New Directions in Development Economics: Theory or Empirics? - Is There Too Little Theory in Development Economics?
In May 2004 a conference was held at Cornell University entitled “75 Years of Development Research.”. Apart from the usual array of theoretical and empirical papers on development, a number of panels took stock of the state of development economics and discussed a range of methodological issues. One commentary that stood out in the challenge it posed to the current state of development economics was, “Is there Too Little Theory in Development Economics Today?” by Dilip Mookherjee. He answered his own question in the affirmative. Given the debate it generated, after the conference it was circulated to a number of leading development economists who had been present at the conference, and responses were invited. Pranab Bardhan sent in a response, “Theory or Empirics in Development Economics,” as did Kaushik Basu, “The New Empirical Development Economics: Remarks on its Philosophical Foundations.” These papers were largely supportive of the position taken by Mookherjee. There then followed a response to all three of these papers by Abhijit Banerjee, “‘New Development Economics’ and the Challenge to Theory,” which mounted a defense of the current empirical methods in development economics. Ravi Kanbur then followed with his comments, “Goldilocks Development Economics.” Ravi Kanbur also took the responsibility of coordinating the contributions. These five papers are being brought together here in this symposium in Economic and Political Weekly.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||Aug 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published, A Symposium in Economic and Political Weekly|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.bu.edu/econ/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Cox, John C. & Ross, Stephen A., 1976. "The valuation of options for alternative stochastic processes," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1-2), pages 145-166.
- Philippe Artzner & Freddy Delbaen & Jean-Marc Eber & David Heath, 1999. "Coherent Measures of Risk," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 203-228.
- Wang, Shaun S. & Young, Virginia R. & Panjer, Harry H., 1997. "Axiomatic characterization of insurance prices," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 173-183, November.
- Lynn Wirch, Julia & Hardy, Mary R., 1999. "A synthesis of risk measures for capital adequacy," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 337-347, December.
- Philippe Jorion & William N. Goetzmann, 1999. "Global Stock Markets in the Twentieth Century," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(3), pages 953-980, 06.
- Breeden, Douglas T & Litzenberger, Robert H, 1978. "Prices of State-contingent Claims Implicit in Option Prices," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(4), pages 621-51, October.
- Carlo Acerbi & Dirk Tasche, 2001. "Expected Shortfall: a natural coherent alternative to Value at Risk," Papers cond-mat/0105191, arXiv.org.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bos:wpaper:wp2005-028. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gillian Gurish)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.