Last updated on October 22, 2011
A little more than a year ago, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Directorate for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences commissioned 54 papers from leading economists on long-term research agendas. That is, on questions that are “likely to drive next generation research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences.”
If I were a second-year Ph.D. student looking for a set of great research questions, I would be all over these. I certainly wish that the emphasis on applied theory Esther Duflo foresees in development economics had been in fashion when I hit the market in 2006!
Here is a list of the papers that should be of interest to readers of this blog:
“A Research Agenda for Development Economics,” by Esther Duflo
Abstract:
Development economics has grown tremendously in the last fifteen years. It can continue to grow and improve in the next decades by focusing on three areas. First, revitalizing the tradition of applied theory which transformed development economics in the 1980s and 1990s, by giving us a better understanding of how poverty shapes individual options. A new wave of applied theoretical work is needed, to incorporate recent empirical findings that have revealed the limits of the earlier theoretical framework. Second, continue expanding and improving empirical work, in particular experimental work. More ambitious, potentially more expensive experiments, should be conducted. Third, expanding theoretical and empirical work on the aggregate consequences of micro-level distortions, themselves identified by the new theoretical and the empirical work to be done under the first and second areas of focus.
The paper can be downloaded from here.
“Challenges for Social Sciences: Institutions and Economic Development,” by Daron Acemoglu
Abstract:
Why some countries are much poorer than others is one of the oldest questions in social science. It will also be one of the most challenging and important questions in the next several decades. This is for several reasons. First, despite spectacular growth in per capita incomes in much of the world during the 20th century, the gaps between rich and poor countries, rather than abating, have expanded. This pattern is challenging to most of our theories because many of the barriers to the spread of prosperity have disappeared: ideas travel around the world almost instantaneously, and any nation should today be able to easily copy any economic or social practice that it wishes; various impediments to trade in goods and to financial flows and foreign direct investments have largely disappeared. But the wide gaps in incomes and living standards remain. Second, these gaps have meant that while the rich world has become richer, poverty, disease and social injustice are still widespread in many parts of the world, notably in much of sub-Saharan Africa, in parts of South Asia and in various pockets of poverty in the Caribbean and Central America. Challenging though these issues may be, we are now much better equipped to understand, and perhaps work towards redressing, the causes of these widespread disparities. Much of the progress on this issue has been made in economics (see Acemoglu, 2009, for an overview), but the next step will require us to combine the insights and tools developed in economics with perspectives from other social sciences.
The paper can be downloaded from here.
“Clinical Trials in Economics,” by Hal R. Varian
Abstract:
The gold standard for scientific research is reproducible controlled experiments. In the last two or three decades economics has made much progress in implementing experiments in both the laboratory and in the field. I propose that the NSF should set up a program to fund field experiments/clinical trials in a variety of areas in economics. These clinical trials should be designed to resolve fundamental debates in economics. Proposals for experimental designs should be submitted to a special program and be reviewed by referees and a panel of experts, as with current experiments. Unlikely current proposals, we would expect some iteration with respect to the experimental design. When a consensus (or a significant majority) is reached about experimental design, funding would be offered to the researchers. It would be helpful to involve researchers from public health and other fields who are familiar with the problems involved with large clinical trials.
The paper can be downloaded from here.
(HT: Organizations and Markets.)