the library, and then gone out and purchased. Ever since throwing away “the Wealth of Nations“ in disgust after no mention of the “MIGHTY invisible hand of the market” in the first three pages, I have been thoughtfully skeptical of economics, economists, and other various future predicting folk. (That’s sarcasm and I’ve been told economists don’t understand it)

And to be honest, the biggest drawback of reading this book is the stark relief it throws other eco One of the few books I’ve gotten from the library, and then gone out and purchased. Ever since throwing away “the Wealth of Nations“ in disgust after no mention of the “MIGHTY invisible hand of the market” in the first three pages, I have been thoughtfully skeptical of economics, economists, and other various future predicting folk. (That’s sarcasm and I’ve been told economists don’t understand it)

And to be honest, the biggest drawback of reading this book is the stark relief it throws other economic ideas and texts into. So much of what passes for economics is garbled mumbling about growth and taxes. And while I’m sure in pristine educational towers there is a single holy truth of economic understanding, to us country folk here in Texas it mostly seems like dorks in overpriced suits arguing with each other. I do value economists since discovering that I can quote them saying whatever the hell I want them to say to win arguments with my roommate. A neat trick I picked up from talkshow hosts. “No Chris, if you actually dig into the economic literature it’s fairly clear that it is your turn to do the dishes. It’s called labor equality look it up.”

So when this book says “Rick, you’re mostly right in your assessment that the correlation between made up fancy words and economic nonsense talk is about as close to a . 01 P value as we are going to see“ It makes me a very happy boy.

Anyways, this is a banger of an economics book. An Avicii (RIP) track complete with laser lights. If there isn’t Lil Nas X remix in the works, I will be very disappointed. Perhaps Kanye could be featured and learn himself a little monetary theory.

A couple of points this book makes that really put the plug in the diuretic donkey as they (nobody) says here in Texas.

Stolper Samuelson theorem and more generally Paul Samuelson as the foundation for modern trade theory. Everyone is better off if we tax the winners and redistribute wealth to the less fortunate. I get a kick out of people miss quoting ideas to suit their own needs, but it’s truly impressive when those ideas on further examination end up refuting the points they are trying to make. Don't paint a horse and call it a zebra, trade benefits everyone when the wealth is redistributed. The directness with which the authors speak to wealth redistribution and tax policy is impressive.

The chapter on automation is one of the more spot on analysis that I’ve seen for our current world. I do think they are a bit too optimistic and miss slightly how entrenched and stuck technological development is right now. To expound: There’s been a lot of money made in venture capital over the past two decades. So naturally, a lot more private equity money dog piles into it as an asset class. But new VC money is not old VC money. New VC money doesn’t have the risk tolerance one might typically associate with VC. So they look for safe bets, trying to pattern match on old winners. My opinion is that that strategy is wack and doesn’t really work. But it seems to be plenty popular. So you end up with a few breakout companies (Uber, Airbnb, Stripe, Juul, etc) and a lot of “founders” trying to pretend to fit that mould. New VC money doesn’t want to take a flier on something too far out of the norm, so you end up with a ton of people trying to do something that has been done, but in some new industry. Uber but with scooters. This infusion of cash keeps a lot of shitty companies on life support (hey there Adam Neumann) and we end up with a stagnant pipeline of “innovative new companies.” I think it's probable my view is skewed because I am in Austin rather than at some SV or MIT lab somewhere, but I think people put too much faith in tech. A lot of it is just marketing bullshit.

Lastly, my biggest quibble with the end of the book. I don’t know why everyone just accepts the assumption that labor equals dignity. It's one of these collective myths we have all agreed to tell eachother. I agree there is something that can feel good about work. Whether it is from post run endorphins or pride from building a deck. But the assumption that work is inherently tied to self-respect is just plain wrong. Why do you need to produce something of value for someone else to receive some sort of validation? If the argument against UBI is that people need the "inherent dignity of labor" to feel dignity, you could win a medal for some weird mental gymnastics. Most work is meaningless. When I was working in tech, 90% of what I did was performative. Managing up, being seen, going to worthless stand-ups, fulfilling empty metrics, filling my coffee mug, getting along with coworkers, calling people that weren't going to call me back, not calling back people who called me, etc etc. Now, as a student, 95% of my school work doesn't matter except that we killed too many trees to print my textbooks. And sorry if this is too nihilist, if you zoom out far enough, none of it matters. So what essentially the argument is, "we can't blindly supply basic needs, because people have to struggle and work to feel like they matter." The only thing not working there is the logic.How did we find meaning before the heavily influenced industrial system we have today? People can create their own meaning without having to produce something. Don't @ me. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Feb 17, 2021 Leah rated it liked it

Enjoyed it. Pretty interesting and informative on labor markets, imports/exports, poor/rich, country policies, racism, economists opinions very different than avg population.

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Nov 16, 2020 Daisy Homolka rated it it was amazing

Best book I’ve read in a long time - probably partly because it so accurately sums up my own feelings and opinions about the world but doesn’t make it any less worthwhile to read. Will be recommending to anyone who will listen

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Oct 04, 2020 Andrew rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: economics-business-finance, politics-and-political-theory

Good Economics for Hard Times, by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, is an interesting book on some pressing economic and political issues that the world is facing, and some tentative solutions. The authors discuss immigration, free trade, behavioural economics, declining rates of growth, environmental disaster, AI and technology, government and anti-government, and welfare and wealth inequality. The authors use numerous case studies and RTD's to analyze policy experiments from the US, to Ind Good Economics for Hard Times, by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, is an interesting book on some pressing economic and political issues that the world is facing, and some tentative solutions. The authors discuss immigration, free trade, behavioural economics, declining rates of growth, environmental disaster, AI and technology, government and anti-government, and welfare and wealth inequality. The authors use numerous case studies and RTD's to analyze policy experiments from the US, to India, Ghana, Germany and beyond.

Immigration and its benefits are discussed in detail. The authors are nuanced on this point, stating that unfettered immigration could be damaging, but immigration as a whole has numerous economic benefits. More people means the need for more services, products and jobs in a location, and an influx in immigration does have positive economic benefits in a location. The mentality behind immigration is often negative; economies are doing poorly right now, and populations often blame new immigrants for lack of jobs, or tight cash flows. The authors show that there is no proof that economies are effected by new immigrants. Often issues arising from economic downturns have to do with flows of international trade, and lack of government assistance for those who lose. These "deplorables" as Hilary Clinton nefariously called them, are down and out due to shifts in economics. They are the ones who feel the struggle with new immigrants as a competitive factor. This is not just an issue in the US of course, many nations suffer from these shifts and downturns, which often have negative effects in specific localities, even if the nation as a whole may benefit. Contrary to economics 101 wisdom, workers in effected areas do not move to new areas to pursue work very often. One may struggle with the economic logic here, but the social logic is clear; most people will not uproot there entire lives just because this are tough. One's home, family and identity are often tied to there place of birth or residence - these things are hard to break, and the cold economic logic that states they must is unrealistic. As the authors so eloquently state it, people do not flee when things are rough, they only flee when they have to - "from the mouth of the shark." One may not move due to unemployment, but if your neighbour is out to kill you, or tanks are rolling through y0our neighbourhood, or you are literally starving to death, you might. The other major wave of immigrants that most Western nations get come from the entrepreneurial among us - these are the people who have insatiable ideas, want to explore, and succeed. Most people aren't like this, but if you look at the likes of Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and so forth, these individuals all came from immigrant families - most successful people are, or have gone through similar struggles. As the authors state, hardships can create opportunities. The authors state that immigration is beneficial, and encouraging immigration is important, especially in nations with sluggish growth. To encourage, it will take government investment in areas with sticky economies - those low growth or declining areas where people are struggling, to ensure they are not left behind. Job programs, infrastructure investment, taxation changes and the like are all posited.

The authors go on to discuss trade. This certainly has a beneficial impact on GDP growth and job creation, but the authors note the somewhat justified criticisms leveled at trade. In its current form, unfettered trade does result in declining jobs in the short term, and profits that do not often trickle down to the majority of the population. Free trade creates wealth for the elite, but it is also damaging for wealth equality, the environment, and is disruptive for existing industries. Trade is also not necessarily fair - countries like the United States and the UK in the past champion free trade when they cannot be competed with, but are incentivized to put up tariff barriers to squeeze out competing nations. This is economic imperialism at its core, and shows that the realpolitik behind trade trumps the rosy ideological PR often spouted by economists. Trade can be very beneficial, but must be done fairly. The authors advocate for some solutions, with the caveat that these may not work in locales - policies need to be specifically crafted to suit national needs. One option is promoting exports. This is especially important in developing nations where labour is cheap, but infrastructure is lacking. Building foreign reserves, and improving the climate for trade and business is an important step to receive FDI flows, and nations often need to prove themselves to do so. One is more likely to by an American car than one from Egypt, even though the cars may be of similar quality. The authors discuss interesting programs to put suppliers, manufacturers and the like from poorer countries in touch with retail platforms in other areas. Making carpets from Egypt or t-shirts from Indonesia more available on the market at better prices might allow them to compete a bit more with the businesses in India and China that dominate the market.

