O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org.

Mostrando postagens com marcador premio Nobel de Economia. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador premio Nobel de Economia. Mostrar todas as postagens

segunda-feira, 19 de outubro de 2015

Angus Deaton e o estudo da pobreza (e da fuga dela) - André Azevedo Alves (Portugal)

Transcrevendo, por sugestão de um leitor deste blog:

Numa obra de difícil catalogação nos moldes ideológicos, Deaton procura explicar o extraordinário processo de fuga à miséria e pobreza generalizada que se desenvolveu ao longo dos últimos três séculos

O Prémio Sveriges Riksbank em memória de Alfred Nobel de 2015 foi atribuído a Angus Deaton, doutorado pela Universidade de Cambridge e Professor há mais de três décadas na Universidade de Princeton. Deaton começou por ser essencialmente um microeconomista centrado na análise do consumo e do rendimento que, gradualmente, alargou o seu campo de investigação a questões de maior abrangência no domínio da economia política institucional e do estudo da pobreza e do desenvolvimento.
A fundamentação do prémio destaca três contributos distintos, mas todos relacionados com a análise do consumo. O primeiro foi o seu trabalho conjunto com John Muellbauer no âmbito da estimação da procura corporizado no “Almost Ideal Demand System” apresentado na American Economic Review em 1980. O segundo foi o seu contributo para a análise da relação entre consumo e rendimento, prosseguindo linhas de investigação avançadas por economistas como Milton Friedman e Franco Modigliani e focando-se em particular na sua avaliação. O terceiro, e porventura mais saliente, foi a sua investigação sobre a pobreza, a comparação de níveis de vida e o desenvolvimento, com amplo suporte empírico em inquéritos aos agregados familiares.
O trabalho de Angus Deaton com vista ao aperfeiçoamento das comparações de níveis de vida tem-se revelado especialmente importante para um melhor entendimento dos diferentes níveis de desenvolvimento assim como da evolução dos mesmos ao longo do tempo. Neste domínio, e em boa parte devido aos seus contributos, a compreensão das semelhanças e diferenças nos padrões de consumo de bens e serviços entre sociedades e no interior de uma mesma sociedade tem assumido uma relevância crescente tanto a nível da investigação como enquanto guia para as políticas públicas.
Muitas das principais ideias de força do trabalho de Angus Deaton ao longo das últimas décadas encontram-se reunidas de forma (relativamente) acessível no livro The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality (Princeton University Press, 2013). Nessa obra, de difícil catalogação nos moldes ideológicos tradicionais mas com numerosos contributos de grande valor, Deaton procura explicar o extraordinário processo de fuga à miséria e pobreza generalizada que se desenvolveu ao longo dos últimos três séculos. Os avanços em termos de crescimento económico e qualidade de vida foram extraordinários e sem precedente na longa história da humanidade, tendo também sido acompanhados do aparecimento de desigualdades sem precedentes entre diferentes partes do mundo.
A abordagem de Angus Deaton aplicada à análise das inovações e dos sucessos (assim como dos insucessos) civilizacionais dos últimos séculos pode ser legitimamente inserida na mesma categoria, em sentido lato, de estudos de economia política institucional com abordagem interdisciplinar desenvolvidos por autores como Mancur Olson, William Easterly ou Elinor Ostrom.
Num tópico particularmente controverso – o da ajuda internacional ao desenvolvimento – Deaton alinha em grande medida com Easterly na crítica enérgica aos efeitos prejudiciais dessa ajuda sobre o desenvolvimento institucional dos países mais pobres. Sem deixar de reconhecer os efeitos positivos de curto prazo que as transferências dos países mais ricos para os mais pobres podem ter em matérias importantes como os cuidados de saúde, Deaton alerta para os graves danos que essas transferências produzem a nível institucional. De facto, ao propiciar o desenvolvimento e perpetuação de estruturas rentistas e de governos opressivos e ineficazes, a ajuda internacional pode constituir-se como um dos principais obstáculos ao desenvolvimento. A respeito destes temas, vale também a pena ler o recente texto de Angus Deaton publicado na Review of Austrian Economics intitulado “On Tyrannical Experts and Expert Tyrants”, motivado precisamente pelo livro The Tyranny of Experts, de William Easterly.
Globalmente considerados, os contributos de Angus Deaton são um exemplo do melhor que a ciência económica contemporânea tem para oferecer, conjugando o individualismo metodológico, uma sólida base conceptual e o trabalho empírico rigoroso e devidamente sustentado.

Professor do Instituto de Estudos Políticos da Universidade Católica Portuguesa

domingo, 18 de outubro de 2015

Premios Nobel de Economia: a lista completa (NYT)

Past Winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science

Compiled: The New York Times, October 12, 2015

The economics prize was established in 1968 in memory of Alfred Nobel, to celebrate the 300th anniversary of Sweden’s central bank, the world’s first. Below is a complete list of winners, according to Nobelprize.org:
2015Angus Deaton
“For his analysis of consumption, poverty and welfare.”
2014Jean Tirole
“For his analysis of market power and regulation.”
2013Eugene F. Fama, Lars Peter Hansen and Robert J. Shiller
“For their empirical analysis of asset prices.”
2012Alvin E. Roth and Lloyd S. Shapley
“For the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design.”
2011Thomas J. Sargent and Christopher A. Sims
“For their empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy.”
2010
Peter A. Diamond, Dale T. Mortensen and Christopher A. Pissarides
“For their analysis of markets with search frictions.”
2009
Elinor Ostrom
“For her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons.”
Oliver E. Williamson
“For his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm.”
2008
Paul Krugman
“For his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.”
2007
Leonid Hurwicz, Eric S. Maskin and Roger B. Myerson
“For having laid the foundations of mechanism design theory.”
2006
Edmund S. Phelps
“For his analysis of intertemporal trade-offs in macroeconomic policy.”
2005
Robert J. Aumann and Thomas C. Schelling
“For having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis.”
2004
Finn E. Kydland and Edward C. Prescott
“For their contributions to dynamic macroeconomics: the time consistency of economic policy and the driving forces behind business cycles.”
2003
Robert F. Engle III
“For methods of analyzing economic time series with time-varying volatility (ARCH).”
Clive W. J. Granger
“For methods of analyzing economic time series with common trends (co-integration).”
2002
Daniel Kahneman
“For having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision making under uncertainty.”
Vernon L. Smith
“For having established laboratory experiments as a tool in empirical economic analysis, especially in the study of alternative market mechanisms.”
2001
George A. Akerlof, A. Michael Spence and Joseph E. Stiglitz
“For their analyses of markets with asymmetric information.”
2000
James J. Heckman
“For his development of theory and methods For analyzing selective samples.”
Daniel L. McFadden
“For his development of theory and methods for analyzing discrete choice.”
1999
Robert A. Mundell
“For his analysis of monetary and fiscal policy under different exchange-rate regimes and his analysis of optimum currency areas.”
1998
Amartya Sen
“For his contributions to welfare economics.”
1997
Robert C. Merton and Myron S. Scholes
“For a new method to determine the value of derivatives.”
1996
James A. Mirrlees and William Vickrey
“For their fundamental contributions to the economic theory of incentives under asymmetric information.”
1995
Robert E. Lucas Jr.
“For having developed and applied the hypothesis of rational expectations, and thereby having transformed macroeconomic analysis and deepened our understanding of economic policy.”
1994
John C. Harsanyi, John F. Nash Jr. and Reinhard Selten
“For their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of noncooperative games.”
1993
Robert W. Fogel and Douglass C. North
“For having renewed research in economic history by applying economic theory and quantitative methods in order to explain economic and institutional change.”
1992
Gary S. Becker
“For having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behavior and interaction, including nonmarket behavior.”
1991
Ronald H. Coase
“For his discovery and clarification of the significance of transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and functioning of the economy.”
1990
Harry M. Markowitz, Merton H. Miller and William F. Sharpe
“For their pioneering work in the theory of financial economics.”
1989
Trygve Haavelmo
“For his clarification of the probability theory foundations of econometrics and his analyses of simultaneous economic structures.”
1988
Maurice Allais
“For his pioneering contributions to the theory of markets and efficient utilization of resources.”
1987
Robert M. Solow
“For his contributions to the theory of economic growth.”
1986
James M. Buchanan Jr.
“For his development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision making.”
1985
Franco Modigliani
“For his pioneering analyses of saving and of financial markets.”
1984
Richard Stone
“For having made fundamental contributions to the development of systems of national accounts and hence greatly improved the basis for empirical economic analysis.”
1983
Gérard Debreu
“For having incorporated new analytical methods into economic theory and for his rigorous reformulation of the theory of general equilibrium.”
1982
George J. Stigler
“For his seminal studies of industrial structures, functioning of markets, and causes and effects of public regulation.”
1981
James Tobin
“For his analysis of financial markets and their relations to expenditure decisions, employment, production and prices.”
1980
Lawrence R. Klein
“For the creation of econometric models and the application to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies.”
1979
Theodore W. Schultz and Sir W. Arthur Lewis
“For their pioneering research into economic development research with particular consideration of the problems of developing countries.”
1978
Herbert A. Simon
“For his pioneering research into the decision-making process within economic organizations.”
1977
Bertil Ohlin and James E. Meade
“For their pathbreaking contribution to the theory of international trade and international capital movements.”
1976
Milton Friedman
“For his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.”
1975
Leonid V. Kantorovich and Tjalling C. Koopmans
“For their contributions to the theory of optimum allocation of resources.”
1974
Gunnar Myrdal and Friedrich August von Hayek
“For their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.”
1973
Wassily Leontief
“For the development of the input-output method and for its application to important economic problems.”
1972
John R. Hicks and Kenneth J. Arrow
“For their pioneering contributions to general economic equilibrium theory and welfare theory.”
1971
Simon Kuznets
“For his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth, which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development.”
1970
Paul A. Samuelson
“For the scientific work through which he has developed static and dynamic economic theory and actively contributed to raising the level of analysis in economic science.”
1969
Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen
“For having developed and applied dynamic models for the analysis of economic processes.”

