Podcasts about Development economics

In this episode, Panu Poutvaara (ifo Center for Migration and Development Economics) and Damla Buyuktaskin (UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency) discuss what happens after displacement: who returns, who stays, and why?Focusing on Ukrainian refugees and broader global contexts, they discuss what influences return intentions, how host countries support (or hinder) integration, and the challenges of creating long-term solutions for displaced populations. From access to work and education to regional legal frameworks, this conversation lists difficult choices faced by millions.Resources mentioned in the episode:

In this episode of The Evidence Effect, host Sambhav Choudhury speaks with Shobhini Mukerji, Executive Director of J-PAL South Asia. From her transformative summer internship with education nonprofit Pratham to becoming a principal investigator on groundbreaking research, Shobhini shares her journey into development economics and experimental approaches.

In this podcast, Krisztina Soreg, PhD talks about her educational path as an Economist and her career choice to become a professor at Les Roches Hospitality Management School in Marbella, Spain.  She answers our questions about the role of education in shaping the current hospitality field and the importance of disruptions and challenges to the status quo.  Krisztina describes why innovative approaches to education are vital and putting students in the centre of pedagogy is a no-brainer. We also discuss entrepreneurship and start-ups, something that young graduates are often passionate and curious about.  But Krisztina is clear on this – not everyone is capable or has the adequate skills to move in this direction.  That is why Krisztina encourages young people to explore and discover all the different career paths available on the vast hospitality horizon.  Hospitality trends and innovations are moving constantly and Krisztina encourages her students to stay informed and imagine what the future of hospitality will look like.  Finally, we speak about finding the right balance between one's personal and work life and the challenges that women face in the academic world today Dr. Krisztina Soreg is a professor, economist and business analyst, holding a Ph.D. degree in Economics and Management Sciences from the University of Sopron, Hungary, as well as a graduate degree from the Budapest University of Technology and Economics with 9+ years of teaching experience. Since March 2022, she has been an integral part of Les Roches Marbella, where she delivers courses as Associate Professor on various subjects in Data Analytics, Economics and Entrepreneurship to undergraduate and postgraduate students, while also overseeing dissertation projects across a spectrum of topics. Dr. Soreg's expertise extends to her role as a postdoctoral researcher in the field of Development Economics with 30+ published articles. With a rich academic background, she has contributed her knowledge and insights to numerous public and private universities, including the University of Malaga, University of Milton Friedman in Hungary, and the American College in Spain. As part of the SPARK Innovation Sphere, Krisztina operates as a startup mentor supporting and coaching those eager to develop innovative and disruptive business ideas for the hospitality industry and beyond. Presently, she holds a full-time faculty position at Les Roches Marbella and the General Education Pathway Coordinator role. Besides, Dr. Soreg is Visiting Professor at the Les Roches Crans-Montana campus in Switzerland, exemplifying her dedication to education and research within the global academic community. 

Season 2 of the J-PAL Voices podcast brings together researchers reflecting on their experiences conducting impact evaluations in India. From working in diverse local contexts to engaging with government and civil society, each episode offers a window into the realities of producing policy-relevant evidence on the ground. 

Economics is seeing an upsurge in the importance of controlled, reproducible empirical studies. One area where this has had a great impact is on development economics, which studies the economies of low- and middle-income societies. Edward Miguel has been at the forefront of both the revolution in empirical methods, and in applying those techniques to alleviating poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere.Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2025/06/16/318-edward-miguel-on-the-developing-practice-of-development-economics/Support Mindscape on Patreon.Edward Miguel received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard university. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Economics and Oxfam Professor in Environmental and Resource Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also Faculty co-Director of the Center for Effective Global Action and a Faculty Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Among his awards are the Frisch Medal of the Econometric Society, the Kenneth Arrow Prize of the International Health Economics Association, and multiple teaching awards.Web siteBerkeley web pageGoogle Scholar publicationsWikipediaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Indermit Gill is the Chief Economist of the World Bank and Senior Vice President for Development Economics. Let's start from there, proud as we are to have hosted his keynote at this year's e-Governance Conference. Known for his pioneering research and policy influence, Gill introduced the idea of the "middle-income trap" – a concept that continues to shape how nations approach economic transformation in the digital era. Something that strongly resonated with many of the conference participants, who felt it captured the challenges and hopes facing countries transitioning through digitalisation (as they made sure to let us know). And just after his speech set the tone and the tempo for the entire event to follow, we sat down with him for a conversation about the hard realities of long-term reform and the public role in innovation. Throughout, Gill was clear: getting out of the middle-income trap isn't about copying past models, but making digital transformation serve people. And enable institutions to keep pace with ambition. Country representatives are grappling with how to turn digital transformation into genuine development. Their questions echo the message that digital tools alone are not enough. Dig in to find out, in this XL-sized episode, why meaningful change requires building the institutional capacity to integrate, govern, and innovate. 

