Deputy Country Director - Programs @ Action Contre la Faim
1 karma
Joined Dec 6, 2022
Working (6-15 years)
Venezuelan. Graduate in interntional relations and public management. Shifted my career from policy recommendations to direct humanitarian work but I am also questioning effectiveness, efficiency and impact there.
wThanks for this reanalysis, David. It feels like those psychology exepriments being revisited and finding that not everything was as it seemed.
I am by no way an economists so pardon me for my question:
When Duflo's results pinpoint to the ratio of wage increase by schooling increase thanks to the Inpres program, and then you give the alternative explanation based on the "2 truths", I fail to see a difference in the basic structure of what happened between the two cases (putting aside the ratio in Duflo and the uncertainty of a ratio contribution in your reanalysis): Inpres schools got more kids to get schooled and it increased their earning VERSUS poorer regencies got more primary schools, which increased the chance of those kids getting to primary school and, comparatively with others who couldnt attend it, are more schooled and then -following one of the truths- more schooled is more earnings.
Am I missing something correct in my statement?
Furthermore, if schooling increases earnings and chances of getting schooled (reckoning schooling =/= learning) increase if there are schools available, should debates still focus on whether building schools increases schooling and then earnings or shift it to another area of attention? Im asking as someone who lives in an underdeveloped country.
Thanks a lot for this incredible work. I could read it through and like it. Now I will be re-reading Poor Economics with more skepticism.
wThanks for this reanalysis, David. It feels like those psychology exepriments being revisited and finding that not everything was as it seemed.
I am by no way an economists so pardon me for my question:
When Duflo's results pinpoint to the ratio of wage increase by schooling increase thanks to the Inpres program, and then you give the alternative explanation based on the "2 truths", I fail to see a difference in the basic structure of what happened between the two cases (putting aside the ratio in Duflo and the uncertainty of a ratio contribution in your reanalysis): Inpres schools got more kids to get schooled and it increased their earning VERSUS poorer regencies got more primary schools, which increased the chance of those kids getting to primary school and, comparatively with others who couldnt attend it, are more schooled and then -following one of the truths- more schooled is more earnings.
Am I missing something correct in my statement?
Furthermore, if schooling increases earnings and chances of getting schooled (reckoning schooling =/= learning) increase if there are schools available, should debates still focus on whether building schools increases schooling and then earnings or shift it to another area of attention? Im asking as someone who lives in an underdeveloped country.
Thanks a lot for this incredible work. I could read it through and like it. Now I will be re-reading Poor Economics with more skepticism.