Anthropology in Everything, Violence Edition

Hmm. A new meme?

First Chris Blattman asks if peace can be instilled. He reports from a rural training center in Liberia:

The second day of our stay we woke up to a small riot. Supplies of food and soap had been delayed from the capitol, and the excoms had taken to the yard, yelling angrily with the staff and refusing to attend classes. Johnson stood in the thick of them, surrounded by two dozen angry youth, hashing it out.

Within an hour, the youth had settled back to their quarters, their elected leaders were holding a consultation, and were preparing to present a list of grievances to the school administration. Nothing was broken, few egos were bruised, and the excoms' anger and frustration was being channeled into a peaceful and institutional process. Such an outcome, Johnson tells me, would have been unthinkable just two moths ago. But they have succeeded in creating new norms of behavior and dispute.

Then, Dani Rodrik posts about a paper exploring the intersection of soccer, culture, and violence. He notes:

I must say the cultural explanation leaves me cold, even though I do not have a good alternative explanation in its place. If you have ever spent time in cabs in Manhattan, you know that it is pretty hard to distinguish the Russian drivers from the Pakistani ones, or the Israeli ones from the Koreans. They all drive like NYC cabbies, even though the "driving culture" in these countries are pretty different.

In response, I'd ask, could it just be another example of acculturation? I imagine that being a successfull NYC cabby requires certain traits for success (traversing the city in some sort of meaningful time frame and also getting a spot at high-frequency fare sites). Don't these guys depend on the number of fares + tips to make a living? What I mean to imply is, the geography, politics (or at least laws) and culture of NYC create an environment that requires certain characteristics in order to succeed. Success (money) is an incentive. Thus, there is an incentive for cabbies to adapt (turn into NYC cabbies). Environment -> Incentives (economics) -> Acculturation (anthropology).

Societal, cultural, norms, including those of interaction, can be very powerful, but like all normative teachings, can be overcome and retaught. What I really want to know is what would happen if the soccer players were faced off against the 'ex-coms'?

International Economics Round Up

Dani Rodrik's been on a roll recently, writing several good posts about economics and trade, which I've compiled here. In total, they offer a critical look at trade economics; not the theory so much as the presentation.

First up, a paper by Dean Baker on 'Trade and Inequality: the Role of Economists'.

Second, Rodrik reviews Robert Driskill's Deconstructing the Argument for Free Trade.

Finally, Dani Rodrik offers his own answer to the question: Why Did Financial Globalization Disappoint?

Both Rodrik and Driskill's papers are decently long - 20-30 pages compared to Baker's 10, and they're written in more advanced economic language, but all three are worth the read. Actually, if you only have time for one, read Baker's. It's shorter, but I think he raises some important questions about the role economists play in selling models, rather than challenging and improving them.

Experts in any field are important (since we can't all do everything really well), but their value lies less in their specific expertise than in their ability to ask the right questions. When economists spend more time 'proselytizing free trade rather than communicated what economics really teaches on trade', the gap between the expert and the layperson grows, and everyone is worse off.

Rodrik also provides further proof for the American Scene's and my argument that expertise in one field doesn't necessarily imply expertise in another in his post from Wednesday discussing economists and governance.

Two Book Reviews

Not by me, although hopefully I'll get back to my reading soon.

First, Dani Rodrik's book One Economics, Many Recipes, reviewed by Prospect Magazine's John Kay. The review requires a subscription to view, but Rodrik kindly provides excerpts.

The second is Tyler Cowen's take on Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet, by every singer's favorite economist, Jeff Sachs. I, personally, can't stand to read Sachs, and feel that William Easterly rightly took him to task in his book, White Man's Burden, but it sounds as if Tyler cautiously recommends it.

Picking on the Economist

What is going on?

First Dani Rodrik confesses he doesn't read it, then Chris Blattman follows suit. Now Henry at Crooked Timber wonders if 'the Economist may be too sophisticated for its own good.' YouNotSneaky offers advice on how to read the Economist.

Yglesias suggests just thinking of it as your 'well-traveled, reasonably witty cousin who voyage[s] around the world with a good eye for detail and a personality marred by a strange obsession with labor market deregulation and pension privatization'.

Development Reading

Chris Blattman and his readers on what to read in development. He kindly links to Dani Rodrik's 'Economic Development: Theory, Policy and Evidence' syllabus. It seems the syllabus contains live links, and most of the works are journal articles, not books, which means I might actually have a chance of fitting them into my schedule.