The Boston Globe published an article in September, subtitled, “Billions of dollars and a Nobel Prize later, it looks like ‘microlending’ doesn’t actually do much to fight poverty.” … Three important randomised controlled trials were unveiled this year. In one, economists … persuaded a lender in Manila to tweak a credit-scoring computer program so that it randomly awarded or denied loans to marginal borrowers. … Male-owned businesses tended to become more profitable after a loan, and female-owned businesses did not. … The loans produced no improvement in diet or income about 18 months down the line.
Or maybe Grameen doesn't work well. Nice anecdotes aren't good evidence.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who would jump at the chance of doing a good controlled study of Grameen Bank's work. If there's no study in the works, it's probably because Grameen doesn't want it.
I thought microlending was to be judged as a failure or success by whether the investors made a profit or not. Isn't the important advantage of microcredit the ability to spread risk widely? Have the investors profited or not?
Oil (and natural gas) are really the sole truly profitable raw commodity, from what I understand. There are other precious materials, to be sure, but they dont have a large market (though actually diamonds might semi-qualify in that way).
So, your asterisk on Robin's statement does not imply to me that there are many other asterisks (as is often the implicit intention in noting an exception to a rule).
...a burden of proof never provided, save for anecdotes and focus on a minority of users (e.g., the 5% of heroin users for whom use negatively impacts daily living, ability to hold a job, and support a family).
Sometimes I think, if it could be accomplished (and, politically, that seems dubious), the US should just invite Mexico to become part of the US---perhaps doing it a few small regions at a time over several decades to make it less disruptive.
Doubtless, though, there are a thousand objections to this.
The relevant statistic is whether the non-immigrants are doing worse because of immigration, not the overall score.
In a dictatorship, maybe. Not in a democracy where unassimilated children of immigrants (even illegal ones!) have the same right to vote as you do. The negative consequences of this may take a while to fully materialize, but they are all too real.
Schools: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac..., click on the “Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Tables…” link, note the -0.73 correlation between “% Hispanic or Latino” and Academic Performance Index (on page 3 of the pdf). Also note that, 40 years ago, metrics of California secondary school performance placed it in or near the top quartile among US states; now, after a vast increase in immigration, it’s hovering around the tenth percentile.
The relevant statistic is whether the non-immigrants are doing worse because of immigration, not the overall score. If an immigrant arrives, and isn't very good at school, he probably still ends up with a better schooling than back home. This will drag down the overall statistics for his new school, even if everyone is now better off.
Maybe the missing link is what Hernando De Soto has mentioned in his research (book The Msytery of Capital). In a nutshell he thinks that the foundations for a strong economy is strong laws of property and commercial transactions. If there is microlending without a good underlying framework to do business maybe the results will not be as expected.
I've long thought that our current de facto immigration policy amounts to a slow-motion annexation of Mexico. It's long past time that we explicitly discuss the pros and cons of this.
Since we don't live in a frictionless Coasean bargaining world, there is a difference between "marginal" from the perspective from the bank and "marginal" in terms of overall utility.
In fact, from what I can see, it wasn’t the recent immigrants who drove California over the cliff. It was the existing citizenry who voted for many unfunded mandates via the proposition system, while at the same time hampering the state government’s ability to raise funds to enforce those mandates.
This does explain part of California's budget crisis. But certainly not all of it. And it has next to nothing to do with California's school system.
In fact, in this view, the immigrants are hapless victims. They’re being dragged down by a government that they did not (could not) support.
There is a subset of legal immigrants for which I might agree with your "dragged down" comment. However, most of their kids are not themselves dragging down school performance statistics.
Have a cite showing that Calif schools and budget were destroyed by immigrants?
Schools: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/, click on the "Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Tables..." link, note the -0.73 correlation between "% Hispanic or Latino" and Academic Performance Index (on page 3 of the pdf). Also note that, 40 years ago, metrics of California secondary school performance placed it in or near the top quartile among US states; now, after a vast increase in immigration, it's hovering around the tenth percentile.
Budget: There are other factors involved here (e.g. Proposition 13), but what are the demographics of those providing the most tax receipts? How does that compare with immigrant demographics?
I don't actually believe that there's no way to "do it right" w.r.t. Mexican immigration, and by extension non-cognitive-elite immigration from other poor countries (though it's worth noting that even today, both China and India are poorer on a per capita basis than Mexico). But it's irresponsible to imply that those blaming California's problems on immigration are just ignorantly applying anti-foreign bias.
Possibly opening a can of worms but what about something that's somewhat similar to immigration: annexation.
I've little doubt that the lot of people living in Mexican border towns would greatly improve if they could be made part of the USA.
