Awards (Page 6)

For their significant contributions to how organizations influence economic growth, Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson were each awarded the 2024 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Some may argue that it was long overdue to honor these scientists the Nobel.

One of the most frequently mentioned in finance is the document that served as the foundation for their work. Acemoglu and Robinson’s following book, Why Governments Fail, has also been enormously important.

Congratulations are in order in that regard because these works have sparked a lively discussion about the relationship between cultural institutions and economic development. They have even drawn a lot of censure, though. It is appropriate to identify the flaws in their analysis in the wake of the award.

The most significant criticism centers on the relationship between a nation’s level of social development and the quality of its political institutions. Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson’s job split organisations into two groups: “inclusive” and “extractive”.

Equitable institutions – such as those that enforce property privileges, protect politics and control corruption – foster economic growth, according to the laureates. In contrast, industrial institutions, which give rise to a higher concentration of power and limited social freedom, get to focus resources in the hands of a tiny elite and therefore stifle socioeconomic development.

The winners assert that the establishment of diverse establishments has had a beneficial long-term impact on economic growth. In fact, these organizations are present mainly in high-income nations in the west.

A big problem with this study, however, is the state that certain organizations are a requirement for economic growth.

Mushtaq Khan, a professor of economics at Soas, University of London, has analysed Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson’s work thoroughly. He contends that it primarily demonstrates that today’s high-income nations perform better on institutional standards from the West, rather than that economic growth was achieved as a result of the establishment of inclusive institutions by state.

In fact, there are numerous instances of nations growing quickly without having these diverse organizations in place as a prerequisite for development. South Asian states such as Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan are good examples. Most lately, so too is China.

The problem epidemic in China during the development process was detailed in Yuen Yuen Ang’s award-winning books on the subject. In response to this year’s Nobel Prize, Ang went so far as to claim that the laureates ‘ theory does not adequately account for growth in both China and the West. She makes the case that during the creation process in the US, establishments were smeared with corruption.

Ignoring the cruelty of colonization

Governments are not bad to do some of the diverse organizations outlined in Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson’s job. Another alarming aspect of their research is that it legitimizes American institutions and, at worst, colonialism and colonization.

Their job has, however, been criticized for not paying attention to the cruelty of imperialism. To know this criticism, we must dig a little deeper into their procedures.

The laureates establish their state by comparing settler colonies to non-settler colonies for long-term development. In resident provinces, such as the US, Canada and Australia, Europeans established diverse institutions. But in non-settler provinces, which include large pieces of Africa and Latin America, Europeans established industrial organizations.

Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson place out that, over time, settler provinces do better. Western institutions are therefore better for growth, they argue.

However, it’s a secret that the laureates do not explain colonization in more general terms given that the process of colonization is a key component of their papers.

Years of murder, in many cases evoking the genocide of local populations, predated the development of such institutions yet in settler colonies, where equitable institutions were gradually established. Should n’t this be taken into account when developing?

Instead of arguing whether imperialism is good or bad, Acemoglu said,” We note that different colonial methods have resulted in different institutional trends that have persisted over moment,” the awardee added.

Why does Acemoglu not care whether imperialism is good or bad, as some might discover from this statement? But for those familiar with the inner workings of the economics discipline, this statement does n’t come as a surprise.

Unfortunately, the absence of a ethical glass or value judgments has unfortunately become a badge of honor in mainstream economics. This is a more important aspect of the discipline, which in turn explains why economy has become more remote and isolated from different social sciences.

The Nobel prize in economics, which really was n’t among the five original Nobel awards, also illustrates this problem. The list of previous winners is small in terms of both geographical and organisational scope, primarily made up of economists who are graduates of economics faculties at a select few elite US universities.

Additionally, a recent study found that economics awards are much more concentrated in the administrative and regional areas than in other academic areas. Nearly all of the major award winners have had to travel through one of the major US institutions ( with a cap of less than ten ) throughout their careers.

This month’s Nobel Prize in economics is no exception. Perhaps this is why it seems like each year the winner is chosen over those who ask “how does a change in changing X affect variable Y” rather than posing complex questions about colonialism, imperialism, or capitalism and waging a challenge on the legitimacy of European institutions.

Jostein Hauge is associate professor in development research, University of Cambridge

The Conversation has republished this post under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Poetry is frequently written in appealingly brilliant and quick prose when it’s written in a novel. The Vegetarian ( 2007 ) by Han Kang is a prime example of this work, and it is undoubtedly the one that had a major impact on the Swedish Academy’s choice to give her the Nobel Prize in literature in 2024. The commission praised Kang for winning the prestigious prize because of her “innovator in fashionable prose” and poetic and empirical style.

Han Kang is the first North Korean author to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature, joining the other 18 women to have received the award in its 121 victors over 117 years. She was born in 1970 in Gwangju, and she has received numerous other notable national and international awards, including the Prix Médicis Etranger in 2023 for her book Difficult Goodbyes. She was even awarded the International Booker Prize in 2016.

The Vegetarian is Kang’s best-read job. It was published in 2007 and translated into English for use in the UK and the US in 2016. The name was appropriate because it coincided with a rapid rise in people becoming vegetarians and vegans, especially in the UK.

The book considers the effects of becoming vegetarians when everyone around you consumes meat, even though it is not a vegetarian manifesto. It conveys protagonist Yeong-hye’s struggle to maintain bodily firm in response to her father’s disgust at her determination ( he sees it as rebellion ), her brother-in-law’s romantic fascination with it and her husband’s violent acts, force-feeding her meat.

The Vegetarian is described as an anti-capitalist and ecofeminist protest that provides an expanded perception into masculine power of the adult body.

The tale perception and voice changes in each section of the book, which are organized into three parts. In the history of her own system and the choices she makes about it, Yeong-hye is not a first-person speaker. This glaring absence of tone seems to have been appropriate for the Nobel Prize. The committee argued that the writer’s devotion to “invisible sets of rules” and” the weakness of human life” was a factor in her choice because of her “unique consciousness of the contacts between body and soul.”

Although they are less well known and have more mysterious themes, Han Kang’s writing and short stories are just as impressive and significant as her novels. Her poetry often explores places ( walking on the city street ), juxtaposed with objects ( streetlamps, candles, mirrors ) and the fragmented human body ( a hand reaching out, fingertips, frozen cheeks, tongues, eyelids ).

We Do Not Part, her most recent book, may be published in English in February of next year. At least in terms of subject matter, We Do Not Part is perhaps more mysterious and complicated than The Vegetarian. After Inseon is hospitalized following a wood-chopping accident, Kyungha visits her companion Inseon’s remote home to care for a puppy animal. Trapped by a storm, she uncovers characters from the 1948-49 Jeju slaughter, in which around 1, 000 people were killed.

Responses to Kang’s get

There has been extensive praise for this year’s win. The Washington Post recognizes the medal as a possible resource for other Asian authors. The Guardian, however, acknowledges Kang’s accolades and expands on the agency’s reasons for awarding the prize: her emotion, distinct consciousness, experimental style, and “metaphorically charged prose”.

The award for writing is often questionable. Online forums debunk the legitimacy of victors and make complaints about the choices ‘ politics. Some observers are offended if the artist is very mysterious, as was the case with Norway Jon Fosse, who won in 2023. They are extremely offended if the prize is given to a figure who is too conventional, as it was the case with Bob Dylan in 2016.

The efficiency of Kang’s language and the nearby sensitivity of her writing, which brings Asian history and places to a worldwide audience, make her job innovative and compelling both in both form and content. A worthy success.

At Nottingham Trent University, affiliate teacher of colonial and world literature Jenni Ramone.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading