Good Economics for Hard Times

Abhijit V. Banerjee, Esther Duflo

出版社

PublicAffairs

出版时间

2019-11-12

ISBN

9781610399500

评分

★★★★★
书籍介绍
Two prize-winning economists show how economics, when done right, can help us solve the thorniest social and political problems of our day. Figuring out how to deal with today's critical economic problems is perhaps the great challenge of our time. Much greater than space travel or perhaps even the next revolutionary medical breakthrough, what is at stake is the whole idea of the good life as we have known it. Immigration and inequality, globalization and technological disruption, slowing growth and accelerating climate change--these are sources of great anxiety across the world, from New Delhi and Dakar to Paris and Washington, DC. The resources to address these challenges are there--what we lack are ideas that will help us jump the wall of disagreement and distrust that divides us. If we succeed, history will remember our era with gratitude; if we fail, the potential losses are incalculable. In this revolutionary book, renowned MIT economists Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo take on this challenge, building on cutting-edge research in economics explained with lucidity and grace. Original, provocative, and urgent, Good Economics for Hard Times makes a persuasive case for an intelligent interventionism and a society built on compassion and respect. It is an extraordinary achievement, one that shines a light to help us appreciate and understand our precariously balanced world.
AI导读
核心看点
  • 用经济学视角拆解移民、贸易、气候等难题
  • 揭示自动化与不平等的深层机制及影响
  • 倡导基于证据的政策,打破偏见与对立
适合谁读
  • 关注全球热点与社会议题的普通读者
  • 希望理解经济政策背后逻辑的公众
  • 对发展经济学与社会政策感兴趣者
读前提醒
  • 内容涵盖面广,部分章节略显松散
  • 建议结合当下新闻背景阅读以加深理解
  • 无需深厚经济学基础,语言通俗易懂
读者共识
  • 两位诺奖得主用严谨数据破除常见迷思
  • 虽结构稍显杂乱,但观点深刻且具启发性
  • 被誉为当下时代必读的政策科普佳作

