Like Sam and many others have said, this Executive Summary is in quite depressing. Their comments reminded me of an article I saw titled, “The Five States of Climate Greif”. This short, simple article details what I believe is probably a very common order of feelings towards climate change (I know I have moved through each of these stages); denial, anager, bargaining, depression, acceptance. While this article does tend to trigger stage 4, depression, I think it is important to move forward to the acceptance stage, “to acknowledge the scientific facts calmly, explore solutions to drive down greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, and find non-carbon intensive energy sources” (Running). Running suggests that to move from this depression phase into the Acceptance phase, there are two important factors: “First are viable alternatives to show that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is possible without the end of modern civilization. It is very heartening to see wind turbines, LED lighting, thin film solar and hybrid cars on the market right now, not some vague future hope. Second is visionary national leadership, a "Marshall Plan" level of national focus and commitment, so everyone is contributing, and the lifestyle changes needed are broadly shared, in fact becoming a new norm. Progress on that front has not been good so far. An obvious flaw in this analogy is that many people are simply ignoring the global warming issue, a detachment they cannot achieve when they are personally facing cancer” (Running). In this way, I wish papers like this could make suggestions or show progress in order to help the public move beyond depression and desperation in terms of climate change. http://www.friendsof2rivers.org/dr.-steve-running-5-stages-of-climate-grief.html Now, I will contradict myself for a second by pointing on a “depressing” point the article didn’t address thoroughly; the positive feedback loops from climate change. As the temperature rises, all of the changes mentioned in the article are either already occurring or about to begin. Most of these changes, however, will in turn contribute to even further climate change.

I was most interested in the studies on savings throughout the paper. We’ve discussed the benefits of savings through several of the other papers we’ve read, but this paper seems to really highlight the benefits. The idea of the commitment savings account seems to be very effective, though I imagine it is difficult for people in the developing nations to commit to relinquishing control to their money for some time. I think it is interesting that this savings account increased the likelihood of famers to invest more in fertilizers and crops. I had never considered that a famer’s income would come in all at once, at the harvest time, making investments during the growing season months later extremely difficult. For this reason, I thought it was interesting that the self-control aspect of the commitment savings account was not as influential as predicted. I would have thought self control would have been one of the biggest contributing factors, especially after the very first paper we read this semester studying the purchasing choices at the micro level. I wonder why there were such significant increases in agricultural input use, crop output, and household total expenditures.

I’d like to bounce off of what Gretta/Sam and Alexandra have mentioned: this paper does an excellent job of showing that not only does economic growth come from sustainable practices, but sustainable practices are more likely to be developed by countries with more human capital (and most likely, a larger economy). I think this also goes hand and hand with the idea that we discussed two weeks ago; people with more to lose are less likely to take risks. Sadly though, it is these developed countries that will most severely affected by the global climate change. I frequently find myself questioning why sustainable practices haven’t been adopted (whether it be in individual homes, our country, China, or any low income countries), especially when many of the sustainable practices have been proven to increase savings or somehow boost productivity/the economy. This paper does a great job of detailing (and reminding me of) how it is how these decisions affect individuals. It becomes much more understandable that someone would hesitate to adopt agroforestry. These people don’t have the luxury of experimenting with practices; their entire income/livelihood is at stake. So, we go back to the idea that economic growth, human capital, confidence and certainty are all necessary to investments and experiments in sustainable practices, making what seems like a “simple” solution, much more complicated.

