| Username |
Post |
| Paschim |
Posted
on 07-Jul-02 11:17 PM
For people who have been following the long-running Joseph Stiglitz versus the IMF battle on economic wisdom and practice, here's a new development. IMF, for the first time, has hit back at Stiglitz with an open letter. The letter is personally professional in nature having been written by the IMF's director of research, Ken Rogoff, who was a professor at Princeton and then Harvard before joining the Fund last year.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2002/070202.htm
Stiglitz's new book, "Globalization and its Discontents" came out recently and was reviewed in the 8 June issue of The Economist.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 08-Jul-02 12:57 AM
Hi Paschim,
Thoroughly enjoyed this exchange, especially Rogoff's concluding paragraph, as printed
in this week's The Economist.
This sort of feud/debate/discussion/exchange is among the best spectator
sport there is.
What do our Nepali economist friends who are about to join IMF say?
Hey, you can use pseudonyms, you know.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 08-Jul-02 02:22 AM
Yes, ashu, it's always good to know that all these smart guys, geniuses and intellectual supermen, are quite human after all. The ego, the jealousy, the back stabbing, and even peer-butchery are so well documented, especially in first-rate academia. Spectator sport indeed, but fortunately their very high IQ also ensures that the positive externality of following these battles as bemused spectators is that you always go away with a lot, lot more knowledge than amusement. Having watched the likes of Sachs, Stiglitz, Rodrik, Dornbusch as well as the Bretton Woods sisters talk and practice these issues from rather close range, I selfishly hope that this bloody battle, without the blood, of the economic hearts and minds never ends.
|
| Sujan |
Posted
on 09-Jul-02 01:15 PM
Oh, what a cry baby Rogoff is! Joe this and Joe that. This man, Joseph Stiglitz, is one of the most notable economist in the world-- I don't think no one argues with that, even Greenspan has taken some advice from him time to time, and how dare Rogoff call him a liar. In the eyes of the victims of the greed-infested IMF, he is their hero and hope.
In the other thread, 'Bideshi Nepalese' ( http://gbnc.org/sajha/html/OpenThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=5509 ), I reverberated again and again about the fallacies of IMF's 'we are here to rescue you!'-type policies to which Paschim disregarded and blatantly laughed. But, here we have the 'king of macro-economics' so to speak, throwing a pie on the IMF's face. Now, you may want to rethink the 'insider facts', which I presented. Here is why: the proprietary database full of insider info I mentioned was partly developed with the help of Stiglitz while he was at Stanford, and since we are right across the bay from them we had access to their info and vice versa. This was made even easier for us because our Dean of the Haas business school at the time, Laura Tyson (she heads the econ dept. at London School of Economics now) met Stiglitz during the Clinton era as they both were former members of the Council of Economic Advisors for the Clinton Administration; needless to say, they are close friends. I also had a chance to meet Stiglitz as he often gave presentation in our coveted Anderson Auditorium. Believe it or not, the two schools may be rivalries but there are a lot of goods that come out of 'dual department research' programs.
Nevertheless, I don't think Stiglitz needs to respond to Rogoff's cockeyed monologue. Stiglitz just didn't leave the World Bank to retire and do nothing about the IMF's brouhaha you know. Here are some facts that Rogoff may appreciate since he mumbles 'show me the facts' so many times in that letter:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wbank/stigindx.htm
A summary of our core-discussion (and there are many more!):
http://www.cepr.net/IMF/signon.htm
And kudos to you Mr. Stiglitz!
-Sujan
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 10-Jul-02 03:39 AM
Sujan-ji, thanks for informing us of your connections to Stiglitz and his work. I fully know what Stiglitz stands for. I too have read him, heard him, and even met him over a working lunch in March. An Earthscan book that came out in April has a paper by Stiglitz, and other authors. I'm one of them. I also know and have spoke in length (about Stiglitz) with his good friend and former speech writer, Prof. David Ellerman, who actually wrote many of Stiglitz's better known development speeches between 1998 and 2000. The bottom line is: Joe Stiglitz the Nobel Laureate is a terrific academic economist, his Nobel award was well-timed and well-deserved, but I agree with Ken Rogoff who said, as a policymaker, his record has just been "less impressive".
I have been monitoring these debates obsessively since 1998; and until I hear some new facts and better argued positions, I am not changing my views on this topic for now. I am sure you have good reasons to continue to stick to your own views as well. So, I kindly suggest that we stop our exchange on this topic at this. Thank you.
