Tuesday, 26 June 2007

Dani Rodrik comenta en su blog sobre dos escuelas de pensamiento en el combate a la pobreza. La primera liderada por Bono y otra gente del espectáculo, y Jeffrey Sachs economista y ¿futuro presidente de EU? La segunda por Banerjee, Esther Duflo y Tim Besley otros economistas. La primera atiende las necesidades inmediatas, aliviando esos problemas los pobres serán capaces de superar su situación de pobreza; la segunda trabaja sobre política pública, incentivos y creación mecanismos que impulse a los pobres a salir de la pobreza. El debate generalmente gira en torno a una pregunta ¿quién tiene la razón? Y dado que los recursos son escasos ¿a quién otorgárselos? Este es mi comentario al respecto:

I would differentiate between short-run, middle-run and long-run strategies. Regarding the short-run strategy people from the first group are working there, that kind of aid is needed to stop people dying because of circumstances directly related to poverty, not doing so is unethical, we are not doing enough or as much as we can yet, so I guess we have been unethical all this time. Concerning the long-run strategy I think people from the second group are the ones how are doing the job, they have the ideas that would generate a turning point in history, they do not appear in front page magazines, have not been nominated for the Nobel peace prize, do not get applauses and ovations; but their work is the one that is going to make the difference between keep feeding them and help them to be able to feed by themselves at the end of the day. The middle-run strategy is the one that I am worried about, it is going to be the link between the current situation and the future with or without poverty as a problem, in the middle-run is where poverty fighting can turn into an old fad without future or into a stronger global phenomena with a future without poverty. I think in the middle-run is where both groups have to work together to build a stronger strategy and to charge batteries to keep working. I think of both groups as complements and not substitutes, unfortunately resources are limited and that makes them turn into substitutes, so who is working to keep them as complements? Who is thinking and working as part of both groups? Who is going to make the difference in the middle-run? The one doing that job would be a Nobel peace prize worth applauding.

1 comment:

Prof...7 said...

Ruben,
En general, estoy de acuerdo contigo. Desde el punto de vista analítico y de resultado de largo plazo, el trabajo de Banerjee (¡un tipo brillante!), Duflo y companía es más útil. sin embargo, creo que debemos cuidarnos de la tentación de trivializar o ridiculizar el trabajo de Sachs. Por ejemplo, la propuesta de Sachs de condonar la deuda de los países menos desarrollados (es verdad, ¡muy mediática propuesta!) descansaba en ue esos niveles de deuda hacían inviable que esos paises pudieran liberar recursos para implementar políticas sociales, etc.
Saludos.