Nathan Fiala recommends Rodrik's "binding constraints" approach to growth.
My issue is that although the theoretical approach is convincing, it hasn't really been tested. Especially in the lowest-income countries where it seems almost impossible to eliminate any of the potential constraints.
Furthermore it remains to be seen whether this kind of approach is even testable.
I await the results of the current World Bank exercise on Southern Sudan with bated breath.
As a government economist I entirely buy into the need for effective prioritisation of interventions, and find this theoretical approach pretty persuasive (despite my wariness about development fads). Lant Pritchett, one of the developers of the methodology puts the remarkable speed with which policy-makers have been converted to "diagnostics" and "binding constraints" simply down to the lack of credible alternatives.
My issue is that although the theoretical approach is convincing, it hasn't really been tested. Especially in the lowest-income countries where it seems almost impossible to eliminate any of the potential constraints.
Furthermore it remains to be seen whether this kind of approach is even testable.
I await the results of the current World Bank exercise on Southern Sudan with bated breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment