Now Stiglitz makes more trouble!

[Brad De Long]

>. . .
>Stiglitz's fatal speech was a bewdy, I reckon.  He couldn't bring himself
>to go quite where he was heading with it, mind - but then he had invested
>thirty years of his life in the sort of thinking that did the damage in the
>first place, and it wouldn't be fair to expect a middle-aged man
>consciously to undo the raison d'etre of a whole career in one blow.
>
>He did pose questions that even the born-again institutionalist in him . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Actually Stiglitz' present posture is not a radical
>departure from his work, IMO, which has always used
>neo-classical methods to demonstrate basic problems
>in the nostrums founded on a narrow application of
>neo-classical theory.  The main difference I would
>say is his transition from theoretical to applied,
>and from academia to the outside world, leading
>naturally to an explicit political role.
>
>If all academics had his theoretical vision, the
>profession would look radically different from its
>present incarnation.
>
>mbs

Indeed. If you look at Robert Wade's article about the writing of the 
World Bank's study of the _East Asian Miracle_, there are only two 
guys with clout who come off as heroes, eager to have the staff do 
their work and let the chips fall where they may.

One outside World Bank consultant...	Joseph Stiglitz
One World Bank vice president...	Lawrence Summers