Do you pay attention to information printed on food labels? From eye-catching designs companies use to entice you to buy a product to nutrition facts panels to the tiny dates printed on packages. There's a lot going on to be sure. For policymakers, they hope that refining date labels on food packaging will help reduce the amount of uneaten food ending up in landfills. Food Waste is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service recently asked for public input on food date labels. So, we decided to gather some experts together to talk about this important policy tool. Roni Neff is a professor in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Senior Advisor at the School's Center for a Livable Future. Her research looks at the intersection of food waste policy, climate change, and food system resilience. Brian Roe is a professor at the Ohio State University Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Developmental Economics. His work focuses on issues including agricultural marketing, information policy, behavioral economics, and product quality. Ruiqing Miao is an associate professor of agricultural economics and rural sociology at Auburn University's College of Agriculture. His research emphasizes sustainability, innovation, and decision making. Interview Summary Brian, let's begin with you and let's make sure everyone's on the same page. Can you talk to us a little bit about what date labels are and where they are on packaging. And what is industry required to include in terms of these date labels? Yes, so date labels, we see them anytime we pick up a food package. Most packages are going to have some type of date label on them. Oddly, federal law doesn't regulate these or really require these other than the exception of infant formula, which is the only federal requirement domain out there. But in the absence of federal regulation, states have kind of done their own thing. About 40 different states require date labels on at least some food products. And about 20 states prohibit or restrict the sale or donation of food past the label date. And even though states that require date labels, manufacturers can still choose the dates. There are no real regulations on them. So, recognizing that confusion over date labels can lead to unnecessary food waste, Government and industry actors have made, you know, some efforts to try to standardize date labeling language. But nothing terribly authoritative. Now, some states have introduced bills that seek to standardize date labels, with the motivation to try to get rid of and reduce food waste. California being perhaps the most recent of these. In 2024, they passed a bill that prohibits the use of any date label other than 'Best if Used By,' the phrase that goes along with foods where the date represents kind of a quality indicator. And then the phrase 'Use By,", if that date has some implications for product safety. The bill doesn't go into effect until July of '26, so we're going to see if this is going to create a domino effect across other states, across the food manufacturing center or even bubble up and be dealt with at the federal legislation level. Now, industries tried to do things before. Back in 2017, the Food Marketing Institute and the Grocers Manufacturers Association had a standardized date labeling suggestion that some firms bought into. FDA has given out some guidance about preferring 'Best if Used By' on certain food products to indicate quality. But again, we're all kind of waiting to see if there might be a federal legislation that kind of brings these state labels into check. Thanks, Brian. And it's really important to know about the policy landscape and the fact that there hasn't been a federal policy across all foods. And it's interesting to see the efforts of, say, in California. I think this begs the question; how do consumers actually process the information of date labels? This fascinated us too. A very clever person at Ohio State that I work with, Dr. Aishwarya Badiger, led a study I was part of. We enlisted consumers to come into the Consumer Evaluation Lab that we have here on campus and evaluate samples of milk. They were presented with the label of each milk. We gave them a little glass with a nose full of the milk that they could sniff. So, they're looking at the date label, they're given the sample they could smell, and then we kind of asked them, Hey, if this were in your fridge, would you keep it or toss it? But the entire time we actually had them fitted with special glasses that precisely track their eye movements so we could understand kind of which information they were looking at while they went through the whole process of evaluating and then making their decision. Consumers overwhelmingly looked at the date itself on the package and largely ignored the phrase or the words that go along with the date. In fact, for more than half of the evaluations, the consumer's eyes never went anywhere near the phrase. This is important. And actually, we'll talk about that a little bit more with some of our other guests. So, what are the implications of date label policies? So the eye tracking research really drove home to me that dates are much more salient than phrases. Although all the policies largely deal with the phrases. Dates give you actionable information. People can look at the date on the label, look at the calendar, and man, that's something they can do something about. They can act based upon that. The phrases are a little bit more ambiguous as Roni will talk about later. I think that people have a hard time interpreting what those phrases really mean. That doesn't mean we should not try to unify those phrases, but rather this is going to be a longer-term investment in educational infrastructure that until those phrases really become salient and actionable to consumers. And then become more of a critical component of the policies. But right now, policies are generally silent on dates. And dates seem to be the real action mover. Yeah. So why don't we just get rid of all of this? What would be the implications? Yes. We did this experiment too. Same kind of setup. Had people come in, they had the jug of the milk in front of them. They had a glass of milk that they could sniff. Same thing. And we had a bunch of different milks. We had some that were only like 15 days post pasteurization. Some that went out to like 40 days past pasteurization. So, the youngest or the freshest had about three days, quote unquote, left on its date label. The 40-day old milk was like two or three weeks past the date. And we did two things. We had them evaluate the milk with the dates on the jugs, and then we had ones where we took the dates and the labels off the milk. Not surprisingly, when they did not have the dates on the milk, they were much more likely to say that they would keep the milk. Even that 40-day old milk, about half of them said, yeah, I'd drink this. I'd keep this if it were in my fridge. But it wasn't a slam dunk. So, our youngest and freshest milk had an odd flavor note. You know, sometimes as the seasons change, feed sources change for cattle, you get an odd flavor note. It's not spoilage, it's just a slightly different note. And when people have the date label, they were much more willing to give that milk a second chance and say that they would keep it. But if the date label wasn't on there, they took that odd flavor note and said, I'm going to toss this milk. So, it's really kind of a nuanced thing. And if you would take those off, I think you're going to get some consumers who are going to kind of freak out without any guidance. And they might have kind of an itchy trigger finger when it comes to throwing away that milk or other products. So, it's compelling. We've seen England, the UK, do this; take dates off of certain products. But I would probably want to see a little more example of how consumers are responding to that before I fully endorse that as kind of a policy movement forward. Brian, thank you for that. And I have got to say, I was not expecting to have a conversation about the bouquet of a glass of milk. But this is really an interesting finding, and it does help us understand some other things that we're going to talk about. Roni, I want to turn our attention to you. And I know you are someone who's been involved in understanding date labels for a while. And I really appreciate it and I've said it before, but you're the reason I got into this work. I want to understand a little bit more about what are important things to understand about the misconceptions that consumers may have about food date labels? And why does it matter for policymakers? Well, I'll start with just saying that conceptions are what we know rationally. And it's not the whole picture because as Brian was alluding to a lot of our decision making is going on in our emotions. And like I can tell my son all day long the fact that that milk is okay, he's going to toss it because he doesn't trust it. There's a lot more going on than conceptions. But I want to talk about two misconceptions. The first one is that despite what Brian just said about the fact that these date labels other than infant formula aren't federally regulated, about two in five people think that they are. We just did a national consumer survey in January 2025, and this is one of the findings. And I did that along with Emily Broad Lieb from the Harvard Food Law and Policy Project and Akif Khan also from there, and then Dana Gunders from ReFED. And in addition to this idea that they're federally regulated, I'll say that these kinds of beliefs were most common among those who were 18 to 34, parents with children under age 18, and black and Hispanic consumers. Our earlier work also found that those who think that food date labels are federally regulated are more likely to discard food based on them. All this speaks to a real challenge. And, you know, it kind of makes sense, like if you see something and you trust it, that it's from the federal government. And of course, we all trust the federal government these days. If you trust it, then you're going to respond to it. So that's an implication for food policy. And then the next thing we did also is that we tested understanding of five different food date label phrases: a date with no text, and then two of those phrases accompanied by icon images. And since none of these actually have a federally recognized meaning the correct answer for all of them in terms of the meaning is like other. But we also accepted answers that were aligned with that voluntary industry standard, just to kind of see how people were perceiving it. And, across all of these labels, only an average of 53% of people answered correctly about what these labels meant. Now, consumers were pretty good at identifying 'Best if Used By' as a quality label. But the real challenge comes in with 'Use By' which under the voluntary industry standards should be a safety label. And more people thought it was a quality label than thought it was a safety label; 44% versus 49%. And so, we need to clear up these misconceptions in support of food safety, in support of food waste prevention. But in order to do that, we need to be able to tell people clearly what the labels mean. And we can't really do that if there's no standardized meaning of what they mean. So, we really need a national standard, and that is the policy implication. Thank you for that. And I know Ruiqing and I have done some work in this space and in part learning from what you all have done. I'm interested because you mentioned the 2025 survey, but of course you also mentioned the 2016 survey. Are there any big shifts or anything that you want to tell us about changes that you see from those two different surveys? We asked a number of the same or almost identical questions in those two surveys. And since that time, we've adopted a voluntary industry standard and there's been a lot of education and communication about wasted food. And yet in our survey we actually found that things were going in the wrong direction. Consumer misunderstandings of date labels increased. Those who quote always or usually discard food based on the label: in 2016, that was 37%, and this year it was 43%. And then in terms of belief that these are federally regulated: in 2016 it was 36% and now it's 44%. We're going in the wrong direction despite all these activities, and I don't know why. I think for those who are looking for future research questions, this would be a really interesting one. This is really disturbing because all of the information that's come out about date labels. I thought people would understand this. And that this is where we would be in a different place. So, this work is really important. So, how did people's response to date labels vary by food item? Did you see any differences? Because this is something that comes up often that people may be more responsive to some food products versus others? Yeah, indeed. We asked about five different foods, and we showed a bunch of different labels for each food. And the responses did vary both based on the item and based on what label was on it. And I'll start with where caution is needed. Deli meats are one example of where we really want people to pay attention to that label. And while there's no federal standard that label's the best piece of information people has, so they should use it. And we found that only 65% would throw out the deli meat before, on, or just after the 'Use By' label. And the number of people that would respond to it reduced with other labels that were used, and older adults were most likely to disregard those labels. And they may be particularly vulnerable in terms of foodborne illness. So that's when lack of caution leads to risk. On the other hand, when caution leads to waste, we looked at raw chicken, pasteurized milk, lettuce, and breakfast cereal. And for all of those there, like the label is really only telling you about quality, and consumers should use their senses to decide, and knowledge of how that was, stored to decide whether to eat it. And so, the most common out of all five foods, including the deli, the one that they responded the strongest to was raw chicken. And that chicken can be contaminated as we know, but if you cook it, you're killing those bacteria, so it's okay. And averaging across all those different date labels, we found 54% would discard these four foods based on the date. And the piece that was most striking to me was that for breakfast cereal, 43% said they were discarded based on the date. So, we've got some education to do. Yeah. In the earlier paper I did with colleagues at Cornell, we used breakfast cereal and we were surprised to see how much people willing to throw away breakfast cereal if it were passed to date. There is confirmation and we see this happen in many other products. And we'll definitely talk about some of those product differences with Ruiqing. The last question I'd like to ask you is you found that many consumers thought they knew the meanings of the various food date labels, but they were incorrect. And in some of the work that you've done in the past, you found that many people answered incorrectly even after viewing information about the labels. So even when you educated folks or gave people information, they still made incorrect choices. Why do you think this is, and what should we do about it? And some people's responses do improve when you show them the information, but it was striking in that study that seconds after having read the definition, according to the voluntary industry standard, people were giving the wrong answer. Even though they had previously said that they thought they understood it. So, to me, this suggests that they already think they know the answer and so they're not tuning in. And this speaks to a real challenge that we're going to have when we do standardize these date labels. How are we going to reach people and capture their attention. Like, if we just change the policy, that does nothing. We've got to reach people and we've got to do it in a sophisticated and well-planned way. And I think the education should also emphasize that misunderstandings are common because that might be something that would help wake people up. But beyond that, we've got to capture their attention. So, you know, dancing clowns, whatever it is that wakes people up. I have a fear of clowns, so I'm not sure if I want that as a policy recommendation. However... For the deli meats we want you to be afraid, so it's okay. Yes, I agree. I agree. One of the things that this conversation has helped us see is that there's some real concerns around whether or not people are paying attention to the label. Or there may be paying more attention to the dates. And even when people are taught or encouraged to think about the dates, there seems to be a mismatch. And Ruiqing, I want to now turn to you because one of the things in the study that we were a part of, there's some questions about differences among people. So, in the paper that we recently published on the relationship between date labels and anticipated food waste, and people's individual orientation to risk and loss, can you tell us a little bit about what some of the key findings of that paper are? Right. So, the paper is published recently in Applied Economics Perspective Policy. It's one of the official journals of Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA). Norbert is the leading author. So, this paper built on the framework of prospect theory and is based on the data from a series of experiments we conducted in Alabama and also the state of New York. We find that consumers do adjust their anticipated food waste by date labels and by how much they tolerate risk and losses. In the experiment, we particularly measured their tolerance to risk and losses. We found that the 'Use By' date labels tend to lead to more anticipated food waste than 'Best Buy'. Maybe this echo what Roni has said. So, people may tend to link 'Use By' with quality and food safety. We also found that the consumers with low tolerance to losses and are associated with higher anticipated foot waste regardless of date labels and the products. So, we can see a heterogeneity of the responses of different consumers to date labels and food items based on their tolerance to losses and risks. Thank you for that. And I think this is a really important aspect of looking at this set of studies because we see that people are different. They respond differently. And they have different ideas about how they handle losses. This idea that it can be worse to lose a hundred dollars versus to gain a hundred dollars. Or the way we understand how we'll negatively respond versus how positively we respond. Using this economic framework of prospect theory, something that is drawn from actually the psychology literature to better understand how people react to food labels while shopping. What are some key features of this approach to explaining people's behaviors and why do you think it's a good choice? Why do you think it's important to do this? One of the key features of prospect theory is it divides the possible outcomes of a risky event into two domains. One is a gain domain and one is a loss domain. So, in terms of the food consumption, probably the most likely status quo is do not eat the food items. So, the gain domain might be gaining nutrition from the food item. The loss domain might be the loss of health if the food item is bad. So, I think this framework fits particularly well to describe the consumer's trade off in their mind when they face a food item with a date label that is maybe one day or two days past the expiration date. So, one possibility is you consume this food. If it is good, you get nutrition and if it is bad, you potentially get lost health or lose one day of work or so on. So, I think this model can capture the trade off or the decision-making procedure in a consumer's mind pretty well. And experiments data support the theoretical prediction that loss aversion may affect people's food waste decisions. Thank you for that. And I think what's one of the sort of take home messages that I've learned out of this process is this heterogeneity, the fact that people are different and may respond differently to these date labels, really does put the onus upon policymakers to think critically what date labels, if we were to use them, or if we think they have an effect, which are the right ones. And so I actually want to open up the question to all of you. In your view, what next steps make sense for date labels to help address the food waste challenges that we see in this country? Let's start with you, Brian. Ooh, yeah. So, to me a compelling issue that needs to be addressed is how do we get 'Use By' to really translate to be people to be about safety? Is it a different color? I know we don't want to mess with the phrases, but do we just call this safety date and put it in red or put a clown by it if that scares you. Something along those lines to make that stand out. And then on the relevance side, I think it might be out of policy, but perhaps, industry collaboration to really push printed dates to the end of that quality horizon. So that everybody has confidence that they're not going to get undercut by somebody else having an earlier date printed for cereals or for canned goods or something like that. To have a kind of a truce among commercial interests to say, okay, typically canned beans, has this type of 180 days or 360 days. Let's push it to the end of that acceptable horizon so that we don't have unwarranted waste happening as often. Those are two ideas that I've kind of chewed on a lot and think could be positive steps forward. But I'm fascinated to hear what others think. Thank you, Brian and I really don't like the idea of putting clowns anywhere near this. I want to go to you, Roni. All right, well first, I'll a thousand percent echo everything that Brian just said. And I'll note also in terms of the 'Use By' date, the label that was most commonly associated with food safety was 'Expires On' by consumers. But that isn't part of what has been under [policy] discussion. But anyway, in addition to echoing that, I'll just say we do need a standardized policy and it has to be accompanied by a well-designed education campaign. And this policy change, it's just a no-brainer. It's not controversial. It's fairly minimal cost. And given the high food prices and the struggles that consumers are having right now, they need every tool that they can to save money and food, and this is one of them. Great. Thank you, Roni. I'll give the last word to you, Ruiqing. Yeah. I will echo what Brian and Roni said. So, a well-designed policy and public education campaign. Particularly for the education campaign. I think regardless of if there is a policy change or not, I think it is time to do a public education campaign. Norbert, we have done the research on food waste for almost nine years, right? So, I learned a little bit about the date label's meaning. But still, I cannot change my wife's opinion. When she sees sell by yesterday for the milk, she would suggest we throw it away. But I said this is not for us, this is for sellers. But she wouldn't believe so because I cannot persuade her. But maybe an education campaign from more authoritative institutional federal government can change people's mind as a researcher or like even husband cannot change. Roni - And can I just add to that, just please. I think that the economics and psychology expertise that all of you have can really contribute to that. Because I think that's a really important point that you're making. And it's not just factual, it's emotional too. And so how do we, you know, get in there and change what people do beyond their knowledge? Bios Roni Neff is a Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Department of Environmental Health & Engineering and the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, an academic center focused on food systems and public health. Her research focuses on wasted food through the lens of equity and public health. She is a co-Director of the RECIPES national food waste research network, and she recently served on the National Academies of Science and Medicine consensus panel on consumer food waste. Brian Roe is the Van Buren Professor in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at Ohio State University. Roe has worked broadly in the areas of agricultural and environmental economics focusing on issues including agricultural marketing, information policy, behavioral economics and product quality. He was recently named as a fellow of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and has previously served as an editor for the Association's flagship journal, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. He currently leads the Ohio State Food Waste Collaborative, a collection of researchers, practitioners, and students working together to promote the reduction and redirection of food waste as an integral part of a healthy and sustainable food system, and co-leads the RECIPES Network, a National Science Foundation Sustainable Regional System's Research Network focused on increasing food system sustainability, resilience and equity by addressing the issue of food waste.  In addition to research on food waste, his other recent research includes a USDA funded project focused on local foods and school lunch programs and participation in an NSF-funded multidisciplinary team seeking to understand human-ecosystem feedbacks in the Western Lake Erie basin, including understanding how farms and agribusinesses respond to voluntary environmental programs and how Ohio residents respond to different options to manage Lake Erie water quality. Ruiqing Miao is an agricultural economist at Auburn University. Miao is interested in sustainability, innovation, and decision-making. His research focuses on the interaction between agricultural production and its environment, aiming to understand and quantify 1) agriculture's impact on land use, water use, water quality, and biodiversity, and 2) how agricultural production is affected by farmers' behaviors, public policies, agricultural innovation, technology adoption, and climate change.

IFPRI-AMIS Seminar Series | IFPRI Policy Seminar 2025 Outlook for Wheat, Maize, and Soybean Crops Co-organized by IFPRI and Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) May 13, 2025 Global grain and oilseed markets are facing great uncertainty as producers in the northern hemisphere complete their spring plantings. While some dryness has affected winter crop regions in both North America and Europe, sowing conditions remain favorable. Market participants are closely observing rapid policy developments related to tariffs and possible retaliatory measures. The changing trade landscape will also affect the overall macroeconomic environment, with impacts expected on energy prices, exchange rates, and growth prospects, and further implications for agricultural production and trade. Opening Remarks Joseph Glauber, Research Fellow Emeritus, IFPRI Presentations Overview of macroeconomic prospects: John Baffes, Senior Agriculture Economist, Development Economics, World Bank Overview of crop conditions: Brian Barker, Principal Faculty Specialist, University of Maryland; GEOGLAM Crop Monitor for AMIS lead, and Global Crop Monitor lead Overview of wheat, maize and soybeans: Seth Meyer, Chief Economist, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Discussion Moderated by Monika Tothova, Senior Economist, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) Secretary Di Yang, Economist, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Erin Collier, Economist, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Nathan Kemp, Senior Economist, International Grains Council (IGC) Moderator Monika Tothova, Senior Economist, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) Secretary Links: More about this Event: https://www.ifpri.org/event/2025-outlook-for-wheat-maize-and-soybean-crops/ Subscribe IFPRI Insights newsletter and event announcements at www.ifpri.org/content/newsletter-subscription