There are many more interesting topics in this book, my favourite being the discussions on economic growth and wealth inequality. The mentality behind constant GDP growth is pervasive, and yet probably not realistic. The mechanisms behind growth often focus on productivity. There are some factors of productivity that are pretty well understood - educating your workforce better opens up more opportunities. Technological changes can improve a workers ability to increase tasks easily and more efficiently. And so on. However, a large portion of productivity, called Total Factor Productivity, is basically not understood. Robert Solow famously called it "the measure of our own ignorance". This large category, which takes up a large percentage of productivity changes, may have to do with topics that cannot be calculated by economics in a sense. Human happiness, loyalty at work, dignity, contentment, and so on may all be factors in this category. Western nations have been trying to encourage growth by lowering taxes, which in turn leads to poorer public services, more expensive private services, and declining investments in all sorts of public goods and services, such as public works, library services, welfare, public investment and much much more. This gutting of civic life, surprise surprise, does not actually improve economic growth. In fact, since the on set of Reagonomics, the Western world has seen a spectacular decline in growth rates, and citizens themselves have been forced out of the democratic decision making process through the shuttering of trade unions. This has led to declines in many factors for the working classes of the world.

This book is a series of interesting discussions and policy prescriptions for numerous topics that effect public administrations across the globe. These topics are often buried in ideological messaging so deep, it is hard to discover or discuss any of the factors involved, thus making them difficult to solve. Banerjee and Duflo have given a nuanced and interesting examination of these topics, and identified some key elements to be considered when finding solutions. They also offer a perspective that is grounded in fact, and does not bend to the whims of the US right/left dichotomy which has polluted solutions focused policy. Sympathetic discussions on any down and out group, whether new immigrants, or rust belt communities, are prevalent, and no solution is offered without discussing the counterpoint, and how some of these counterpoints are quite valid. A very interesting book, and an easy recommendation for those looking for a good economics book for the modern era. ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

May 29, 2020 Bello Habeeb rated it liked it · review of another edition

Wow

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Jul 16, 2020 Polly Roth rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: to-review, library-books, nonfiction

Some interesting ideas with lots of studies to back them up. Our present looks pretty bleak in their eyes. I'm less confident than they are that we can fix it, lol. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Mar 20, 2020 Tatsuhiro Sato rated it it was amazing

5 Stars
First of all neither I am the right person nor I would be able to review this masterpiece in a way to match its significance. Still I would write what I personally feel about it.

If one really wants to understand human life, in more subtle way, much more factually read Economics especially books like these.

Economics is not just about money, markets etc. It is much more than that. It captures human emotions and need in much precise way and has in past & could help in overcoming challenges, ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Feb 13, 2020 Conrad rated it really liked it

Poor Economics was a phenomenal book in which Banerjee and Duflo wielded the quantitative, through their use of Randomized Control Trials, to understand the qualitative: what policies work and why. Now, Banerjee and Duflo are back, broadening their scope geographically and thematically. This approach suits them. They dare to take a more political stand and convey that things like decency and quality of life may even matter more than just income. They ensure that economics is open tot non-economi ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Oct 20, 2019 Anandh Sundar rated it really liked it

The book gives anecdotes from RCT(randomized trials) and research papers, to provide their supposedly objective view on how to perceive economics's impact on those adversely impacted by globzliation. The book has some good insights as to why less people immigrate than expected, and if they do why the job market is slow to absorb them, the high government wage impact on the labour job market, the UBI(Universal basic income) story etc. This is an immensely readable one.

The reason I docked a star i ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

May 21, 2020 Udit Nair rated it really liked it

Shelves: economics, non-fiction, geopolitics

The book manages to capture the thoughts around most of the pressing problems world economy faces. The research is exhaustive and gets reflected in the writing also. The reason for writing this book is -
"We wrote this book to hold on to hope. To tell ourselves a story of what went wrong and why, but also as a reminder of all that has gone right. A book as much about the problems as about how our world can be put back together, as long as we are honest with the diagnosis."

The first chapter deals The book manages to capture the thoughts around most of the pressing problems world economy faces. The research is exhaustive and gets reflected in the writing also. The reason for writing this book is -
"We wrote this book to hold on to hope. To tell ourselves a story of what went wrong and why, but also as a reminder of all that has gone right. A book as much about the problems as about how our world can be put back together, as long as we are honest with the diagnosis."