Not that I'm proposing this as a practical solution in most cases---the governments of the territories being annexed, even if the residents were all for it (and that's pretty doubtful), would probably tend to frown on the practice.
Business owners did manage to improve profits.
Why is this not considered an important good result?
I wonder why it didn’t work as well as Grameen.
Or maybe Grameen doesn't work well. Nice anecdotes aren't good evidence.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who would jump at the chance of doing a good controlled study of Grameen Bank's work. If there's no study in the works, it's probably because Grameen doesn't want it.
I thought microlending was to be judged as a failure or success by whether the investors made a profit or not. Isn't the important advantage of microcredit the ability to spread risk widely? Have the investors profited or not?
Oil (and natural gas) are really the sole truly profitable raw commodity, from what I understand. There are other precious materials, to be sure, but they dont have a large market (though actually diamonds might semi-qualify in that way).
So, your asterisk on Robin's statement does not imply to me that there are many other asterisks (as is often the implicit intention in noting an exception to a rule).
...a burden of proof never provided, save for anecdotes and focus on a minority of users (e.g., the 5% of heroin users for whom use negatively impacts daily living, ability to hold a job, and support a family).
Extending Pax Americana the Roman way...
But we're only annexing people. Not territory.
Sometimes I think, if it could be accomplished (and, politically, that seems dubious), the US should just invite Mexico to become part of the US---perhaps doing it a few small regions at a time over several decades to make it less disruptive.
Doubtless, though, there are a thousand objections to this.
The relevant statistic is whether the non-immigrants are doing worse because of immigration, not the overall score.
In a dictatorship, maybe. Not in a democracy where unassimilated children of immigrants (even illegal ones!) have the same right to vote as you do. The negative consequences of this may take a while to fully materialize, but they are all too real.
Schools: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac..., click on the “Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Tables…” link, note the -0.73 correlation between “% Hispanic or Latino” and Academic Performance Index (on page 3 of the pdf). Also note that, 40 years ago, metrics of California secondary school performance placed it in or near the top quartile among US states; now, after a vast increase in immigration, it’s hovering around the tenth percentile.
The relevant statistic is whether the non-immigrants are doing worse because of immigration, not the overall score. If an immigrant arrives, and isn't very good at school, he probably still ends up with a better schooling than back home. This will drag down the overall statistics for his new school, even if everyone is now better off.
Yep; you just need to look at (most of) those countries "blessed" with oil to see that...
Maybe the missing link is what Hernando De Soto has mentioned in his research (book The Msytery of Capital). In a nutshell he thinks that the foundations for a strong economy is strong laws of property and commercial transactions. If there is microlending without a good underlying framework to do business maybe the results will not be as expected.
I've long thought that our current de facto immigration policy amounts to a slow-motion annexation of Mexico. It's long past time that we explicitly discuss the pros and cons of this.
Since we don't live in a frictionless Coasean bargaining world, there is a difference between "marginal" from the perspective from the bank and "marginal" in terms of overall utility.
In fact, from what I can see, it wasn’t the recent immigrants who drove California over the cliff. It was the existing citizenry who voted for many unfunded mandates via the proposition system, while at the same time hampering the state government’s ability to raise funds to enforce those mandates.
This does explain part of California's budget crisis. But certainly not all of it. And it has next to nothing to do with California's school system.
In fact, in this view, the immigrants are hapless victims. They’re being dragged down by a government that they did not (could not) support.
There is a subset of legal immigrants for which I might agree with your "dragged down" comment. However, most of their kids are not themselves dragging down school performance statistics.
Have a cite showing that Calif schools and budget were destroyed by immigrants?
Schools: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/, click on the "Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Tables..." link, note the -0.73 correlation between "% Hispanic or Latino" and Academic Performance Index (on page 3 of the pdf). Also note that, 40 years ago, metrics of California secondary school performance placed it in or near the top quartile among US states; now, after a vast increase in immigration, it's hovering around the tenth percentile.
Budget: There are other factors involved here (e.g. Proposition 13), but what are the demographics of those providing the most tax receipts? How does that compare with immigrant demographics?
I don't actually believe that there's no way to "do it right" w.r.t. Mexican immigration, and by extension non-cognitive-elite immigration from other poor countries (though it's worth noting that even today, both China and India are poorer on a per capita basis than Mexico). But it's irresponsible to imply that those blaming California's problems on immigration are just ignorantly applying anti-foreign bias.
Possibly opening a can of worms but what about something that's somewhat similar to immigration: annexation.
I've little doubt that the lot of people living in Mexican border towns would greatly improve if they could be made part of the USA.
Not that I'm proposing this as a practical solution in most cases---the governments of the territories being annexed, even if the residents were all for it (and that's pretty doubtful), would probably tend to frown on the practice.