For your info. though, Laura Tyson is the Dean of the London Business School; she's not at the London School of Economics. The Convenor there is Richard Jackman.
|
| Sujan |
Posted
on 11-Jul-02 06:38 PM
Come now Paschim, with all due respect, if you claim to be schmoozing with Stiglitz you must have confronted him with your stance on the topic. He would have given you a lecture or two on the inevitability of IMF's past impositions. And remember, not only he has theoretical knowledge on such topics as 'moral hazard', but insider details of how these institutions function, and you do not. Therefore, in essence, you are in denial of these very facts, which are quite disturbing.
If these institutions were public companies, not only would they be worse than the Enron- WorldCom-and-Tycos' of the world, but their CEOs would belong in The Hague in the Netherlands. You would be surprised the kinds of analogy and recommendation one can come up with after some serious research ;o)
These percussions are not meant to change your views however, and as such, you still have to answer to the general populace of the world why you disregard the 'facts' that were presented.
About Tyson: (omit if not interested)
Yes, Tyson is at the London Business School, and not LSE. The slip up is the result of me not following the career path of my former Dean; it has been a while since I received the news. She said her decision was partly based on the fact that her husband is a native Londoner, who would like to live there again. I thought it was a bit cheesy at first; significant others are usually used as an excuse. But then again she may have been telling the truth. In the past, she has left Berkeley for Harvard and MIT, but has always returned to Cal, where she has been teaching / has had administrative duties since the 70's. So, I have no doubt she will return in 3-4 yrs. time.
-Sujan
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 11-Jul-02 08:59 PM
My friend, economics or the field of policy-making, is not Newtonian Physics. There are no absolute truths and no assertion of one particular expert is divine. For every Stiglitz you have a Summers, for every Sachs, you have a Dornbusch, for every Rodrik you have a Frankel, for every Bhagwati, you have a Fischer. And yes, all of them have their own "facts".
You know I agree with Stiglitz on a lot of things. I cite him profusely in my papers, and we wouldn't have appeared in the same book if what we had to say wasn't consistent. For now though, I just want to hear how Stiglitz rebuts just *one* following paragraph of Rogoff's that will shatter his credibility if not challenged, that alleges Stiglitz of "lying" with what looks like an irrefutable evidence. You should know how serious that charge in academia is. Also the phrase, "long on innuendoes and short on footnotes" was surely not just leveled for semantic theatrics.
[I haven't had time, Joe, to check all the facts in your book, but I do have some doubts. On page 112, you have Larry Summers (then Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary) giving a "verbal" tongue lashing to former World Bank Vice-President Jean-Michel Severino. But, Joe, these two have never met. How many conversations do you report that never happened? You give an example where an IMF Staff report was issued prior to the country visit. Joe, this isn't done; I'd like to see your documentation. On page 208, you slander former IMF number two, Stan Fischer, implying that Citibank may have dangled a job offer in front of him in return for his cooperation in debt renegotiations. Joe, Stan Fischer is well known to be a person of unimpeachable integrity. Of all the false inferences and innuendos in this book, this is the most outrageous. I'd suggest you should pull this book off the shelves until this slander is corrected.]
Sujan, I don't want to continue this thread. I prefer not to take on too "sublime" issues on Sajha. I have been hammered here in the past for name-dropping (for mentioning Harvard, Jeff Sachs) and also being egotistic, etc. So I don't want to irritate those gentlemen again by taking on what will be seen as an 'elitist' topic. But if you want to continue this, pls. send me an email and we can talk privately.
In the meantime, pls. let me get on with the mundane task of looking for wives on the internet for my kabi friends. The famous poet of Chat Maya is on record for saying bluntly, "launa mora, khoj.de.na euti swasni". Now, this is way more important for me, wouldn't you agree :)
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 03-Aug-02 11:28 PM
Not long back I started reading Stiglitz' popular book. From a political perspective (as opposed to those who do arcane academic economics) I find myself supportive of this broad conclusions. I would like to recuse myself from the more personal guff this thread has generated, and focus on the topic itself.
The IMF and the World Bank might have started with good intentions (which I doubt) but their shortcomings are huge.
They are fundamentally undemocratic. They ought to be much more transparent, and ultimately held accountabel to the UN General Assembly. Those who go to big name schools might have an idea or two, but those who talk to a ton of grass roots folks all over the world, those at the receiving end of those policies, their voices matter. The ivory tower mentality, I would not go so far as to charcterize as colonoliasm, but something close would be apt. The idea is not to come up with a super solution in a vaccum, but to come with good or great solutions through broad participation at all levels. And there both the institutions, especially the IMF, stand guilty.
Personally I thought Kenneth Rogoff's letter was surface. His quoting stories of "company" politics only tells me how far away from the people they claim to serve they always are. I mean, who gives a f___ about is it K or J or Hey street!
|