Chinese EV companies are gaining a foothold in European markets to sell EVs and to supply European EV manufacturers with locally manufactured EV batteries. The Central and Eastern European region – host to most of the Chinese EV and EV battery projects in Europe – exemplifies the emerging role of China, and presents an exceptional case study for how Chinese firms, technologies, and supply chains helps and hinders Europe's green transition. By focusing on cases of Chinese EV battery investments in CEE, this podcast episode explores the multi-layered impacts of these investments and offers a nuanced understanding of the intricate dynamics shaping contemporary transitions to electromobility. In this podcast, hosted by John Seaman, a Research Fellow at the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri), Dr. Ágnes Szunomár shares her recent research findings on the dynamics of Chinese EV projects in Europe. Dr. Ágnes Szunomár is an associate professor at Corvinus University of Budapest. In addition, she serves as the head of the Research Group on Development Economics at the Institute of World Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungary. Related publications by Ágnes Szunomár From Zero to Hero? Chinese Investment in Electric Vehicle Supply Chains in the Visegrád Four. 2024, China Observers https://chinaobservers.eu/from-zero-to-hero-chinese-investment-in-electric-vehicle-supply-chains-in-the-visegrad-four/ ReConnect China - Generating independent knowledge for a resilient future with China for Europe and its citizens. Find out more about the project here: www.reconnect-china.ugent.be CHERN – the China in Europe Research Network – is a platform for knowledge exchange about China in Europe among academic and non-academic communities. Find out more about the project here https://china-in-europe.net Transcript: https://www.utu.fi/fi/ajankohtaista/podcast/reconnect

Die Hälfte der Menschheit hat keinen Zugang zu sicherer, sauberer Sanitärversorgung. Doch Wasserklosetts sind nicht die Lösung. Wie also müssen wir umdenken?  Unsere Autorin Lena Bodewein hat als Korrespondentin in Südostasien an vielen Orten gesehen, was für Auswirkungen eine mangelnde Sanitärversorgung hat: Ohne Toiletten können sich Infektionskrankheiten verbreiten - 800 Kinder unter fünf Jahren sterben täglich an Durchfallerkrankungen. Aber auch Antibiotikaresistenzen spielen eine Rolle, Frauen sind mehr Gewaltverbrechen ausgesetzt, Mädchen gehen oft nicht zur Schule. Im Gespräch mit Host Lucie Kluth erklärt Lena, warum Forschende sich mit dem Problem auch kulturell beschäftigen und was für ungewohnte Lösungsansätze es gibt. Denn unser Abwasserkonzept lässt sich nicht einfach auf den globalen Süden übertragen, viel zu viel Trinkwasser wird dabei vergeudet. Die Recherche für diesen Podcast führt uns an Orte, die besser riechen als gedacht, zu Technologien, die Namen von Popstars tragen - und Unternehmern, die Kalauer lieben.  HINTERGRUNDINFORMATIONEN: 1. Pickering, Amy J et al.: Effect of a community-led sanitation intervention on child diarrhoea and child growth in rural Mali: a cluster-randomised controlled trial
The Lancet Global Health, Volume 3, Issue 11, e701 - e711. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)00144-8/fulltext 2. Sharma Waddington H, Masset E, Bick S, Cairncross S.: Impact on childhood mortality of interventions to improve drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) to households: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS medicine. 2023 Apr 20;20(4): e1004215. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004215 3. Cameron L, Olivia B S, Shah M.: Scaling up Sanitation: Evidence from an RCT in Indonesia. Journal of Development Economics 138(2019)1–16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387818316298 4. Orgill-Meyer J, Pattanayak SK: Improved sanitation increases long-term cognitive test scores. World Development. 2020 Aug 1;132:104975. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3418412 5. Studie der German Toilet Organization über deutsche Schultoiletten: https://media.germantoilet.org/pages/schulen/toiletten-machen-schule-studie/2242471965-1692953784/tms_studie_2022-2023.pdf 6. Gu, Y., Zhou, W., Zheng, T. et al.: Health effects and externalities of the popularization of sanitary toilets: evidence from Rural China. BMC Public Health23, 2225 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17192-4 7. Nunbogu AM, Elliott SJ: Characterizing gender-based violence in the context of water, sanitation, and hygiene: A scoping review of evidence in low-and middle-income countries. Water Security. 2022 Apr 1;15:100113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468312422000049?via%3Dihub Mehr Wissenschaft bei NDR Info: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/sendungen/wissenschaft-und-bildung/index.html

Die Hälfte der Menschheit hat keinen Zugang zu sicherer, sauberer Sanitärversorgung. Doch Wasserklosetts sind nicht die Lösung. Wie also müssen wir umdenken?  Unsere Autorin Lena Bodewein hat als Korrespondentin in Südostasien an vielen Orten gesehen, was für Auswirkungen eine mangelnde Sanitärversorgung hat: Ohne Toiletten können sich Infektionskrankheiten verbreiten - 800 Kinder unter fünf Jahren sterben täglich an Durchfallerkrankungen. Aber auch Antibiotikaresistenzen spielen eine Rolle, Frauen sind mehr Gewaltverbrechen ausgesetzt, Mädchen gehen oft nicht zur Schule. Im Gespräch mit Host Lucie Kluth erklärt Lena, warum Forschende sich mit dem Problem auch kulturell beschäftigen und was für ungewohnte Lösungsansätze es gibt. Denn unser Abwasserkonzept lässt sich nicht einfach auf den globalen Süden übertragen, viel zu viel Trinkwasser wird dabei vergeudet. Die Recherche für diesen Podcast führt uns an Orte, die besser riechen als gedacht, zu Technologien, die Namen von Popstars tragen - und Unternehmern, die Kalauer lieben.  HINTERGRUNDINFORMATIONEN: 1. Pickering, Amy J et al.: Effect of a community-led sanitation intervention on child diarrhoea and child growth in rural Mali: a cluster-randomised controlled trial
The Lancet Global Health, Volume 3, Issue 11, e701 - e711. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)00144-8/fulltext 2. Sharma Waddington H, Masset E, Bick S, Cairncross S.: Impact on childhood mortality of interventions to improve drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) to households: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS medicine. 2023 Apr 20;20(4): e1004215. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004215 3. Cameron L, Olivia B S, Shah M.: Scaling up Sanitation: Evidence from an RCT in Indonesia. Journal of Development Economics 138(2019)1–16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387818316298 4. Orgill-Meyer J, Pattanayak SK: Improved sanitation increases long-term cognitive test scores. World Development. 2020 Aug 1;132:104975. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3418412 5. Studie der German Toilet Organization über deutsche Schultoiletten: https://media.germantoilet.org/pages/schulen/toiletten-machen-schule-studie/2242471965-1692953784/tms_studie_2022-2023.pdf 6. Gu, Y., Zhou, W., Zheng, T. et al.: Health effects and externalities of the popularization of sanitary toilets: evidence from Rural China. BMC Public Health23, 2225 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17192-4 7. Nunbogu AM, Elliott SJ: Characterizing gender-based violence in the context of water, sanitation, and hygiene: A scoping review of evidence in low-and middle-income countries. Water Security. 2022 Apr 1;15:100113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468312422000049?via%3Dihub Mehr Wissenschaft bei NDR Info: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/sendungen/wissenschaft-und-bildung/index.html

The Indus Valley Annual Report, published by Blume Ventures, is an annual deep-dive into the Indian macroeconomy, the Indian consumer, and the innovation ecosystem in India. The report has become one of the most highly anticipated reports on the economy—pored over by policy wonks, economic analysts, and India watchers.The lead author of the report is Sajith Pai. Sajith is a partner at Blume Ventures, an early stage venture firm with offices in Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, and San Francisco. Sajith oversees consumer and India B2B investing at Blume. Prior to joining Blume, Sajith had a two-decade career in various corporate strategy roles with the Times of India Group.To talk more about this year's report, Sajith joins Milan from his office in Noida. The two discuss the origins and objectives of the Indus Valley Annual Report, India's post-pandemic recovery trajectory, and India's low (and declining) savings rate. Plus, the two discuss the trials and tribulations of India's manufacturing sector and whether India can become an artificial intelligence (AI) powerhouse.Episode notes:1. Abhishek Anand et al., “How quality control orders are crippling India's trade competitiveness,” Business Standard, March 4, 2025.2. Abhishek Anand et al., “Multiplying multi-plants: A new and consequential phenomenon,” Journal of Development Economics 174 (May 2025).3. “Sajith Pai Unpacks the 2024 Indus Valley Annual Report and the Changing Indian Consumer,” Ides of India (podcast), July 4, 2024.4. “Will India's Budget 2025 Turn the Economic Tide? (with Sukumar Ranganathan),” Grand Tamasha, February 5, 2025.

Did you know that a cluttered home can contribute to stress, reduce productivity, and even impact overall well-being? This week on Room by Room: The Home Organization Science Insights Podcast, host Sabrina Oktavelia sits down with Oluwaseyi Popogbe to discuss the crucial role of sanitation in maintaining a functional and harmonious home. As a seasoned Economics lecturer and researcher with over a decade of academic experience, Oluwaseyi Popogbe specializes in Development Economics, Environmental Economics, and Monetary Economics. Her work sheds light on the vulnerabilities of the urban poor, highlighting the impact of limited education, health challenges, and inadequate living standards on sanitation and home organization. In this episode, Sabrina and Oluwaseyi Popogbe dive into the importance of shared responsibility in keeping a home clutter-free. They explore how a lack of understanding of sanitation, especially in lower-income households, can contribute to declining living conditions. Additionally, they discuss actionable strategies for creating an organized home, including seeking support for those who struggle with cleaning—such as individuals with mental health challenges—so they can eventually maintain their space independently. Tune in to this episode for practical insights on turning home organization into a collective effort and fostering a healthier, more organized living space! Follow Oluwaseyi Popogbe's work: Orcid: https://orcid.org/my-orcid?orcid=0000-0002-1393-7121 Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fZigS38AAAAJ&hl=en Connect with Oluwaseyi Popogbe via the following platform: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seyipops/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oluwaseyi-omowunmi-popogbe/ Produced by the Home Organization Science Labs, a division of LMSL, the Life Management Science Labs. Explore LMSL at https://lifemanagementsciencelabs.com/ and visit http://ho.lmsl.net/ for additional information about Home Organization Labs. Follow us on Social Media to stay updated: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCODVhYC-MeTMKQEwwRr8WVQ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/homeorg.science.labs/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/homeorg.science.labs/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/HOScienceLabs LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/home-organization-science-labs TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@home.org.science.labs You can also subscribe and listen to the show on your preferred podcasting platforms: Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/room-by-room-the-home-organization-science-insights-podcast/id1648509192 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7kUgWDXmcGl5XHbYspPtcW Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/37779f90-f736-4502-8dc4-3a653b8492bd iHeart Radio: https://iheart.com/podcast/102862783 Podbean: https://homeorganizationinsights.podbean.com/ PlayerFM: https://player.fm/series/3402163 Podchaser: https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/room-by-room-the-home-organiza-4914172 

For today's episode, host Josh Sidman is joined by Dr. Will Ruddick.Dr. Ruddick is a development economist specializing in currency innovation. Before shifting his focus to economics and development, he conducted graduate research in high-energy physics as a collaboration member at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Since 2008, he has lived in East Africa, leading initiatives in environmental sustainability, food security, and economic development.His work centers on Community Inclusion Currencies (CICs) as a tool for poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Since 2010, he has pioneered CIC programs in Kenya, founding the Sarafu-Network and Bangla-Pesa, which provide alternative means of exchange to marginalized communities. He is also the founder of the Grassroots Economics Foundation, which supports local economies through innovative financial tools.Dr. Ruddick has worked with with organizations such as the World Food Program, the Red Cross, and the University of Cape Town's Environmental Economics Policy Research Unit. He is also an associate scholar with the University of Cumbria's Initiative for Leadership and Sustainability, where he contributes to research on alternative monetary systems and economic resilience. Dr. Ruddick earned his master's in high energy physics from the University of Colorado Boulder and his Ph.D. in Development Economics and International Development from the University of Cape Town.Together, we discussed Dr. Ruddick's introduction of alternative currencies to other countries, why he's hopeful about the elimination of USAID, and how his experience in Kenya shaped his future career.To check out more of our content, including our research and policy tools, visit our website: https://www.hgsss.org/

This week's Ohio Ag Net Podcast features an update from the Ohio Cattlemen's Association with OCA President Mark Goecke of Allen County and Colin Woodall, CEO of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Also featured is Alyssa Heldman, student coordinator for Night for Young Professionals, followed by Taylor Embry of AgHires with insights for job seekers in agriculture. Wrapping up the episode, Ani Katchova, Professor and Farm Income Enhancement Chair in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics at The Ohio State University, discusses the latest trends in farm income.

This event is co-organized by IFPRI and The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) Research Consortium for School Health and Nutrition Undernutrition during childhood and early adolescence has long-term consequences for development and health, and for girls it can affect the survival and wellbeing of their children. Diet-related risk factors are estimated to cause 20% of global mortality, and changes in food systems have led to rapid shifts to unhealthy diets and reductions in physical activity, contributing to the increase in rates of overweight and obesity. Moreover, current dietary and population trends will exacerbate risks to humans and the planet. School feeding programs, or school meals, are a widely implemented safety net with documented impacts across social protection, education, health and nutrition dimensions, and substantial projected economic returns to investment. Globally, programs reach over 400 million children for a total investment of over $50 billion a year. By being most effective for the most disadvantaged children, school meal programs can “level the playing field” in education, health, and nutrition. Experiences in high- and middle-income countries have also linked school meals to food systems transformation, where food procurement for school meals is used as an outlet for commercial farmers. National governments in LIMCs have shown interest in explicitly linking food systems transformation with the school feeding market through “home-grown” school feeding (HGSF). In HGSF, the “structured demand” for school food and related services is channeled to smallholders and other supply chain actors with the intent of stimulating agricultural productivity, increasing incomes, improving diets, and reducing food insecurity. More about this Event: https://www.ifpri.org/event/school-meals-in-the-21st-century-emerging-evidence-and-future-directions/ Welcome and Introduction Purnima Menon, Senior Director, Food and Nutrition Policy; Acting Senior Director, Transformation Strategy, IFPRI Donald Bundy, Professor, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) School Meals are Evolving: Has the Evidence Kept up? Harold Alderman, Research Fellow Emeritus, IFPRI New Evidence from Impact Evaluations Impact evaluation of the home-grown school meal model in Jordan: Simone Lombardini, Evaluation Officer, World Food Programme (WFP) Impact evaluation of the home-grown school meal model in The Gambia: Benedetta Lerva, Economist, Development Impact (DIME), Development Economics, The World Bank Impact evaluation of an added milk intervention to a micronutrient fortified school feeding program in crisis settings: Lilia Bliznashka, Research Fellow, IFPRI Panel Discussion: Moving from evidence to action Mangani Katundu, Secretary for Education, Government of Malawi Donald Bundy, Professor, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) Lynnette Neufeld, Director, Food and Nutrition Division, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Kagwiria Koome, Manager, Food, The Rockefeller Foundation Mia Blakstad, Window Manager, Food and Nutrition, The World Bank Arlene Mitchell, Executive Director, Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF) Moderator and Closing Remarks Aulo Gelli, Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI Links: Subscribe IFPRI Insights newsletter and event announcements at www.ifpri.org/content/newsletter-subscription

Many development economists would argue that the most important innovation of the last two decades has been a commitment to use only rigorous evidence for policy, and usually what they mean is evidence generated by RCTs. But are systematic reviews of the results a useful guide to policy? And should development economics continue to be focusing so much on the programmes that flow from RCT- driven research? Lant Pritchett of LSE talks to Tim Phillips about the nature of “rigorous” evidence in development economics, and the future of the discipline itself. Read the full show notes on VoxDev: https://voxdev.org/topic/macroeconomics-growth/rethinking-evidence-and-refocusing-growth-development-economics

Full Video Podcast auf YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@afrikafuralmans4582

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Exploring big ideas in development economics: an interview with Ranil Dissanayake, published by Probably Good on September 11, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This interview is a cross-post from Probably Good's new Career Journeys series. "No one will ever complain that you write too well… I look back at stuff I wrote 20 years ago and cringe now. But if I didn't write it, I would still be bad. You're not learning unless you're doing it." How does someone break into the field of development economics? And what does working in the field actually look like? Ranil Dissanayake is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. His career journey spans several countries and unique experiences - including over 15 years working in international development policy-making. Along the way, he's realized the importance of writing often, sharing ideas often, and talking with people of all sorts of backgrounds. We recently chatted about his path to his current role, day-to-day work, and advice for people starting out - edited below for clarity and brevity. What did you want to do when you were younger? And how did your ambitions change over time? I went to university pretty young, at 17. As a teenager, I wanted to be a filmmaker. I was mad about movies and watched them all day. I didn't want to pursue film straight out of school, though, because I didn't think I had anything interesting to say yet. My vague medium-term plan was to get a degree then try to go to film school in New York. I decided to study history and economics because I had this amazing teacher for these subjects. They weren't my best, but they were definitely my favorite. I applied and got into my top choice, Oxford, which had a joint honors program in both economics and history. Throughout my first couple of years there, I really enjoyed the academic side of things, but filmmaking was still my side gig. I was entering screenplay competitions and making short films. In my third and final year, I did a course in development economics. I'd always been interested in the subject - in part because I'm from Sri Lanka and was born in Hong Kong in 1981. If you were born in Hong Kong in 1981, you know something about development. There was a period of incredibly rapid change and increases in wealth. One side of my family was middle-class professionals, but my other side came from a tiny village without electricity and running water. I'd go to see my family in Sri Lanka every year and the dissonance between life there and my life in Hong Kong (with its high rise buildings and new shopping malls) was striking. When I did this one course in development economics, I realized, 'Wow, there's a whole discipline for thinking about this stuff.' At the time, it was still seen as a niche subject. This was before randomized control trials and before the field had its revolution. It wasn't the sort of thing mainstream economists did, but I just found it all so engaging. After I finished my degree, I still felt too young to do anything interesting in filmmaking. I decided to do a master's in development economics at SOAS in London, which had a totally different style of economics than Oxford. (I think it's a good idea for people to do their degrees at different places). Again, I just loved the course and everything I was learning. I lived somewhat of an unusual life for a 20 year old. I would go to my lectures, then get drinks with my classmates from around the world and we'd talk about what it was like where we were from. It was such an interesting experience. What happened after the master's degree? At that point, I decided development economics could be a good alternative career for me. I cared about it innately. It resonated with my personal background. But it was (and still is) hard to break into the field. I sort of luc...

The Serbian-American economist Branko Milanovic is one of the world's leading authorities on inequality. In this KEEN ON America conversation, we talked about Milanovic's interpretation of the history of American economic inequality - from slavery to contemporary capitalism. Why has America become so much unequal over the last fifty years, I asked. And today, in what Milanovic sees as a post neo-liberal age, how does he imagine the future of economic inequality?Branko Milanovic obtained his Ph.D. in economics (1987) from the University of Belgrade with a dissertation on income inequality in Yugoslavia. He served as lead economist in the World Bank's Research Department for almost 20 years, leaving to write his book on global income inequality, Worlds Apart (2005). He was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington (2003-2005) and has held teaching appointments at the University of Maryland (2007-2013) and at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (1997- 2007). He was a visiting scholar at All Souls College in Oxford, and Universidad Carlos III in Madrid (2010-11). Professor Milanovic's main area of work is income inequality, in individual countries and globally, including in preindustrial societies. He has published articles in Economic Journal, Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of Economic Literature, Journal of Development Economics, and Journal of Political Philosophy, among others. His book The Haves and the Have-nots (2011) was selected by The Globalist as the 2011 Book of the Year. Global Inequality (2016) was awarded the Bruno Kreisky Prize for the best political book of 2016 and the Hans Matthöfer Prize in 2018, and was translated into 16 languages. It addresses economic and political effects of globalization and introduces the concept of successive “Kuznets waves” of inequality. In March 2018, Milanovic was awarded (jointly with Mariana Mazzucato) the 2018 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Knowledge. His most recent books are Capitalism, Alone, published in 2019, and Visions of Inequality, published in 2023..Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

The ”Heartland” of the United States is a geographical expanse that is breathtaking in its size and scope.  Covering 20 states, from North Dakota to Texas, it is among the most diverse places on the globe. Yet for the past decades it has underperformed the ”Services” economies of America's coastal states and cities.  But that is changing dramatically thanks to the efforts of groups like Heartland Forward.  With entrepreneurial programs and toolkits, this ”Think and DO” tank as they call themselves has been unlocking the intelligence, culture, and capital in places as diverse as Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Oxford, Mississippi, and attempting to drive investment to the heartland of USA. How's it going? As the American economy continues to generate prosperity and opportunities, Heartland Forward's Senior Economist and Chief Research Officer talk to Lou about place-based economic development, the workforce of these 20 states and the linkages between their work and ICF's. This one changes the narrative about the ” flyover country” within the United States and gives examples of how every community can seize its destiny (Sound familiar?) https://www.intelligentcommunity.org/seizing_our_destiny You will enjoy their insights into this continuous rebirth of the American spirit. Julie Trivitt joined Heartland Forward from the University of Arkansas where she was a faculty member in both the Economics and Education Reform departments for eight years and has lived in the heartland her entire life. She leads the research initiatives on labor markets and talent pipelines as they are now and how we need them to adapt so the people of the heartland have opportunities to realize their full potential and employers have the best qualified talent. She has a PhD and MS in Economics from the University of Arkansas. Her bachelor's degree is also in Economics and was earned at Missouri State University. She aspires to be an herb gardener, a cruise director, and a librarian. David Shideler serves as the chief research officer for Heartland Forward's research team which includes visiting senior fellows Richard Florida and Maryann Feldman. With a mission to help improve the economic performance in the heartland and change the narrative of the middle of the country, the original research efforts focus on four key pillars: innovation and entrepreneurship, human capital, health and wellness and regional competitiveness. Shideler joined Heartland Forward after more than a decade at Oklahoma State University, serving as a professor and Community and Economic Development Specialist in the Department of Agricultural Economics. In these roles, he oversaw projects in community and rural development and small business development, and published peer-reviewed research articles on the economic impacts of internet access, incentive programs, and local food production. Shideler holds a Ph.D. in Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics and an M.A. in Economics from the Ohio State University, an M.S. in Agricultural Economics from the Pennsylvania State University, and a B.S. in Community and Rural Development from Clemson University.

Pranab Bardhan of Berkeley has recently published a memoir called Charaiveti: An Academic's Global Journey. It takes in his childhood in India, and his academic career in the UK, India and the US. The book takes in topics as diverse as whether the questions Marx asked are still relevant today, what economists can learn from anthropologists, what the Chinese government got right (and wrong), and the dangers of offering policy prescriptions for places we have never visited. He talks to Tim Phillips about the past, and the future, of development economics. Check out the full show notes on VoxDev: https://voxdev.org/topic/institutions-political-economy/past-present-and-future-development-economics

It is the moral imperative of every poor country to lift all its people out of poverty. And yet India, like so many other poor countries, has failed to do this. Development Economics carries much of the blame for this. Wrong beliefs and dangerous fashions within this field have mostly failed to help -- and sometimes caused much harm. Welcome to Episode 57 of Everything is Everything, a weekly podcast hosted by Amit Varma and Ajay Shah. For magnificent, detailed, juicy show notes, ⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Dr. Srishti Yadav is an Instructor for the Economics & Society stream in the Department of Economics at the University of Manitoba. She has a PhD in Economics from The New School in New York. Her dissertation research focuses on the political economy of development in India, investing the relationship between agrarian change and structural transformation through the framework of the Agrarian Question. Her ongoing research examines changing agrarian class relations in the face of growing rural-urban migration and the caste- and gender-based dynamics of this process through fieldwork. Her teaching interests are in Marxian Political Economy and Development Economics. A note from Lev:I am a high school teacher of history and economics at a public high school in NYC, and began the podcast to help demystify economics for teachers.  The podcast is now within the top 2.5% of podcasts worldwide in terms of listeners (per Listen Notes) and individual episodes are frequently listed by The Syllabus (the-syllabus.com) as among the 10 best political economy podcasts of a particular week.  The podcast is reaching thousands of listeners each month.  The podcast seeks to provide a substantive alternative to mainstream economics media; to communicate information and ideas that contribute to equitable and peaceful solutions to political and economic issues; and to improve the teaching of high school and university political economy. I am looking to be able to raise money in order to improve the technical quality of the podcast and website and to further expand the audience through professionally designed social media outreach. I am also hoping to hire an editor. Best, LevDONATE TODAY

On this week's episode of the Agronomy and Farm Management Podcast, Bruce and Josh talk to Dr. Seungki Lee, Assistant Professor at The Ohio State University in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics. Dr. Lee examines the May World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report and gives his thoughts on what the […]

Photo Credit: Tyler Follon - Wingman VisualsIn this episode of the Moral Imagination Podcast, I speak with Professor William Easterly of New York University about his work in development economics, and the problems of technocracy and social engineering of the poor. Easterly worked at the World Bank from 1985-2001 and began to be troubled by a number of things, including how aid is given without much concern about how it is distributed and managed thus subsidizing bad governance and harming the poor. We discuss Peter Bauer's critique of how foreign aid politicizes development and delayed the development of business in Africa, and Bauer's paradox of aid: * The countries that need aid — aid will not be effective* The countries where aid will be effective — do not need aid But the key problem with the dominant model of development is not simply a lack of efficiency, but the failure to respect the rights and agency of poor people. Easterly explains that development projects often result in people being deprived of their property, political rights, and participation and consent in the very projects that are supposed to help them. He discussed the tendency to to trivialize problems in the developing world, and the lack of feedback and market tests in development policy. We discuss how the developing world can often become a a lab for experiments for technocrats and social engineers. We also talk about Hayek's Knowledge Problem, a response to Marianna Mazucatto idea of moonshots, and what I call “embedded'“ economics. We discuss a number of issues including * “The Debate that Never Happened” - Gunnar Myrdal vs. Friedrich Hayek on development economics* Social Engineering * Technocracy and the Hubris of the Technocrat * Spontaneous Order* Edmund Burke and Friedrich Hayek * Soviet 5-year central planning as model for economic development * Limited Horizons of Humanitarianism— a secular, hollowed out version of Christian love the focuses on material at the expense of personal agency. * Lack of Accountability * Material vs. Non-material Needs * Materialist visions of the human person * People have a right to consent to their own progress * Harry Potter novels vs. Mosquito Nets * Marianna Mazucatto's ideas of Moonshots * vs. accidental discovery* vs opportunity costs * vs failed social engineering projects * and the complexity of economics and markets embedded in deep historical, cultural, norms, institutions, and religious foundations. * How to think about foreign aid and public goods like healthcare, infrastructure, education* Aid for emergencies vs. aid as answer to chronic poverty* Institutions of Justice including clear title to land, access to justice in the courts, ability to participate in the formal economy, and free exchange. * The impact of globalization on manufacturing in the US* Trade-offs and economic volatility * The moral rules that are needed for progress to beneficial * Consent, Self-Determination, Moral Equality * Attempts to develop Native Americans, US intervention in Philippines etc. * Material progress is never enough to justify interventionBiography William Easterly is Professor of Economics at New York University and Co-director of the NYU Development Research Institute, which won the 2009 BBVA Frontiers of Knowledge in Development Cooperation Award. He is the author of three books: The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor (March 2014), The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good (2006), which won the FA Hayek Award from the Manhattan Institute, and The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics (2001).He has published more than 60 peer-reviewed academic articles, and has written columns and reviews for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Review of Books, and Washington Post. He has served as Co-Editor of the Journal of Development Economics and as Director of the blog Aid Watch. He is a Research Associate of NBER, and senior fellow at the Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development (BREAD). Foreign Policy Magazine named him among the Top 100 Global Public Intellectuals in 2008 and 2009, and Thomson Reuters listed him as one of Highly Cited Researchers of 2014. He is also the 11th most famous native of Bowling Green, Ohio.ResourcesEssay: Friedrich Hayek: “The Use of Knowledge in Society”Related: Podcast with Obianuju Ekeocha on Ideological Colonialism and Resisting the Cultural Annexation of Africa Uganda Farmer Story in New York TimesPoverty, Inc. Film Recommended ReadingTyranny of Experts William Easterly The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little GoodBuy on Amazon, William Easterly The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics, Easterly, William R.Target Africa: Ideological Neocolonialism in the Twenty-First Centuryby Obianuju Ekeocha Seeing Like a State, James C. Scott Peter Bauer, Equality, The Third World, and Economic DelusionAngus Deaton The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality Get full access to The Moral Imagination - Michael Matheson Miller at themoralimagination.substack.com/subscribe

In conversation with Patrick Behrer, Research Economist, Development Economics, World Bank How the subtle but significant consequences of a hotter planet have already begun-from lower test scores to higher crime rates-and how we might tackle them today. In Slow Burn, R. Jisung Park draws upon vast amounts of raw data and novel economics to examine the consequences of climate change on an astonishing array of social groups and institutions. An assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, environmental and labor economist he holds positions in the School of Social Policy and Practice and the Wharton School of Business. He has spent more than a decade investigating and writing about economic inequalities and outcomes created by climate change. A Rhodes Scholar, a research affiliate at the Institute of Labor Economics, and a faculty fellow at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Park has consulted with such organizations as the World Bank and the New York City Departments of Education and Health. Patrick Behrer is an Economist in the Sustainability and Infrastructure team of the World Bank's Development Research Group. Behrer's work focuses on the economics of air pollution, climate change, and climate adaptation. His work has focused on the impacts of air pollution and climate change on human capital formation and the relationship between agriculture and air pollution. His work leverages big data from online and administrative sources and recent advances in satellite remote sensing technology. Prior to joining the World Bank in 2021, he was a post-doctoral fellow at the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University. He received his Ph.D. in 2020 from Harvard University in Public Policy. Because you love Author Events, please make a donation to keep our podcasts free for everyone. THANK YOU! (recorded 4/17/2024)

Are you poor? Am I poor? And what will it take to stop poverty? Social Impact Pioneer Dr Martin Burt doesn't think we should just be measuring poverty, or in turn wealth, by the amount of money we have alone. Martin believes that we can all be poor by some measures and that none of us are necessarily poor by all the measures. That is because Martin has been studying, working and leading businesses, civil society and governments to on his mission to tackle poverty. During this podcast you will hear what Martin has learnt on his journey; he shares the tools and skills he has developed in tackling poverty; and challenges us all to end poverty. Dr Martin Burt is the founder and CEO of Fundación Paraguaya, a social enterprise he set up in 1985 to tackle poverty head-on. Together they have researched poverty in depth and developed the Poverty Stoplight – which Martin will go into detail for us during the conversation. Fundación Paraguaya was named Latin America's most impactful and innovative development organisation by the Inter-American Development Bank in 2018. El Pais recently named Dr. Burt as one of the “21 Latin Americans who are changing the world.” Whilst the Poverty Stoplight (which is a key programme Martin is spearheading) is featured in the Solutions Insights Lab “What's Working Solutions”. If that wasn't enough – Martin holds a PhD from Tulane University in Development Economics and International Development, he is a Distinguished Visiting Professor of Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Research Associate at University of California, Irvine. In public service, Martin was elected Mayor of the capital city of Paraguay in the 1990s, he has served as Chief of Staff to the President of Paraguay, between 2012 to 2013 and was appointed Vice Minister of Commerce. Martin was also twice elected as the president of the Paraguayan-American Chamber of Commerce; and has written books on economics, development, municipal government, poetry, and education. Check out - “Who Owns Poverty?” Links: Poverty Stop Light - https://www.povertystoplight.org Who Owns Poverty? - https://redpress.co.uk/products/who-owns-poverty Martin's Linked In: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martinburt/ And if you liked this do try: Reframing Poverty with Eric Meade: https://businessfightspoverty.org/eric-meade/

Parents everywhere want their children to be happy and do well. Yet how parents seek to achieve this ambition varies enormously. For instance, American and Chinese parents are increasingly authoritative and authoritarian, whereas Scandinavian parents tend to be more permissive. Why? Love, Money, and Parenting investigates how economic forces and growing inequality shape how parents raise their children. From medieval times to the present, and from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden to China and Japan, Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti look at how economic incentives and constraints—such as money, knowledge, and time—influence parenting practices and what is considered good parenting in different countries. Through personal anecdotes and original research, Doepke and Zilibotti show that in countries with increasing economic inequality, such as the United States, parents push harder to ensure their children have a path to security and success. Economics has transformed the hands-off parenting of the 1960s and '70s into a frantic, overscheduled activity. Growing inequality has also resulted in an increasing “parenting gap” between richer and poorer families, raising the disturbing prospect of diminished social mobility and fewer opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In nations with less economic inequality, such as Sweden, the stakes are less high, and social mobility is not under threat. Doepke and Zilibotti discuss how investments in early childhood development and the design of education systems factor into the parenting equation, and how economics can help shape policies that will contribute to the ideal of equal opportunity for all. Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids (Princeton UP, 2019) presents an engrossing look at the economics of the family in the modern world. Matthias Doepke is professor of economics at Northwestern University. He lives in Evanston, Illinois. Fabrizio Zilibotti is the Tuntex Professor of International and Development Economics at Yale University. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Parents everywhere want their children to be happy and do well. Yet how parents seek to achieve this ambition varies enormously. For instance, American and Chinese parents are increasingly authoritative and authoritarian, whereas Scandinavian parents tend to be more permissive. Why? Love, Money, and Parenting investigates how economic forces and growing inequality shape how parents raise their children. From medieval times to the present, and from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden to China and Japan, Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti look at how economic incentives and constraints—such as money, knowledge, and time—influence parenting practices and what is considered good parenting in different countries. Through personal anecdotes and original research, Doepke and Zilibotti show that in countries with increasing economic inequality, such as the United States, parents push harder to ensure their children have a path to security and success. Economics has transformed the hands-off parenting of the 1960s and '70s into a frantic, overscheduled activity. Growing inequality has also resulted in an increasing “parenting gap” between richer and poorer families, raising the disturbing prospect of diminished social mobility and fewer opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In nations with less economic inequality, such as Sweden, the stakes are less high, and social mobility is not under threat. Doepke and Zilibotti discuss how investments in early childhood development and the design of education systems factor into the parenting equation, and how economics can help shape policies that will contribute to the ideal of equal opportunity for all. Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids (Princeton UP, 2019) presents an engrossing look at the economics of the family in the modern world. Matthias Doepke is professor of economics at Northwestern University. He lives in Evanston, Illinois. Fabrizio Zilibotti is the Tuntex Professor of International and Development Economics at Yale University. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Parents everywhere want their children to be happy and do well. Yet how parents seek to achieve this ambition varies enormously. For instance, American and Chinese parents are increasingly authoritative and authoritarian, whereas Scandinavian parents tend to be more permissive. Why? Love, Money, and Parenting investigates how economic forces and growing inequality shape how parents raise their children. From medieval times to the present, and from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden to China and Japan, Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti look at how economic incentives and constraints—such as money, knowledge, and time—influence parenting practices and what is considered good parenting in different countries. Through personal anecdotes and original research, Doepke and Zilibotti show that in countries with increasing economic inequality, such as the United States, parents push harder to ensure their children have a path to security and success. Economics has transformed the hands-off parenting of the 1960s and '70s into a frantic, overscheduled activity. Growing inequality has also resulted in an increasing “parenting gap” between richer and poorer families, raising the disturbing prospect of diminished social mobility and fewer opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In nations with less economic inequality, such as Sweden, the stakes are less high, and social mobility is not under threat. Doepke and Zilibotti discuss how investments in early childhood development and the design of education systems factor into the parenting equation, and how economics can help shape policies that will contribute to the ideal of equal opportunity for all. Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids (Princeton UP, 2019) presents an engrossing look at the economics of the family in the modern world. Matthias Doepke is professor of economics at Northwestern University. He lives in Evanston, Illinois. Fabrizio Zilibotti is the Tuntex Professor of International and Development Economics at Yale University. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter.

Parents everywhere want their children to be happy and do well. Yet how parents seek to achieve this ambition varies enormously. For instance, American and Chinese parents are increasingly authoritative and authoritarian, whereas Scandinavian parents tend to be more permissive. Why? Love, Money, and Parenting investigates how economic forces and growing inequality shape how parents raise their children. From medieval times to the present, and from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden to China and Japan, Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti look at how economic incentives and constraints—such as money, knowledge, and time—influence parenting practices and what is considered good parenting in different countries. Through personal anecdotes and original research, Doepke and Zilibotti show that in countries with increasing economic inequality, such as the United States, parents push harder to ensure their children have a path to security and success. Economics has transformed the hands-off parenting of the 1960s and '70s into a frantic, overscheduled activity. Growing inequality has also resulted in an increasing “parenting gap” between richer and poorer families, raising the disturbing prospect of diminished social mobility and fewer opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In nations with less economic inequality, such as Sweden, the stakes are less high, and social mobility is not under threat. Doepke and Zilibotti discuss how investments in early childhood development and the design of education systems factor into the parenting equation, and how economics can help shape policies that will contribute to the ideal of equal opportunity for all. Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids (Princeton UP, 2019) presents an engrossing look at the economics of the family in the modern world. Matthias Doepke is professor of economics at Northwestern University. He lives in Evanston, Illinois. Fabrizio Zilibotti is the Tuntex Professor of International and Development Economics at Yale University. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education

Parents everywhere want their children to be happy and do well. Yet how parents seek to achieve this ambition varies enormously. For instance, American and Chinese parents are increasingly authoritative and authoritarian, whereas Scandinavian parents tend to be more permissive. Why? Love, Money, and Parenting investigates how economic forces and growing inequality shape how parents raise their children. From medieval times to the present, and from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden to China and Japan, Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti look at how economic incentives and constraints—such as money, knowledge, and time—influence parenting practices and what is considered good parenting in different countries. Through personal anecdotes and original research, Doepke and Zilibotti show that in countries with increasing economic inequality, such as the United States, parents push harder to ensure their children have a path to security and success. Economics has transformed the hands-off parenting of the 1960s and '70s into a frantic, overscheduled activity. Growing inequality has also resulted in an increasing “parenting gap” between richer and poorer families, raising the disturbing prospect of diminished social mobility and fewer opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In nations with less economic inequality, such as Sweden, the stakes are less high, and social mobility is not under threat. Doepke and Zilibotti discuss how investments in early childhood development and the design of education systems factor into the parenting equation, and how economics can help shape policies that will contribute to the ideal of equal opportunity for all. Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids (Princeton UP, 2019) presents an engrossing look at the economics of the family in the modern world. Matthias Doepke is professor of economics at Northwestern University. He lives in Evanston, Illinois. Fabrizio Zilibotti is the Tuntex Professor of International and Development Economics at Yale University. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

Parents everywhere want their children to be happy and do well. Yet how parents seek to achieve this ambition varies enormously. For instance, American and Chinese parents are increasingly authoritative and authoritarian, whereas Scandinavian parents tend to be more permissive. Why? Love, Money, and Parenting investigates how economic forces and growing inequality shape how parents raise their children. From medieval times to the present, and from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden to China and Japan, Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti look at how economic incentives and constraints—such as money, knowledge, and time—influence parenting practices and what is considered good parenting in different countries. Through personal anecdotes and original research, Doepke and Zilibotti show that in countries with increasing economic inequality, such as the United States, parents push harder to ensure their children have a path to security and success. Economics has transformed the hands-off parenting of the 1960s and '70s into a frantic, overscheduled activity. Growing inequality has also resulted in an increasing “parenting gap” between richer and poorer families, raising the disturbing prospect of diminished social mobility and fewer opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In nations with less economic inequality, such as Sweden, the stakes are less high, and social mobility is not under threat. Doepke and Zilibotti discuss how investments in early childhood development and the design of education systems factor into the parenting equation, and how economics can help shape policies that will contribute to the ideal of equal opportunity for all. Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids (Princeton UP, 2019) presents an engrossing look at the economics of the family in the modern world. Matthias Doepke is professor of economics at Northwestern University. He lives in Evanston, Illinois. Fabrizio Zilibotti is the Tuntex Professor of International and Development Economics at Yale University. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Parents everywhere want their children to be happy and do well. Yet how parents seek to achieve this ambition varies enormously. For instance, American and Chinese parents are increasingly authoritative and authoritarian, whereas Scandinavian parents tend to be more permissive. Why? Love, Money, and Parenting investigates how economic forces and growing inequality shape how parents raise their children. From medieval times to the present, and from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden to China and Japan, Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti look at how economic incentives and constraints—such as money, knowledge, and time—influence parenting practices and what is considered good parenting in different countries. Through personal anecdotes and original research, Doepke and Zilibotti show that in countries with increasing economic inequality, such as the United States, parents push harder to ensure their children have a path to security and success. Economics has transformed the hands-off parenting of the 1960s and '70s into a frantic, overscheduled activity. Growing inequality has also resulted in an increasing “parenting gap” between richer and poorer families, raising the disturbing prospect of diminished social mobility and fewer opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In nations with less economic inequality, such as Sweden, the stakes are less high, and social mobility is not under threat. Doepke and Zilibotti discuss how investments in early childhood development and the design of education systems factor into the parenting equation, and how economics can help shape policies that will contribute to the ideal of equal opportunity for all. Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids (Princeton UP, 2019) presents an engrossing look at the economics of the family in the modern world. Matthias Doepke is professor of economics at Northwestern University. He lives in Evanston, Illinois. Fabrizio Zilibotti is the Tuntex Professor of International and Development Economics at Yale University. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Parents everywhere want their children to be happy and do well. Yet how parents seek to achieve this ambition varies enormously. For instance, American and Chinese parents are increasingly authoritative and authoritarian, whereas Scandinavian parents tend to be more permissive. Why? Love, Money, and Parenting investigates how economic forces and growing inequality shape how parents raise their children. From medieval times to the present, and from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden to China and Japan, Matthias Doepke and Fabrizio Zilibotti look at how economic incentives and constraints—such as money, knowledge, and time—influence parenting practices and what is considered good parenting in different countries. Through personal anecdotes and original research, Doepke and Zilibotti show that in countries with increasing economic inequality, such as the United States, parents push harder to ensure their children have a path to security and success. Economics has transformed the hands-off parenting of the 1960s and '70s into a frantic, overscheduled activity. Growing inequality has also resulted in an increasing “parenting gap” between richer and poorer families, raising the disturbing prospect of diminished social mobility and fewer opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In nations with less economic inequality, such as Sweden, the stakes are less high, and social mobility is not under threat. Doepke and Zilibotti discuss how investments in early childhood development and the design of education systems factor into the parenting equation, and how economics can help shape policies that will contribute to the ideal of equal opportunity for all. Love, Money, and Parenting: How Economics Explains the Way We Raise Our Kids (Princeton UP, 2019) presents an engrossing look at the economics of the family in the modern world. Matthias Doepke is professor of economics at Northwestern University. He lives in Evanston, Illinois. Fabrizio Zilibotti is the Tuntex Professor of International and Development Economics at Yale University. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

About the Talk In this episode of the Governance podcast, our Director Mark Pennington speaks to Prof. William Easterly from New York University on liberal vs paternalist approaches to economic development policy. The Guest William Easterly is Professor of Economics at New York University and Co-director of the NYU Development Research Institute, which won the 2009 BBVA Frontiers of Knowledge in Development Cooperation Award. He is the author of three books: The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor (March 2014), The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good (2006), which won the FA Hayek Award from the Manhattan Institute, and The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics (2001). He has published more than 60 peer-reviewed academic articles, and has written columns and reviews for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Review of Books, and Washington Post. He has served as Co-Editor of the Journal of Development Economics and as Director of the blog Aid Watch. He is a Research Associate of NBER, and senior fellow at BREAD. Foreign Policy Magazine named him among the Top 100 Global Public Intellectuals in 2008 and 2009, and Thomson Reuters listed him as one of Highly Cited Researchers of 2014. He is also the 11th most famous native of Bowling Green, Ohio.

POLICY SEMINAR Introducing the new Women's Empowerment Metric for National Statistical Systems (WEMNS) FEB 22, 2024 - 9:00 TO 10:30AM EST The new Women's Empowerment Metric for National Statistical Systems (WEMNS) https://weai.ifpri.info/wemns/ is a streamlined tool for measuring women's empowerment, intended for use in large-scale, multitopic surveys conducted by national statistical systems. WEMNS is designed to measure empowerment in households with all types of livelihoods, in both urban and rural areas, complementing the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) https://weai.ifpri.info/, which focuses on agricultural households. WEMNS was developed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Emory University, Oxford University, and the World Bank's Living Standards Measurement Study Unit in collaboration with country partners and the 50x2030 Initiative, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development. This event will present the WEMNS metric, review the development of the tool, and discuss its use to advance women's empowerment. A panel of stakeholders from government and national statistical offices and from multilateral organizations will discuss the potential of WEMNS for promoting and monitoring women's empowerment as part of national statistical surveys. Welcome Remarks Johan Swinnen, Managing Director, Systems Transformation, CGIAR; Director General, IFPRI WEMNS: The Next Stage of Developing Empowerment Metrics Agnes Quisumbing, Senior Research Fellow, Poverty, Gender, and Inclusion Unit, IFPRI Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Senior Research Fellow, Natural Resources and Resilience Unit, IFPRI Intro to WEMNS Jessica Heckert, Research Fellow, Poverty, Gender, and Inclusion Unit, IFPRI Greg Seymour, Research Fellow, Natural Resources and Resilience Unit, IFPRI Maximizing the Potential of WEMNS: Panel Discussion Shelton Kanyanda, Director of Agriculture and Economic Statistics, National Statistical Office, Malawi Regina Valiente, Sectorialista recursos naturales, tierra y vivienda, Secretaría Presidencial de la Mujer (SEPREM) Heather Moylan, Senior Economist, Development Data Group, Development Economics, World Bank Chiara Brunelli, Statistician, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Closing Remarks Chiara Kovarik, Senior Program Officer, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) Farzana Ramzan, Senior Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Advisor, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (invited) Moderator Hazel Malapit, Senior Research Coordinator, Poverty, Gender, and Inclusion Unit, IFPRI More about this Event: https://www.ifpri.org/event/introducing-new-womens-empowerment-metric-national-statistical-systems-wemns Subscribe IFPRI Insights newsletter and event announcements at www.ifpri.org/content/newsletter-subscription

& a start-of-the-semester academic-email-addresses-only paid-subscription sale:Key Insights:* Young whippersnappers Oks and Williams are to be commended for being young, and whippersnapperish—but we disagree with them.* Contrary to what Brad thought, the fertility transition in Africa really has resumed.* The problem of how you provide mass employment for people is different than the problem of how you increase your economy's productivity by building knowledge capital, infrastructure, and other forms of human capital. * It is important to keep those straight and distinguished in your mind.* Commodity exporting should be viewed as a distinct development strategy from industrialization, and indeed from everything else. * Sometime during the plague, Brad DeLong really did turn into a grumpy old man yelling at clouds. It's time that he should own that. * People should take another look at the pace of South and Southeast Asian economic development. It is a very different world than it was 25 years ago.* Thus if you are basing your view on memories of or on books written based on memories of how things were 25 years ago, you are going to get it wrong. BIGTIME wrong.* Only the Federal Reserve can get away with saying “it's context dependent”. All the rest of us have to put forward Grand Narratives—false as they all are—if we want to actually be useful.* HexapodiaReferences:* Bongaarts, John. 2020. "Trends in fertility and fertility preferences in sub-Saharan Africa: the roles of education and family planning programs." Genus 76: 32. * Kremer, Michael, Jack Willis, & Yang You. 2021. "Converging to Convergence." National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 29484, November 2021. * Oks, David, & Henry Williams. 2022. "The Long, Slow Death of Global Development." American Affairs 6:4 (November). .* Patel, Dev, Justin Sandefur, & Arvind Subramanian. 2021. "The new era of unconditional convergence." Journal of Development Economics 152. .* Perkins, Dwight. 2021. "Understanding political influences on Southeast Asia's development experience." Fulbright Review of Economics and Policy 1, no. 1: 4-20. .* Rodrik, Dani, & Joseph E. Stiglitz. 2024. "A New Growth Strategy for Developing Nations." .* World Bank. 2023. "South Asia Development Update October 2023: Economic Outlook." .+, of course:* Vinge, Vernor. 1992. A Fire Upon the Deep. New York: TOR. . Get full access to Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality at braddelong.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: An update and personal reflections about AidGrade, published by Eva on December 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. (Loosely adapted from a post on my personal blog.) As some of you know, back in 2012 I set up AidGrade, a small non-profit research institute, to collect the results of impact evaluations and synthesize them. It was actually while working on AidGrade that I learned about the Effective Altruism community, as someone who I was interacting with about AidGrade asked me if I'd heard of it. Fast-forward 11 years. A global consortium of institutions, led by the World Bank, is going to be working on an open repository of impact evaluation results that could be used for meta-analysis and policy (the Impact Data and Evidence Aggregation Library, or IDEAL). This is really close to AidGrade's mission, and we will be participating in the consortium, helping to design the protocols, contribute data, and perform cross-checks with the other institutions. I am thrilled to see something like IDEAL develop. We made a case that this was a thing that should exist, and over time enough other people agreed that it will soon be a much larger thing (in which AidGrade will play the smallest of roles). All along, I was hoping that there could be a better institutional home for such a repository, and here we are. It's the best possible outcome. To anyone who supported AidGrade, through either time or money over the years, I hope you feel pleased with what you helped accomplish with AidGrade, and I hope you are as excited as I am about IDEAL. With regards to institutional change more broadly, I also have some good news about another venture, the Social Science Prediction Platform. This platform enables researchers to gather forecasts of what their studies will find. The Journal of Development Economics has recently started encouraging authors of papers accepted through their pre-results review ("Registered Report") track to collect forecasts on the SSPP, which should accelerate the use of forecasts in academia. We have been having discussions with other organizations about collecting forecasts and I hope to have more good news to share soon. Both these projects were deeply rooted in academic work. I might be biased, but I think academic work is often underrated. It can be useful for many reasons, but part of it surely is that it can change the way people think about a topic and enable institutional change. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

