專欄2016美國大選

Trump, Brexit and prediction in an age of uncertainty

If 2008 was a sharp reminder that banking matters, then 2016 has reminded us that politics matters too — and, in both cases, the reminder has not been especially welcome. How should economists respond?

Until recently, both banking and politics tended to be something of a niche interest in the economics profession. This isn’t quite as insane as it might seem: if you want to analyse a complex world, you’re going to have to make some simplifying assumptions. For a generation or more, in rich countries, both banks and politicians have seemed complicated and not terribly important, so many economists have ignored them.

Development economists have paid closer attention to politics and have been rewarded for their efforts. Daron Acemoglu won the John Bates Clark Medal in 2005, and the late Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist, won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2009. The reason for their interest is obvious: malfunctioning political institutions are a major reason that poor countries are poor.

您已閱讀19%(1009字),剩餘81%(4445字)包含更多重要資訊,訂閱以繼續探索完整內容,並享受更多專屬服務。
版權聲明:本文版權歸FT中文網所有,未經允許任何單位或個人不得轉載,複製或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵權必究。

臥底經濟學家

蒂姆•哈福德(Tim Harford)是英國《金融時報》的經濟學專欄作家,他撰寫兩個欄目:《親愛的經濟學家》和 《臥底經濟學家》。他寫過一本暢銷書也叫做《臥底經濟學家》,這本書已經被翻譯爲16種語言,他現在正在寫這本書的續集。哈福德也是BBC的一檔節目《相信我,我是經濟學家》(Trust Me, I’m an Economist)的主持人。他同妻子及兩個孩子一起住在倫敦。

相關文章

相關話題

設置字型大小×
最小
較小
默認
較大
最大
分享×