Angus Deaton, por que o premio Nobel de economia - Justin Wolfers (NYT)


Um depoimento sobre a importância do trabalho acadêmico do premiado economista do momento, nos vários campos nos quais ele contribuiu, sobretudo ao corrigir manias macroeconômicas e focar no empírico, no observável em nível micro, em buscar os dados corretos. Só discordo dessa "obrigação moral de economistas de países avançados em ajudar os pobres dos países pobres" - mas isso pode ser de Justin Wolfers, o autor do artigo, não de Angus Deaton -- bem como daquela coisa de Deaton de achar que os ricos podem estar "chutando a escada" para impedir outros -- pessoas ou países -- de os seguirem. Ninguém tem obrigação moral para nada: as pessoas devem conduzir seus cargos e obrigações segundo suas convicções e as normas sob as quais trabalham, e apenas mostrar aos demais o que funciona e o que não funciona, e todo mundo ser livre para aplicar esses ensinamentos ou não. O problema é que certas coisas funcionam num determinado país e não em outro, por isso a regra também deve ser: um MÍNIMO de regulação estatal, de obrigações universais, as pessoas e empresas devem ser livres para fazer os seus próprios experimentos.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Hartford, 18/10/2015





Why Angus Deaton Deserved the Economics Nobel Prize


EDITED BY DAVID LEONHARDT

FOLLOW US:






Justin Wolfers





 

The central contribution of Angus Deaton, the latest winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, has been to shift the gaze of his fellow economists beyond measures of income, to broader measures of well-being.

Much of his research has focused on consumption — measures of the food people eat, the condition of their housing, and the services they consume. And he has been a trailblazer in shifting the attention of economists away from the behavior of economywide aggregates such as gross domestic product, and toward the analysis of individual households.

This is also the first Nobel to acknowledge explicitly the increasingly empiricalnature of modern economic research. There are probably more such Nobels to come.

Yet for all the power that modern statistics brings, Mr. Deaton has argued forcefully that it is neither a panacea nor a substitute for economic theory.

He has been an influential counterweight against a popular strand of econometric practice arguing that if you want to know whether something works, you should just test it, preferably with a randomized control trial. In Mr. Deaton’s telling, the observation that a particular government intervention worked is no guarantee that it will work again, or in another context. By this view, theory is a complement to measurement, and generalizable insights arise only when the underlying economic mechanisms are elucidated and tested.



Angus Deaton was greeted by his colleagues at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., after he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science.CreditPeter Foley/European Pressphoto Agency 

His method of careful analysis of data from household surveys has transformed four large swaths of the dismal science: microeconomics, econometrics, macroeconomics and development economics.