The affects of Malaria from just the private and non private medical costs , as well as the forgone wages are staggering. However, I am blown away by the many additional ways contributes to poverty, specifically fertility. As the likelihood that Malaria will kill a percentage of each family’s children increases, so does fertility. As we discussed in class today, the Solow Growth model helps to explain the effect of growing population rates. When populations rise, capital (and therefore output) decreases. However, I was interested to see another way in which rising fertility rates may slow down economic growth. Sachs explains, “When women have very high fertility rates, parents may choose to invest less in the education of their daughters, knowing that they are likely to spend a considerable portion of their working years involved in child-rearing activities rather than in the labour force where they would reap the economic returns to education”. This point to me highlighted that while the Solow model shows what will happen with either a rise or fall in population or savings rate, it might not show the reason behind that change. In this example, just one of the reasons is less investment in female human capital. Another reason reminds me of something Professor Casey also mentioned briefly at the end of the class: the idea that the Millenial generation is probably going to hurt the economy in the future, as the Millenials aren’t spending, which will slow down the economic cycle of expenditures and incomes. This article reminded me of that point when it discussed the dependency ratio--the larger number of dependents than providers due to the high fertility rates in hopes of the desired number of children surviving. The article mentions that this might change household saving behaviors, which, as we can see from Solow’s model, alters capital and output, too.

Looking at child labor through the lenses of a well-educated American who grew up in a privileged society, it is easy for me to look at child labor as inherently wrong. I am disgusted by any parent who would ever force his or her child to work instead of allowing the child to purse an education. However, reading this article, as many have pointed out, highlights the rationality behind these parents’ decisions. It is impossible for us to judge these people for using their children for labor when, in many cases, their work will provide money that is needed to get by day to day. It is especially difficult to understand when, as the author mentions, the benefits of labor in the short term significantly outweigh the costs of it. I was particularly interested in the section of the paper discussing the “income effect” and the “substitution effect”. The income effect seems to be fairly logical at first glance; when household incomes rise, children work less and go to school more. However, I had never thought about the idea that with the increase in wages comes the increase in the child’s wages, making this “simple” decision of sending the child to school much less simple. The substitution effect then comes into play. I would have never considered that a growing economy and rising wages would not immediately decrease child labor. This helped me to put into perspective what a complicated issue child labor is in many places.

One of the most interesting points, and one that set the stage for the remainder of the paper, was the story about the African Maps. We live in a world that believes that with more knowledge, better technology and techniques, and easier access to information comes improvement. However, as the African map example shows, this is not always the case. Esther Duflo’s Women Empowerment and Economic Development also presents a case for this point when discussing the growing differences in sex ratios due to the technology improvements that make sex identification and abortion more accessible. Krugman uses this idea to show that progress in development economics actually reversed with the new standards for economics. It is interesting to see that because Marshall and other development economists published their material “smoothed over with parables and metaphors” instead of giving mathematical evidence or well-researched, nearly proven graphs, any insights and information they had gathered was considered worthless or never really looked into further, bring development economics back to zero. It is interesting to think of the advances we could have made if we had continued on the path of many of the early development economists.

We’ve discussed many times and in many different applications how there is not a surefire, perfect solution or way to achieve growth and economic development. However, I thought Rodrik’s work did a great job or pointing out how many different puzzle pieces are in play in stimulating and sustaining growth. Not only are there many variables, but there are also varying combinations of those pieces that seem to have different effects in different countries. Before reading this paper, I felt that we hadn’t yet figured out the “magic solution” to economic growth. However, after reading this paper, I have a much more realistic view; that each country has such different cultures and circumstances, which ultimately call for individualized approaches to stimulating growth. The two-pronged approach in China stands out particularly in my head as an example of a strategy, which worked well in one place but would not be as successful in many others. It reminds me in a way of something Professor Casey said in the beginning of the semester: in order to best help developing countries (or any country for that matter), the best thing to do is listen to the people and understand their lifestyles, problems, and concerns. In this way, it is important for economic policies and strategies to be very specific for each country. It is why a policy like the Washington Consensus might not work in every country and why an American economist (like the article’s example) cannot make perfect suggestions for every country based on his or her economic knowledge or insights.

We've discussed many times and in many different applications how there is not a sure fire way to achieve growth and economic development. However, I thought Rodrik's work did a great job of pointing out how many different puzzle pieces are at play in stimulating and sustaining growth. Not only are there many variables, but there are varying combinations of those pieces that seem to have different effects in different countries. Before reading this paper, I felt that we hadn't yet figured out the "magic solution" to economic growth. However, after reading this, I have a much more realistic view; that each country has such different cultures and circumstances, which will ultimately call for individualized approaches to stimulating growth. The two-pronged approach in China stands out particularly in my head as an example of a strategy which worked well in one place but would not be as successful in many others. It reminds me in a way of something Professor Casey said in the beginning of the semester: in order to best help developing countries (or any county for that matter), the best thing to do is listen to the people and understand their lifestyles, problems and concerns. In this way, it is important for economic policies and strategies to be very specific for each country. It is why a policy like the Washington Consensus might not work in every country and why an American economist (like the article's example) cannot make perfect suggestions for every country based on his or her economic insights.

We've discussed many times and in many different applications how there is not a sure fire way to achieve growth and economic development. However, I thought Rodrik's work did a great job of pointing out how many different puzzle pieces are at play in stimulating and sustaining growth. Not only are there many variables, but there are varying combinations of those pieces that seem to have different effects in different countries. Before reading this paper, I felt that we hadn't yet figured out the "magic solution" to economic growth. However, after reading this, I have a more realistic view that each country has such different cultures and circumstances, which will ultimately call for individualized approaches to stimulating growth. The two-pronged approach in China stands out particularly in my head as an example of a strategy that would not work well in many countries, yet has proved successful in China. It makes me think a lot about what Professor Casey said at the beginning of class; the best way to help another country is by listening to the people and understanding their problems. In this way, it seems important that each country find a combination of policies and strategies which best fit their specific problems.

It came as no surprise to me that many sex ratios at birth are skewed, as we had talked about this last week. However, I had always thought about the reasoning behind that was that males were more useful for labor. I have never thought of males and females in regards to a lifetime investment. Duflo writes, “Other than directly affecting the welfare of women (and not men) in a significant way, maternal mortality is potentially a source of lower parental investment in childhood: if parents expect girls to be much more likely to die as young women than boys, they may be more inclined to invest in boys” (1056). Duflo goes on to comment on the price of a future dowry versus the price of an abortion. I found this a little contradictory to many points in the paper, discussing how economic development increases female empowerment and/or vice versa. However, with the increase in technology resulting in lower prices and greater availability for abortions, we see an increase in differences in sex ratios. The paper says, “High differences in reported sex ratios at birth between girls and boys are the result of unreported birth—infanticide—and increasingly, from sex-selective abortion.” In this specific instance, we see economic development actually hindering gender equality. I was also fascinated by the “stereotype threat” mentioned on page 1062 of Duflo’s paper. It is so sad to see that women are less likely to negotiate with bosses, are evaluated more negatively, and are generally less respected in leadership roles. Many times, these consequences stem from the lack of confidence, specifically when a female doesn’t see herself fit or as eligible for a “typically male considered role” (1062). I would be lying if I said I haven’t walked into an interview or business presentation feeling intimidated and the need to overcompensate my confidence to seem legitimate. While developing nations are moving in the right direction with gender equality, there are lingering problems which stem from psychological biases that will be difficult to fully eradicate.

While I have previously thought about the horrible circumstances of the poor, this article certainly brought to my attention many aspects of poverty I hadn’t ever considered. Primarily, as everyone else has commented, I was shocked by the percentage of the percentage of the $2 or less spent on food. More specifically, the types of food this surprising percentage usually purchases. As Professor Casey mentioned in class, it is easy for us to judge the decisions the poor make and use these “bad decisions” to help further explain why poor people cannot seem to break out of poverty. However, this article helped me to see these poor people as just that, people. The article’s discussion of money spent on alcohol, tobacco, and entertainment, at first, seems reckless and irresponsible. But, as the article continued, I began to have more compassion for these ‘irresponsible’ decisions. I, too, am affected by temptations and lack self-control in the face of things I want. Who am I to criticize people who do not have a fraction of the good fortune I have for their decisions and what they choose to spend their money on? On the same topic, this humanization helps to understand the lack of savings; having savings available is tempting to anyone when the desire for something is high. I can relate to this, as I’m sure everyone else can as well. What it all boils down to is that, like Professor Casey mentioned, it is so difficult for us to really understand or judge the decision making of people who live in such different circumstances from ourselves.