The first chapter deals with a theme called MEGA which essentially means make economy great again. The authors have given some valuable insights. One of the highlights being that as a society we are facing incredible polarization. And as a result the opinions contrary to existing beliefs are often ignored and worse simply thrown out of the window.

The second chapter is the highlight of the book atleast for me. The author has went on to explain in great detail regarding the migration myths around us. The chapter not only is counterintuitive but also is important for policy makers. As contrary to popular notion migrations should be promoted and the fear around it is unfounded as of now. Also the author admits that it's more to do with identity politics rather than crude economic aspect.

The chapter dealing with global trade is the next in the book. Here the authors touch upon various political narratives around trade. They manage to tell one thing very clearly and that is protectionism across the globe is a significant concern.

The subsequent chapter deals with the debate of climate change. Here also the authors seem to have a different opinion but added with immense research it makes sense. The authors are of the view that though developed countries have a moral responsibility for tackling climate change effectively but developing countries should also buckle up and try to cut down the emissions. The fundamental focus should be on changing the lifestyle which can bring down consumption. The consumer based model of development is going to be harmful in the long run and until and unless sustainable ways are adopted it will be a herculean task to control climate change.

One of the other highlights of the book is the debate around universal basic income. The authors make some insightful assessments taking into account the rise of AI and other technological changes.

As a whole the book is indeed written in a way that makes it accessible to larger audiences. The economic jargon is kept to the minimum. Along with economics lot of behavioural psychology insights are also presented. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jan 24, 2021 Marta rated it really liked it

Shelves: business-tech, nonfiction, audio, own-audio

This is not so much a book about economy, but about policies to improve the life of citizens in general. Its main focus is policies that target reduce poverty. The authors make a good case for programs that respect the dignity of recipients first and foremost - because that matters even more than making ends meet.

There are many great ideas here, but because I listened - and much of it when I was tired - I did not retain too much. I have ordered the print version and will re-read when it arrives ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Modern Market...: Inicio del club de lectura: "The Modern Marketing"	1	1	Nov 16, 2020 05:27AM
MIT Alumni Book Club: Winter/Spring 2020: Good Economics for Hard Times (Selected by Mary Ann Bates)	10	62	Jul 26, 2020 12:54PM
BS Book Club: Good Economics for Hard Times	1	6	May 31, 2020 03:55PM
BS Book Club: Good Economics for Hard Times	1	6	May 31, 2020 02:55PM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Economics

738 users

Nonfiction

330 users

Business

123 users

Politics

89 users

Economics > Finance

50 users

Audiobook

24 users

Science

20 users

Culture > Society

15 users

Social Science

13 users

Currency > Money

13 users

See top shelves…

About Abhijit V. Banerjee

Abhijit V. Banerjee

654 followers

Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee is an Indian economist. He is currently the Ford Foundation International Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Banerjee is a co-founder of the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (along with economists Esther Duflo and Sendhil Mullainathan) and a Research Affiliate of Innovations for Poverty Action, a New Haven, Connecticut based research ...more

Books by Abhijit V. Banerjee

Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty

Harnessing the flexibility of tubulin tyrosine ligase to site-specifically label C-terminus of alpha-tubulin.

More…

Articles featuring this book

Bill Gates Shares His Summer Reading Picks

Tech pioneer, co-founder of Microsoft, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and author Bill Gates is an avid reader who has...

Trivia About Good Economics fo...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Good Economics fo...

“What is dangerous is not making mistakes, but to be so enamored of one’s point of view that one does not let facts get in the way. To make progress, we have to constantly go back to the facts, acknowledge our errors, and move” — 9 likes

“Economics is too important to be left to economists.” — 5 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — Good Economics for Hard Times by Abhijit V. Banerjee

Good Economics for Hard Times: Better Answers to Our Biggest Problems

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Abhijit V. Banerjee

Books by Abhijit V. Banerjee

Articles featuring this book

Trivia About Good Economics fo...

Quotes from Good Economics fo...

See a Problem?

Preview — Good Economics for Hard Times by Abhijit V. Banerjee

Good Economics for Hard Times: Better Answers to Our Biggest Problems

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Abhijit V. Banerjee

Books by Abhijit V. Banerjee

Articles featuring this book

Trivia About Good Economics fo...

Quotes from Good Economics fo...

new topic
Discuss This Book