He has brought microeconomics — traditionally a field populated by theorists — into closer connection with the data. Partly because of his influence, modern microeconomists are more likely to spend their days knee-deep in large-scale data sets describing the real-world decisions made by millions of people, and less likely to be mired in Greek-letter abstractions.

Much of the empirical revolution in economics has been enabled by the tools that Mr. Deaton developed. These tools reimagine the role of economic theory, using it to organize and interpret the tidal wave of data coming from the hundreds of household surveys conducted around the world each year.

This focus on empirics has been a boon for the field of econometrics, which is the application of statistical methods to economic problems. Mr. Deaton’s signature achievement in this area has been in forcing empirical researchers to pay closer attention to questions of measurement. For too long, econometric analysis had proceeded as if data were simply handed down from a statistician-loving higher power. The reality is far uglier: Data are imperfect, surveys can be unrepresentative, people misreport, and attempts to recontact survey participants often fail. Mr. Deaton confronts these issues head-on, and he has taught economists how to extract meaning from imperfect data.

For an economist focused on big-picture questions — issues of global poverty — Mr. Deaton remains remarkably grounded in these smaller details. As the Nobel committee put it, Mr. Deaton’s “work covers a wide spectrum, from the deepest implications of theory to the grittiest detail of measurement.”

More than any other economist I know, he understands that to get the big picture right, you’ve got to get all the small details right, too.

This is a lesson that I learned firsthand, as my co-author (and significant other) Betsey Stevenson and I were puzzling over some data that appeared to show that people in certain low-income countries nonetheless reported high levels of life satisfaction. Mr. Deaton, who was equally perplexed, suggested that we dig a little deeper, as he recalled that some of the surveys were not representative samples of the entire population. Sure enough, several weeks of digging through the archives and sifting through the appendices to old codebooks revealed Mr. Deaton to be correct, and those puzzling observations to be simply the result of pollsters surveying only richer (and therefore probably happier) people in those poor countries. These statistical anomalies had partly hidden the strong link between life satisfaction and average incomes.

Mr. Deaton has also made important contributions to macroeconomics, which is the study of the economy as a whole. An earlier generation of macroeconomists had focused on aggregate measures, such as the total levels of consumption or income in the economy. Mr. Deaton turned instead to the behavior of individual households. He was a leader among those rejecting the prevailing fiction that the behavior of the whole economy could be treated as if it were the result of choices made by a single representative consumer.

This distinction between individual and aggregate behavior is particularly important to the study of consumption. While macroeconomists had been satisfied that their theories could explain the relationship between the total level of consumption and total income in the economy, Mr. Deaton showed that those same theories struggled to explain what individual households were doing. This has spawned a large and productive continuing research program trying to understand the spending patterns of actual households.

In 1992, Mr. Deaton argued that further progress on difficult economic questions would be likely “when macroeconomic questions are addressed in a way that uses the increasingly plentiful and informative microeconomic data.” He was right, and newly available “big data” describing the individual saving, spending and investment decisions of thousands and sometimes millions of people are fueling some of the most important work in macroeconomics today.

But perhaps Mr. Deaton’s most important effect has been within the field of development economics, which focuses on the economies of poor countries. This is a research program born of deep personal conviction. As he recently wrote, “Those of us who were lucky enough to be born in the right countries have a moral obligation to reduce poverty and ill health in the world.”

A generation ago, development economics was a field populated by “country doctors” — globe-trotting macroeconomists willing to make house calls to any country willing to provide them with a first-class ticket, so that they could proffer their preferred prescription, be it a more muscular industrial policy, a big push of infrastructure development, increased national savings or a faster shift to a market economy. The countries varied, but the prescriptions rarely did.

Today, development economics is a far more interesting and nuanced field, with practitioners focused on understanding the lives of the poor, and in uncovering the subtle ways in which immature economic institutions hinder their development. Rather than studying a few dozen countries, modern development economists are likely to pore over data describing the economic lives of thousands of families within each country. And much of that data comes from his decades-long collaboration with the World Bank, as his work has inspired much of its recent work on measuring and assessing poverty. The result is a sharper picture of the incidence and causes of global poverty.

More recently, Mr. Deaton has turned his attention to measures of subjective well-being, including happiness. In his 2010 Presidential address to the American Economic Association, Mr. Deaton highlighted the problems in constructing coherent measures of global poverty. Measures of income don’t offer much insight unless they can be thought of in terms of differences in purchasing power. But it is impossible to assess who has more or less purchasing power when people in different countries face different prices and choose to buy different goods. Given this problem, Mr. Deaton makes the radical suggestion that economists just ask people about their well-being instead.