In this episode of the Ohio Ag Net Podcast, hosts Matt Reese of Ohio's Country Journal and Dusty Sonnenburg of Ohio Ag Net talk with Brent Sohngen, a professor of environmental and resource economics in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at The Ohio State University. They discuss energy prices for gas and diesel, especially as prices trend lower. With the decrease in prices, Brent talks about what this means for different sectors of agriculture.   More in this week's podcast:    Scott Raber, Bane-Welker Equipment: Dale and Scott talk about expansions Bane-Welker Equipment is currently undergoing. Bret Davis, Delaware County Farmer: Brett chats with Dale about on-farm biodiesel use.  Peter Gehres, Jeff Martin Auctioneers: Peter stops in to talk with Matt about recent equipment prices and the outlook of it.  Jeff Wolfe, Director for Ohio Poultry Breeders Association: Matt visits Jeff at the Ohio National Poultry show in Columbus, OH.  Intro 0:00 Scott Raber 3:58 Bret Davis 9:38 Peter Gehres 17:30 Jeff Wolfe 22:54 Main Conversation, Brent Sohngen 29:46  

In this episode Andryanna sits down with NYC executive coach and author, Antonia Bowring, to learn more about her journey with ADHD and how we can all increase our own focus and productivity regardless of diagnosis. It includes: - Antonia's ADHD diagnosis in adulthood and how it has shaped her personal and professional life; - The research ("me"search) we can all do to determine the profound and practical effects of learning about our ourselves and if we may have ADHD, which can sometimes be masked as anxiety or depression in adult females; - The 4 keystone habits Antonia recommends we implement to improve focus and productivity and reduce impulsivity; - How planning can reap multiple benefits and why Antonia feels that it is a form of self-care. Antonia Bowring is a highly credentialed, top New York executive coach. She works primarily with founders, C- Suite executives, and leadership teams. One of Antonia's areas of expertise is helping neurodiverse leaders create the necessary scaffolding to leverage their gifts and maintain their focus. Antonia holds a B.A. in Political Science, M.Phil. in Development Economics, and an  M.B.A. She is an ICF certified coach with an Executive Coaching Certificate from NYU. She is a frequent speaker to companies and groups on topics ranging from mindfulness, ADHD in the workplace, and communication best practices. Her articles through the Forbes Coaches Council are widely read and The American Reporter named her one of the 10 leadership coaches to watch in 2022. CONNECT WITH ANTONIA: Website LinkedIn Instagram TikTok: @antoniabowring963 Purchase Antonia's latest book - Coach Yourself!: Increase Awareness, Change Behavior, and Thrive CONNECT WITH ANDRYANNA: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠On Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email: hello@andryanna.com *Click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for your FREE '30 Days For Me' Self-Care Guide to build helpful habits within 5 wellbeing pillars. Recharge, reset and reestablish yourself with these small + simple shifts. *Click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to Release guilt + judgements and Make the Shift to Better Balance by creating new truths for the life you want to lead with this FREE worksheet and exercise.  And please visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Andryanna.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for upcoming workshops, tools resources and more. *This episode includes the stories and experience of the host and guest and does not constitute medical advice. Please consult a medical professional to determine what is best for you.

Hey team!This week, I'm joined by Antonia Bowring - Antonia holds a B.A. in Political Science, an M. Phil. in Development Economics, and an M.B.A. She is an ICF-certified coach with an Executive Coaching Certificate from NYU. She is a frequent speaker to on topics ranging from mindfulness, ADHD in the workplace, and communication best practices.In our conversation today, we delve into the challenges and strengths associated with ADHD and how we can work on leveraging those through creativity and intensity. We also talk about embracing ADHD, the importance of self-acceptance, mindfulness practices, strategic collaboration, and get into what it means to receive a late diagnosis.Support me on PatreonFeel free to ask me a question on my Contact PageFind the full show note at HackingYourADHD.com/151This Episode's Top TipsRecognizing and understanding the specific attributes and challenges of ADHD can help individuals develop strategies to manage their symptoms more effectively and leverage their strengths.Just as important as identifying our strengths can be identifying our weaknesses and finding ways to help mitigate those weaknesses, like collaborating with others and outsourcing when we can.Incorporating mindfulness, regular exercise, and maintaining good sleep hygiene are essential strategies for managing ADHD. These practices can significantly enhance focus, emotional regulation, and overall well-being.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Writing About My Job(s): Research Assistant at World Bank / IMF, published by geoffrey on September 16, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is actually about two distinct roles at international organizations. If there's one thing you take away from this, it's that Research Assistant roles at policy organizations can vary a lot! I'll abbreviate Research Assistant as RA throughout. My Current Role at World Bank DIME One is a job I currently hold as a RA at World Bank DIME, an impact evaluation and research unit. I assist on a research project whose ideal goal is publication in a top journal. This includes data cleaning, analysis, scripting, checking data quality, running regressions, offering suggestions in analysis calls, figuring out what the Principal Investigators want, and so forth. It's very close to an academic "predoc" Research Assistant role that students do between undergrad / Master's programs and PhDs. The project revolves around development economics and causal inference, with a focus on infrastructure and structural transformation. It's a blend of policy, research, development, impact evaluation and growth-adjacent topics. My Previous Role at International Monetary Fund (IMF) The other is a job I formerly held as a Research Assistant at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). I pilot-tested a software tool for better forecasting and data management. This included quality assurance testing, data migration, data entry, and scripting. My RA role was about as opposite from research as you could get and the tasks I was given was quite unconventional. The day-to-day was closer to that of a Quality Assurance Engineer or Data Engineer. The project revolved around macroeconomics and international finance, with a focus on how to best organize data for scenario planning and technical assistance. It's a blend of public finance, debt sustainability, fiscal policies, natural resource policies, and international macro. Background I currently work at World Bank DIME, an impact evaluation and research unit. I've only been here a few months, starting from July 2023. Before that, I worked at the IMF for about a year. Prior to both roles, I did a Master's degree in International Economics and Finance at Johns Hopkins SAIS, a policy school in Washington DC. Before that, I was a Software Engineer for 4 years and before that I was teaching myself to code after a very unsuccessful post-college job search. I am strongly considering an academic career in economics and may apply to Econ PhDs next year. But I am also considering non-academic roles in development, and also PhDs in other fields like Public Policy, Statistics, and Political Economy. I went into the Master's program after many unsuccessful attempts to switch into development work. I had no exact plan coming in but I chose this program in particular because of: It was a 1-year program, which meant less tuition and less foregone earnings. International Economics sounded close enough to Development Economics that I thought I'd be learning similar stuff. (It's very different! International Economics is more macro and finance. Development Economics is more applied micro and impact evaluation). I saw my program had high placement rates in the IMF I wanted to explore the "working on growth is better than global health" argument a bit more and thought, "What better way than by working on macroeconomics?" At the time, I thought Econ PhDs didn't influence policy much, that they were beyond my abilities, and that I wouldn't really like it. All three turned out to be false once I started taking classes. While I was still interested in macro-finance policy, I found myself being more interested in the development research focus so I pivoted my focus towards that. In the Spring, I applied for a mix of academic and policy predocs...

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act was introduced in 2016 to protect consumers who had invested in residential real estate projects from malpractices by real estate developers. After the law was passed, most states established real estate regulatory authorities to register and oversee the conduct of real estate developers. What changes did this act try to bring in, and how has this regulatory change benefited consumers? Is the increased information about property litigation that the Maharashtra RERA provides affecting housing prices? Does RERA reduce information asymmetry in the housing market?In this episode of Interpreting India, Vaidehi Tandel and Sahil Gandhi join Anirudh Burman to give us insights into these issues and more. They discuss their recent working paper, co-authored with Anupam Nanda and Nandini Agnihotri. Their study analyses how housing prices change in response to mandatory disclosures under the RERA. The paper is titled, “Do Mandatory Disclosures Squeeze the Lemons? The Case of Housing Markets in India.”Episode ContributorsVaidehi Tandel is an economist working in the areas of urban economics, political economy, and public finance, with a focus on India. Currently, Dr. Tandel is a lecturer in real estate and urban economics at the University of Manchester, UK. Her research has been featured in The Financial Times, The New York Times, The Straits Times, Livemint, and others. Her papers have been published in the Journal of Development Economics, the Journal of Urban Economics, the Journal of Regional Science, Environment and Urbanization, Cities, and BMJ Open, among others. Her current work looks at the politician-builder nexus in Mumbai, agglomeration economies in India, and climate change and adaptation across cities in developing countries.Sahil Gandhi is an urban and real estate economist. Dr. Gandhi is a lecturer at The University of Manchester's School of Environment, Education and Development. His research is in the fields of urban economics, real estate, and land economics. His recent papers are on vacant housing in India, migration and tenure choice, housing supply in Mumbai, and so on. His research has been published in the Journal of Urban Economics, the Journal of Development Economics, the Journal of Regional Science, Environment and Urbanization, and Cities, among others. He has also led a report on affordable housing in India. Dr. Gandhi has bylines in international and Indian media outlets such as The Washington Post, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, and Livemint, among others. His research has also been cited in The Financial Times, The BBC, The Straits Times, Livemint, and more.---Key Moments(0:00); Introduction(2:39); Chapter 1: The Context Behind RERA(9:56); Chapter 2: Key Regulatory Changes(15:21); Chapter 3: The Case of Maharashtra's RERA(17:27); Chapter 4: Mumbai's High Proportion of Litigated Projects(23:04); Chapter 5: The Aim and Findings of the Study(27:35); Chapter 6: Variations Across Housing Submarkets (32:35); Chapter 7: Luxury Housing and Mandatory Disclosures(35:02); Chapter 8: Non-Luxury Housing and Litigation Costs(36:10); Chapter 9: RERA's Impact on Low- and Middle-Income Consumers(40:36); Chapter 10: Types of Litigation Faced by Projects(43:44); Chapter 11: Future Research in Urban Economics(48:22); Outro---Additional ReadingsDo Mandatory Disclosures Squeeze the Lemons? The Case of Housing Markets in India by Vaidehi Tandel, Sahil Gandhi, Anupam Nanda, and Nandini AgnihotriToo Slow for the Urban March: Litigations and the Real Estate Market in Mumbai, India by Sahil Gandhi, Vaidehi Tandel, Alexander Tabarrok, and Shamika RaviView: Time to Make RERA Roar by Nandini Agnihotri and Sahil GandhiIndia Has to Attack Causes of Land Litigation. Modi's Ease of Doing Business Depends on It by Anirudh Burman Making Land Titles in India Marketable: Using Title Insurance as a Viable Alternative to Conclusive Titling by Anirudh Burman--Carnegie India Socials:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/carnegieindia/ (@CarnegieIndia)Twitter: https://twitter.com/CarnegieIndiaWebsite: https://carnegieindia.orgYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CarnegieIndia/

Dennis currently serves as Investment Director at Zeon Ventures, a newly-formed, early stage venture capital firm investing across materials, sustainability, climate and health. Zeon Ventures is the corporate venture capital arm of Zeon Corporation, a global leader in elastomers, polymers, and specialty chemicals. Prior to joining Zeon, Dennis was at Honda for close to a decade spearheading the company's corporate venturing and open innovation activities. While at Honda, Dennis co-founded Honda Xcelerator, one of the first mobility-focused corporate accelerator programs and led these activities on a global scale. Under his direction, Honda's open innovation and venturing activities generated 40+ startup collaborations, numerous strategic investments, one acquisition, and a solid pipeline of deployments in consumer mobility products. Before joining Honda, Dennis worked at DEFTA Partners, a boutique venture capital firm, building bridges between technology upstarts in Silicon Valley and multinational corporations in Asia. Earlier in his career, Dennis spent eight years in Japan working in a variety of sectors including banking and international civil service. While in Japan, he was awarded a Monbusho Scholarship to research social innovation and received his Master's Degree in Development Economics. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dennisclarkjr/ Recommended Blog Links: Materially Better Blog and Podcast by Tsung Xu: https://www.tsungxu.com/; The Column:  https://www.thecolumn.co/ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/geeksofthevalley/support

No one actually wants to waste food, right? And yet, a new national study on food waste at home shows we've become more wasteful recently. US families self-reported a 280% increase in discarded food between early 2021 and early 2022. What's more, households tossed out more food during weeks they ate out. Today, we will explore results from a national tracking study published in the Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. Our guests to help us learn more about this topic are economist Kathryn Bender. Katherine studies consumer behavior and food waste at the University of Delaware. We also have Brian Roe, who is an agricultural economist from the Ohio State University. Brian's research focuses on food waste and consumer economics. Interview Summary   Norbert: Kathryn, let's begin with the big-picture question. Why should we care what people do with their food once they have purchased it?   Kathryn: Great question. So we know that food waste has huge environmental and economic impacts. Thirty percent of food that's produced for human consumption ends up going uneaten. When that food is wasted, we know that all the resources associated with producing it, such as land and water, are also wasted. And those resources themselves have their own cost. Decomposing food emits methane, which is a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. There's also emissions from the transportation and distribution of that food from farmer to consumer. I don't think that most people set out to waste food, nor do they feel really good about doing it. In addition, households fall at the end of the supply chain, so consequences from upstream decisions made by manufacturers and distributors, may fall on the households themselves. For example, if there's milk that has not been kept cold along the supply chain, the consumer may end up throwing it away because it starts smelling or tasting off sooner than it really should. Another example is dates placed on food packages. Producers have more information about the quality and the safety of their product than consumers do. Many individuals use those dates on the package to determine when they should throw something away. If producers are conservative in this labeling, or if that language is unclear, consumers may the discard perfectly good food based on the date alone. If we can identify policies aimed at producers to effectively communicate information about the product to the consumer, as well as methods such as strict adherence to cold chain processes, we could help reduce food waste at the household level. I think, overall, we want to develop the tools necessary to set consumers up for success in minimizing their food waste.   Brenna: Kathryn, thanks so much, for laying out all the reasons why we should care about this topic. We so appreciate the work you and Brian are doing to help us better understand it. So with that, Brian, can I turn to you? Would you mind telling our listeners about the national tracking survey, what you all are hoping to learn, and some of the findings you have so far?   Brian: Sure. The United States set a national food waste reduction goal back in 2015. Three different administrations from vastly different political viewpoints have all kind of gotten behind that, and really want to see that goal met. And yet, we don't have great data to track how our food waste habits are changing over time. Particularly for consumers. Some other sources of data suggest consumers are the source for 40% to 50% of wasted food that we see. We really wanted to try to start to develop some data in this area. Hence, we set up a national tracking survey. We used an online survey approach, which has some known issues with it. It tends to under report the absolute level. But we're asking the same questions over and over again - we now have seven waves of data collection between 2021 and 2023. We have a consistently asked set of questions that we can use to understand patterns and trends that might be emerging across the country among consumers as they're wasting food in their households, and this helps us get perhaps a bit more level with the United Kingdom. They have got this great survey data series that they use with consumers to track food waste going back to, I believe it's the early 2000 and teens. We really hope to learn some things from our findings, and we are seeing some interesting patterns emerge.   Brenna: It's great that you are starting a tracking survey. Most of us on the podcast work on food waste, and we know that it can get literally very messy trying to measure it in other ways. There are limitations in all the ways measuring. I appreciate the work that you all are doing. So Brian, you started collecting data as Covid restrictions were lifting. Why did you choose this time to start the tracking survey?   Brian: That's just kind of when we got organized. My early research portfolio was very focused on going into homes with apps and things like that to get a very granular view of food waste. But then, it kind of really struck me that we need to have data on consumers, even if it's not perfect. We need to ask those questions consistently. That's when we were able to muster our resources and begin to collect the tracking data. With the help of the National Science Foundation, we've been able to solidify that tracking approach and now we have a funding stream that will allow us to continue this for at least five years. That's very helpful.   Brenna: Perfect, thanks for clarifying that. Kathryn, if we can come back to you. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, food-at-home prices rose 8.6% over the period of your study. I'm curious why consumers were actually wasting more food as food prices are going up.   Kathryn: I think it really comes down to how consumers are managing their food stock at home. Two things that we noted from this study was that over that year we analyzed, food that was bought in bulk and was subsequently thrown away doubled. So increased food prices may have prompted households to purchase more food in bulk. We also found in a previous study that households really increased their cold storage capacity by buying refrigerators and freezers during lockdown. I think that the increase in cold storage capacity and purchasing more bulk food adds kind of this new dimension to food stock management that households may not have adjusted to yet. We also saw that food waste attributed to unplanned dining out events increased. This makes sense as we were able to go out more. Restaurants weren't closed down, and didn't have as many restrictions. We were able to go out more, and we had more food that was wasted because we planned on eating at home. But we took advantage of an opportunity instead to go out with friends or something like that. So as people go back to their more hectic lifestyles, I think that just food management becomes a little bit more difficult. We need to make sure that we provide support and educational campaigns to help households manage their food at home. With higher prices being at the forefront of a lot of people's minds right now, I think that highlighting food waste reduction is a great method to save money.   Norbert: Kathryn, that's really interesting, and it makes me think of a couple of studies that I've done with Brenna and our colleague Linlin, and some other work that I've done, where we did see a relationship between the price of food and the predicted waste. What we saw was that there was a negative relationship. So it's interesting to hear this example of increases in the price leading to or at least associated with this increase in food waste. But, I think what's really fascinating is it may be a reduction in the per-unit cost because people were buying in larger quantities. That's a really fascinating thing. One of the things that we were looking at right when Covid started, people were reducing their food away from home significantly as we weren't allowed to go out and we weren't ordering out. So, it's interesting to see this kind of change. I look forward to seeing what subsequent rounds of the survey will show about what happens with food waste and hopefully as price inflation goes down. Brian, I want to turn back to you and ask: a 280% year over year increase in food waste is really high. Do you expect that food waste will continue to increase at this rate?   Brian: Yeah, we've actually got some data in on that now. So the published data shows that 280% increase between the beginning of 2021 and the beginning of 2022. That was right after the Omicron Christmas, if we remember that, and vaccines were coming on board. What we've shown now is that behavior has retracted a bit. We're down to now merely a 200% increase from that February '21 wave to the February '23 wave two years later. So it came down from that 280% peak to a doubling of food waste between early Covid days to back-to-reality-here for many people in February 2023. I think part of that is what Kathryn talked about before. That we had probably a big purge, I would guess that spring cleaning after Omicron, right? People probably were sitting on a fair amount of money in terms of finances. Restaurants were really fully reopening. They went out unexpectedly, spur of the moment, ate out during their reporting week and that caused them to report more waste. They probably looked through their cupboards and saw all this bulk stuff they might have bought during Covid and said spring cleaning time. Maybe we need to get rid of some of that stuff as the date labels grew longer and longer in the past. Once they got that out of their system, and this is the thing, we don't know what pre-Covid was, but maybe this is kind of a return to pre-Covid level. We'll never know that because we can't reproduce data that we don't have to pre-Covid days, but perhaps that February 2021 was kind of that peak studying our fridge over and over again trying to find every last leftover and shows a very low level. The data that we're getting here in February of 2023 is kind of a return to normal. That's what's happened in the United Kingdom as well, where they do have a longer tracking survey. They found right after the onset of Covid, a pretty big drop in reported food waste; about by half in terms of their metric. And then, a kind of a slow but steady march back towards pre-Covid numbers is what they found right about the end of 2022. So a little bit different in the pattern, but not dissimilar in terms of overall trends.   Norbert: Your explanation makes really good sense, and so thanks for explaining that. I'm hopeful that this is going back to a lower rate of waste. It will be important to see how subsequent surveys tell us what happens with food waste as we move forward, and hopefully without a pandemic in between.   Brian: And perhaps new approaches to finding other sources of data so that can maybe validate our hypotheses here about what's going on with these trends, would also be very important. It's nice to have tracking survey data, but it's correlative, right? We're not doing any randomized experiments here to be able to understand the true links and causality. So as always, we need more research to validate this to help us understand how we can jump in, intervene and help the US meet its long-term food waste reduction goals.   Bios   Kathryn E. Bender, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Delaware. Her research in environmental and experimental economics focuses on consumer behavior and food waste. She has a Ph.D. in Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics from The Ohio State University. Brian Roe is the Van Buren Professor in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at Ohio State University. Roe attended the University of Wisconsin – Madison where he received a bachelor's degree in Agricultural Economics. Roe went on to receive a Ph.D. in Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland. Prior to his employment at Ohio State, Roe worked on policy issues surrounding food safety and health information disclosure as a Staff Fellow at the US Food and Drug Administration in Washington, DC. 

-- 在 YouTube 上看這集：https://youtu.be/6uQy0ZsDp3U -- 訂閱壽司坦丁，別錯過國際上最新、有趣的社會科學研究發現！ 喜歡有畫面感的朋友，也可以在 YouTube 找到壽司坦丁的身影。 -- 壽司坦丁 Sociostanding 的其他精彩影片： 逃離中國：台灣（外省人）的創傷與記憶｜在中國受的傷，卻成為外省人在台灣自我療癒的記憶 https://youtu.be/LjMiRspthHM 「信心」和「自我實現的預言」：矽谷銀行倒閉＆台灣缺蛋 https://youtu.be/C0MRQ1QHcV4 約炮的社會學研究／破除一些關於暈船、女性高潮、性愛分離的迷思 https://youtu.be/h3p0tObkn98 看見中南海之外：中國官員的「升遷機制」和「清零災難」的關係 https://youtu.be/_hYG9urXHBU 中國的「大監禁時代」：從新疆鎮壓／清零／白紙運動看習近平的治理邏輯 https://youtu.be/I4sHPxToexc 習近平與「弱者聯盟」：習快速登基的歷史條件／二十大可能是中共崩解的起點？ https://youtu.be/8KJap6TJAcw 越痛苦的宗教越容易成功？為什麼人在宗教中容易變抖M？社會科學解釋宗教中的「不理性」 https://youtu.be/-r-07Rfw9Aw 台灣女人可能是東亞最「命苦」的一群人？社會科學怎麼測量「性別不平等」？ https://youtu.be/BvOcgKZuads 同性伴侶當爸媽：同性戀可以生／養小孩嗎？台灣護家盟最愛的社會學者，如何掀起一場激烈的科學論戰？ https://youtu.be/bDvwsqBb3tE --- Roychowdhury 目前是 McGill 社會系副教授。八歲時移居美國，七歲以前住在加爾各答。2014 年拿到紐約大學社會學博士，畢業後直接到 McGill 當助理教授，直到現在。現在應該是 42 歲，還非常年輕。 --- 註1：Roychowdhury 的田野是 2009-2011 年間做的，距今 10 年以上，印度目前的情況可能有所改善。 註2：雖然根據普查資料，也只有一半左右的印度男性，有十年級以上的學歷。 註3：印度通膨嚴重，該研究統計資料，最晚至 2008 年，這裡是將 2008 年的 32,000 INR，換算通膨後得到的結果。 --- 參考資料： 1. Roychowdhury, Poulami. 2021. Capable Women, Incapable States: Negotiating Violence and Rights in India. Oxford University Press. 2. Anukriti, S., Sungoh Kwon and Nishith Prakash. Saving for Dowry: Evidence from Rural India. Journal of Development Economics 154 102750. 3. Roychowdhury, Poulami. 2021. Incorporation: Governing Gendered Violence in a State of Disempowerment. American Journal of Sociology 126(4): 852-888. 4. Roychowdhury, Poulami. 2019. Illicit Justice: Aspirational-Strategic Subjects and the Political Economy of Domestic Violence Law in India. Law & Social Inquiry 44(2):1-24.

This hour we discuss the problem with pizza boxes and food expiration dates. Plus we look at the history of the donkey and what it can tell us about human history. GUESTS:  Samantha Brooks: Associate Professor of Equine Physiology and a Member of the Genetics Institute at the University of Florida Brian Roe: The Van Buren Professor in the Department of Agriculture, Environmental, and Development Economics at Ohio State University who leads the Ohio State Food Waste Collaborative Scott Wiener: New York Pizza-Tour Guide, Author of Viva la Pizza!: The Art of the Pizza Box, who maintains a Guinness World Record-winning collection of pizza boxes Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's changing world faces continuous social, economic, and environmental challenges—from disease to natural disaster to war. The leaders stepping up to solve these issues possess deep ambition, vision, and skills to bring their ideas to life. In this episode, host Gautam Mukunda speaks with Jennifer Doudna, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry and Molecular and Cell Biology at UC Berkeley and Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry and Esther Duflo, Ph.D., Professor of Poverty Alleviation and Development Economics at MIT and Nobel Prize Winner in Economic Sciences. Together, they discuss how great leaders can pioneer breakthroughs and effectively enact change—from discovery to implementation. Resources:  Poor Economics by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo Good Economics for Hard Times by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo “There are so many things I kind of wish I had known early in my career, but the big ones for me are, first and foremost, that each person is an individual and has their own sets of passions, strengths, weaknesses, desires.” – Jennifer Doudna, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry and Molecular and Cell Biology at UC Berkeley “Try to avoid micromanaging people. You get much more done if you can trust someone to run with it.” - Esther Duflo, Ph.D., Professor of Poverty Alleviation and Development Economics at MIT  Follow @GMukunda on Twitter or email us at WorldReimagined@nasdaq.com   For more information on this episode's guest please visit: Nasdaq.com/world-reimagined-podcast