Development, Geography, and Economic Theory

Summarizing this book as '"The Self-Organizing Economy", only a bit more technical, filled with more citations to other economists, more navel-gazey, slightly more philosophical and with less of a focus on complex systems' gets you at least 95% of what you need when deciding whether to read this book. As the next step after "The Self-Organizing Economy", it leaves something to be desired: it overlaps too much to be really satisfying. In fact I think Krugman cut and pasted a lot from "Development, Geography, and Economic Theory" into "The Self-Organizing Economy", including particular graphs and particular lines (e.g., one about his love of "Micromotives and Macrobehavior", and Gertrude Stein's quote about L.A. that "there's no there there"). Which is fine: these are good ideas, and they deserve to be explored in some depth. In "The Self-Organizing Economy", Krugman explained why he thought that economic geography had died out sometime in the 1960's. Partly, he said, it was that the discipline lacked "microfoundations": it didn't explain high-level behaviors (in this case the existence of cities) from the unguided actions of individual economic actors. Instead it took the existence of cities as given, then derived conclusions about where people and businesses would locate. "The Self-Organizing Economy" painted some cute little models to try to build these microfoundations. Widely dispersed populations turned out in that book to be an unstable equilibrium: we get the microfoundations by assuming a "state of nature" in which everyone is spread out, then show that the state doesn't last. Krugman actually comes to a stronger conclusion from his toy model: cities end up being evenly spaced around the circular landscape. Any closer together and they start eating into each other's markets. Any further apart and they lose the benefits of closeness to customers and suppliers. This unifies a number of traditions in economics that have tried, over the years, to explain why cities exist in the shapes and sizes they do. "Development" assumes more economic knowledge than did "The Self-Organized Economy", though I could fumble along and get most of what he was saying. Understanding why cities concentrate at all, says Krugman, inevitably means understanding increasing returns to scale. My intuition is ill-formed here at the moment, but I think the idea is that with constant returns to scale, doubling the number of employees in a given factory only doubles your output -- so there's no reason to prefer one large factory to two small ones at two different locations. Hence understanding cities at all means understanding increasing returns to scale. But, says Krugman, increasing returns to scale is precisely what neoclassical economics doesn't know how to handle. My intuition here is even hazier. Krugman refers a few times to "unexploited economies of scale" causing problems for neoclassical economists, which suggests to me that there's some kind of arbitrage prin

Paul Krugman is one of the few economists at home both in `high theory' and in public economic discourse. He thinks deeply, and he thinks brilliant thoughts. This little book - based on the Olin Lectures he gave in Stockholm - is proof of what his mind can yield, when it sets out to clarify issues.Development and economic geography, he argues, failed because they did not submit themselves to the discipline of model-building - what might look or even be at first sight downright silly in the end is preferable to the unconscious metaphors of the narrative economic discourse.For all its clarity, Krugman's argument is deeply flawed. Development and economic geography - together with income distribution - belong to the derelict class of economic problems that addresses the question of historical disparities of wealth in the economic tissue. Why have some countries or regions developed and others have staid behind, why are there poor and rich? Was it done by better use of the available resources, or by impoverishment of other nations or persons? A corollary to this question would be: does our quest for efficiency worsen or reduce disparities? Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx addressed this question, but their observations have been largely forgotten. Pareto and welfare economics picked up the thread, only to conclude platidinuously that the only `good' policies are those that benefit all.Should the model-building solutions that Krugman suggests be used in development and geography be any good, they might imply that a `big push' applies not just to economic growth, but also to concentration of income - consumer surplus playing the role of `economies of scale'. Interesting. Just as interesting as the metaphor that - as in the `big bang' theory of star formation - the smallest of initial income irregularities (e.g. first predatory capital accumulation) lead to the agglutination of wealth around capitalists. Which, of course, also implies that it is the 90% of dark (workers) matter that keeps the shiny capitalist `stars' in place in a well-ordered and expanding economy.Toys are useful provided they teach a child the `real thing'. Toy models are not useful when they fail to recognise (let alone address) fundamental issues like that of economic disparity. Models are downright bad when their incautious use leads to blind-sighting in economic policy. Every economist should be made to ponder Kenneth Arrow's Theory of Second Best. Partial optima are bad solutions in the search for an overall optimum.Can we expect models of income disparity soon? Paul Krugman might devote some of his intellectual powers to construct the simplest of models of income disparity and attempt to integrate it into a growth model - just to disprove (or prove) the widespread intuition that when governments pursue efficiency single-mindedly, the rich get rich and the poor poorer.Can we further expect a `grand unified theory of everything economic' that would bring together both concerns of eff

This is an excellent critique of high development theory. Although good economists will know the main faults of their disapline, this text elegantly explains why development theory lost its direction. I will not divulge the main ideas, they are well worth the money to find out. - Economists consist of two groups, those that don't know, and those who don't know that they don't know.

Trade theory and economic geography are two subjects that are as interesting as they are tough to lay out. This book would probably be an utter disaster in anyone but Krugman's hands. This book is not really for anyone unfamiliar with economics, but the majority of it could probably by understood by a reasonably bright high school student with some familiarity in the area. Krugman has a breezy style which runs over all the intriging upshots without becoming bogged down in fetishistic details. Admirably his clear rhetoric is supplemented by by many examples, analogies and "intuition pumps."As far as an introduction to geography and trade go, it is less than thorough, but these are mostly props for Professor Krugman's views on economic theory, which are sensible and unpretentious. He deflates and delineates the worse practices of his profession without resulting to the stock complaints (i.e. that Economists generally think they are physicists -- nonsense!). A good quick book on how to do economics.