Many of the most important findings on subjective well-being reflect new sources of data that Mr. Deaton — together with the psychologists Ed Diener, Arthur Stone and Daniel Kahneman, a fellow Nobel laureate — have helped create through their role as a senior scientists at Gallup. (Disclosure: I also serve as a senior scientist there.)

The award for Mr. Deaton continues an extraordinary run for Princeton, whose other recent winners include the game theorist John Nash; Mr. Kahneman; the economic theorist Eric Maskin; the trade economist Paul Krugman, who is also a New York Times columnist; and the macroeconomist Chris Sims. Mr. Krugman has since moved to the City University of New York, while Mr. Maskin has returned to Harvard. Even with these departures, Princeton is close to drawing even with the University of Chicago, which still lists five economics laureates on its faculty. There’s a pretty good chance that may happen, as several of Mr. Deaton’s colleagues often feature on Nobel shortlists.

I spent a lovely year at Princeton as a visiting professor in 2012 and can attest that no one commands greater respect among his colleagues than Mr. Deaton. He’s an imposing presence, a man with a giant intellect and an extraordinary breadth of knowledge, who holds all economists to his exacting — indeed, intimidating — standards.

More than that, he’s motivated by the questions that really matter, he is intellectually relentless, he has enormous integrity and he has devoted his life to understanding and improving the lot of the poor. He’s the perfect role model for any young economist.



Justin Wolfers is a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan. Follow him on Twitter at @justinwolfers.

The Upshot provides news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our newsletter.
 
See also: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/business/angus-deaton-nobel-economics.html 

Past prizes in economics: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/business/economy/past-winners-of-the-nobel-memorial-prize-in-economic-science.html?_r=1 

segunda-feira, 26 de setembro de 2011

Frases da semana (3) Antidumping cambial, ou salvaguarda cambial, ou, qualquer outra coisa cambial...

Colaboração do Ministro do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio Exterior (como é mesmo o nome dele?) para a construção de uma nova teoria cambial, de uma nova política cambial, de um novo entendimento do que seja câmbio, do que seja dumping, do que seja salvaguarda, enfim, de qualquer coisa que possa dar a impressão que o governo está fazendo alguma coisa, qualquer coisa, para amenizar a chiadeira dos industriais por causa do câmbio valorizado (quando o governo não pretende, não sabe, não consegue fazer absolutamente nada), e quando, depois de um longo declínio, o câmbio justamente volta a subir (talvez tenha sido o ministro o responsável):


"Ainda não temos um termo exato porque é uma novidade. Chamamos de antidumping cambial, mas poderia ser uma salvaguarda. O câmbio tornou-se uma variável extremamente importante para o comércio. Quando a OMC foi criada, a realidade era muito diferente."
"O primeiro passo é estabelecer uma faixa de variação cambial aceitável. Não é atribuição da OMC, mas talvez do FMI. Definida a faixa, a OMC autorizaria países vítimas a neutralizar desvalorizações excessivas com uma medida cambial. Essa discussão está madura para ser feita agora."


Entrevista ao jornal O Estado de S.Paulo, "Tarifas de importação não são suficientes" (19/09/2011, p. B4).


Vocês entenderam? Eu confesso que não.
Busquei em meus manuais de economia internacional, seção políticas cambiais, mas não consegui achar nada que conseguisse me ajudar na interpretação das palavras do ministro. Confesso que sou incapaz de fazê-lo, tal a complexidade e inovação das propostas ministeriais. 
Acredito que também os técnicos do FMI e da OMC terão certa dificuldade em saber como interpretar, e como aplicar as complexas propostas do ministro. 
Talvez isso necessite uma rodada inteira de negociações comerciais (e cambiais) multilaterais apenas para entender o conceito, depois mais uma rodada inteira para discutir o que deve ser feito, se algo deve ser feito, enfim, mais uma terceira rodada para tentar aplicar alguma medida racional, e ao cabo de tudo, o yuan já será conversível e terá tido uma valorização de 100%.
Ufa! Ainda bem que o ministro levantou o problema...
Mas, confesso que eu queria entender o que ele disse...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida