Lelo Nxumalo

In a recent post on the World Economic Forum website (See here ), Daron Acemoglu summarizes findings from his recent work on what really causes economic downturns . His focus is on the US economy and starts by showing that the distribution of post war growth in America has generally not followed the normal distribution. I was curious what this would look like for Malaysia (where I am currently working) so I ran the Normal Q-Q Plot in R and this is what I found. Data from the World Bank's WDI database Malaysian real per capita income growth between 1960 and 2013 has largely followed a normal distribution but there are significant tail risks. The plot above shows that large negative downturns are more common than the standard normal distribution would suggest. The downturns correspond,  in descending order of severity, to 1998 (Asian Financial Crisis), 1985 (Commodity Shock), 2009 (Great Recession), 1986 (Commodity Shock continued), 2001 (Dot Com Bust), and 1975 (...

For a while it seemed self evident to me that income growth precedes human development, and that nations should focus on engineering growth before focusing on the distributional aspects (think China). Without even trying I implicitly rationalized the need for benevolent dictators to champion rapid economic development ( See here ). Even after reading Amartya Sen's seminal work Development as Freedom , which argues that this so-called "Lee thesis" (attributed to Singapore's former leader Lee Kuan Yew) lacks comprehensive inter country evidence, I found myself leaning toward what William Easterly calls "conscious planning" in his latest book. In this post, however, I confront this bias of mine and conclude that growth ought to be judged by the extent to which it facilitates the acquisition of what Sen calls individual agency. Individual agency is practically manifested as the ability to escape premature mortality, preventable morbidity, or involuntary st...