本导读基于书籍简介、目录、原文摘录、短评和书评生成,不等同于全文精读。

精彩摘录
  • "根据IPCC(联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会)2018年10月的报告,如果地球温度升高1.5摄氏度,将有70%的珊瑚礁消失。如果升高2摄氏度,这个比例将变为99%。在这两种不同的情况下,受海平面上升和耕地沙漠化直接影响的人数也将大不相同。"
  • "根据2015年《巴黎协定》,各国设定了将升温控制在2摄氏度以内的目标,而更雄心勃勃的目标是1.5摄氏度以内。基于科学证据,IPCC的报告得出结论,为了将升温控制在2摄氏度,到2030年,二氧化碳当量(CO2e)排放量需要减少25%(与2010年的水平相比),到2070年达到0。要将升温控制在1.5摄氏度以内,到2030年二氧化碳当量排放量需要降低45%,到2050年则要降至0。"
  • "如果我们将排放归因于消费发生地,那么北美人均每年消费22.5吨二氧化碳当量,西欧人为13.1吨,中国人为6吨,南亚人仅为2.2吨。"
  • "总体而言,我们得出了一个50/10规则,即世界上10%的人口(造成污染最多的人)贡献了约50%的二氧化碳排放量,而造成污染最少的50%的人只贡献了刚刚超过10%的二氧化碳排放量。"
  • "是空调本身加剧了全球变暖。标准空调设备中使用的氢氟碳化合物(HFC)对气候尤其有害。它们比二氧化碳危险得多。这使我们处于相当棘手的境地。这种可以保护人们免受气候变化影响的技术,同时也可以加快气候变化的速度。不使用HFC的新款空调污染较少,但价格昂贵。"
  • "直到2015年《巴黎协定》通过为止,印度一直拒绝考虑限制自己的排放量,理由是印度承受不起阻碍其自身经济增长的压力,富国应该率先垂范。当印度认可《巴黎协定》并提出具体承诺时,它的立场变了,以换取一些重要的财政援助来实现能源转型,由富裕国家支付的国际资金为其提供资金。 不愿采取行动的态度引起了广泛的关注,不仅是因为这对气候变化有直接影响,还因为这表明了政治家受到了中短期思维的主导。"
  • "过度的自动化会降低GDP,而不是为GDP做出贡献。"
  • "不受约束的自动化可能对工人不利,这也是大多数无论左右两派的美国人的直觉。值得一提的是,共和党与民主党在民意调查中一致反对由公司自己来决定自动化的程度。85%的美国人支持将自动化限制在“危险和肮脏的工作”上,在这一点上,民主党人与共和党人之间没有区别。即使以更明确的政治方式提问,“哪怕机器比人类更好、更便宜,是否应该限制企业可以用机器代替的工作数量”,58%的美国人,包括一半的共和党人,都回答“是”。"
作者简介
Abhijit Banerjee is the Ford Foundation International Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a co-founder and co-director of the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). In 2011, he was named one of Foreign Policy magazine's top 100 global thinkers. Banerjee served on the U.N. Secretary-General's High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Esther Duflo is the Abdul Latif Jameel Professor of Poverty Alleviation and Development Economics in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a co-founder and co-director of the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). Duflo is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Science, and has received numerous academic honors and prizes including the Princess of Asturias Award for Social Sciences (2015), the Infosys Prize (2014), the Dan David Prize (2013), a John Bates Clark Medal (2010), and a MacArthur "Genius Grant" Fellowship (2009). Duflo is a member of the President's Global Development Council and a Founding Editor of the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, and is currently the editor of the American Economic Review. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
用户评论
因为要给本科生开发展经济学的课,选定poor economics做教材后又读了这本新书,觉得比poor economics要好很多,把当下的很多热点问题:移民、国际贸易、AI、种族问题,都用很流畅的文字将各种观点和文献一一道来,有专业度又很容易读。推荐。
blog.jjyao.me/blog/2020/12/20/good-economics-for-hard-times/
Insightful discussions but suggestions appear to be quite disorganized and unclear at times
终于听完了!引用好多文献,感觉作者写论文的时候看完文献做写笔记就写了这本书吼。大部分理论和实证都很新,不过稍微有些凌乱,面面俱到;目前看来就是为新自由主义辩护!;原来hard times指的就是现在!
正是这个时间最该读的书
继上一本《贫穷的本质》后,这对诺奖夫妇重拾老本行,再次通过RCT随机控制实验试图从经济学角度探讨一系列棘手的社会性问题,包括但不限于移民/环境保护/贫富悬殊/社会分裂/贸易等。几乎每次读完社科类的书我都会有种「美国要完蛋了」的感觉,自然这本也不例外。印象比较深的一点是sticky粘性,“好心办坏事”的经济学家往往一厢情愿的相信财富总会平均分配「先富带后富」然而人是非理性的,也不可能依照经济学原理行事,而这也导致了阶级流动性差,财富不均日渐加剧,人人二极管思维。虽然书里也提到经济学本身无法提供万能药,但还是不由得感叹,这么多年过去了,可算有经济学家想起来要「真正」调研关注底层人民了,真是不容易。恐怕对贫困视而不见才是现今社会撕裂的元凶,某些缺德政客也别再甩锅给我们这些移民了才好。
读的原版。经济学生被老师按头读完。 “经济学的重要性不该被经济学家所埋没。”作者是从MIT毕业研究发展和福利系统,走访世界各地致力于脱贫攻坚,三观正又博爱的高级知识分子。听上去很讽刺但是实话,他们是真的想经世济民。 Cash and Care那一章就看得很感慨:贫困的根源是self-enforcing的异化和疏离,应该被转移的不仅仅是资源,是自尊。尊严和自我认同不该只是马斯洛金字塔的最上层建筑,而应该被视为最基本的需求,尤其是在以“高度文明”自诩的某些发达国家。从Trade那一章里看得出西方主流经济学家眼中中国近年来的经济腾飞总体上是正面典型案例,可惜miracle无法被其他国家效仿,制造业链条的完善也不断压缩其他国家劳动力的空间。我没法学的东西当然没什么意义,只好酸一下咯。
Agree with the part that the change is sticky, but put government in the position to save poor people may be not a good idea. The society is a balance, we need poor we need rich and we need both in balance, how? Society progress as technology progress, so does the balance, so act on technology advancement is actually do good of all human being
心不在焉的听完了。。有空应该再看一遍文字版
audiobook 2022/2/10 Just like going through a therapy session whilst listening to this book... Humane approach to public policies +Cash and Care +Dignity - Stereotype can led to self-discriminatory towards the one being stereotyped themself, +Engagement of disadvantaged people,not charity solely. +UBI :Finding a career instead of a job
收藏