In Let Their People Come, Lant Pritchett discusses five "irresistible forces" of global labor migration, and the "immovable ideas" that form a political backlash against it. Increasing wage gaps, different demographic futures, "everything but labor" globalization, and the continued employment growth in low skilled, labor intensive industries all contribute to the forces compelling labor to migrate across national borders. Pritchett analyzes the fifth irresistible force of "ghosts and zombies," or the rapid and massive shifts in desired populations of countries, and says that this aspect has been neglected in the discussion of global labor mobility. Let Their People Come provides six policy recommendations for unskilled immigration policy that seek to reconcile the irresistible force of migration with the immovable ideas in rich countries that keep this force in check. In clear, accessible prose, this volume explores ways to regulate migration flows so that they are a benefit to both the global North and global South.
In Let Their People Come, Lant Pritchett discusses five "irresistible forces" of global labor migration, and the "immovable ideas" that form a political backlash against it. Increasing wage gaps, different demographic futures, "everything but labor" globalization, and the continued employment growth in low skilled, labor intensive industries all contribute to the forces compelling labor to migrate across national borders. Pritchett analyzes the fifth irresistible force of "ghosts and zombies," or the rapid and massive shifts in desired populations of countries, and says that this aspect has been neglected in the discussion of global labor mobility. Let Their People Come provides six policy recommendations for unskilled immigration policy that seek to reconcile the irresistible force of migration with the immovable ideas in rich countries that keep this force in check. In clear, accessible prose, this volume explores ways to regulate migration flows so that they are a benefit to both the global North and global South.
This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence. It is free to read at Oxford Scholarship Online and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations. Governments play a major role in the development process, and constantly introduce reforms and policies to achieve developmental objectives. Many of these interventions have limited impact, however; schools get built but children don't learn, IT systems are introduced but not used, plans are written but not implemented. These achievement deficiencies reveal gaps in capabilities, and weaknesses in the process of building state capability. This book addresses these weaknesses and gaps. It starts by providing evidence of the capability shortfalls that currently exist in many countries, showing that many governments lack basic capacities even after decades of reforms and capacity building efforts. The book then analyses this evidence, identifying capability traps that hold many governments back - particularly related to isomorphic mimicry (where governments copy best practice solutions from other countries that make them look more capable even if they are not more capable) and premature load bearing (where governments adopt new mechanisms that they cannot actually make work, given weak extant capacities). The book then describes a process that governments can use to escape these capability traps. Called PDIA (problem driven iterative adaptation), this process empowers people working in governments to find and fit solutions to the problems they face. The discussion about this process is structured in a practical manner so that readers can actually apply tools and ideas to the capability challenges they face in their own contexts. These applications will help readers devise policies and reforms that have more impact than those of the past.
No matter if I fall, I get up again. If I fall 5,000 times, I will stand up another 5,000 times.' -- William, a 37-year-old from El Gorri n, Colombia Why and how do some people move out of poverty and stay out while others remain trapped? Most books on growth and poverty reduction are dominated by the perspectives of policy makers and academic experts. In contrast, 'Moving Out of Poverty: Success from the Bottom Up' presents the experiences of poor people who have made it out of poverty. The book's findings draw from the Moving Out of Poverty research conducted in communities in 15 countries in Africa, East Asia, Latin America, and South Asia. The authors synthesize the results of qualitative and quantitative research based on discussions with over 60,000 people in rural areas. They offer bottom-up perspectives on the processes and local institutions that play key roles in escapes from poverty. The study finds that there are no differences in the initiatives taken by the poor, the rich, and the upwardly mobile. What, then, explains the difference in outcomes? The authors demonstrate how in the face of deep social inequalities that block access to economic opportunities and local democracies individual initiative and empowerment by themselves are often not enough to escape poverty. This book will be of interest to all concerned with equity in an increasingly unequal world.
Despite great progress around the world in getting more kids into schools, too many leave without even the most basic skills. In India’s rural Andhra Pradesh, for instance, only about one in twenty children in fifth grade can perform basic arithmetic. The problem is that schooling is not the same as learning. In The Rebirth of Education, Lant Pritchett uses two metaphors from nature to explain why. The first draws on Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom’s book about the difference between centralized and decentralized organizations, The Starfish and the Spider. Schools systems tend be centralized and suffer from the limitations inherent in top-down designs. The second metaphor is the concept of isomorphic mimicry. Pritchett argues that many developing countries superficially imitate systems that were successful in other nations— much as a nonpoisonous snake mimics the look of a poisonous one. Pritchett argues that the solution is to allow functional systems to evolve locally out of an environment pressured for success. Such an ecosystem needs to be open to variety and experimentation, locally operated, and flexibly financed. The only main cost is ceding control; the reward would be the rebirth of education suited for today’s world.
May 2000 - Using the word capital to represent two different concepts is not such a problem when government is responsible for only a small fraction of national investment and is reasonably effective (as in the United States). But when government is a major investor and is ineffective, the gap between capital and cumulative, depreciated investment effort (CUDIE) may be enormous. A public sector steel mill may absorb billions as an investment, but if it cannot produce steel it has zero value as capital. The cost of public investment is not the value of public capital. Unlike for private investors, there is no remotely plausible behavioral model of the government as investor that suggests that every dollar the public sector spends as investment creates capital in an economic sense. This seemingly obvious point has so far been uniformly ignored in the voluminous empirical literature on economic growth, which uses, at best, cumulated, depreciated investment effort (CUDIE) to estimate capital stocks. But in developing countries especially, the difference between investment cumulated at cost and capital value is of primary empirical importance: government investment is half or more of total investment. And perhaps as much as half or more of government investment spending has not created equivalent capital. This suggests that nearly everything empirical written in three broad areas is misguided. First, none of the estimates of the impact of public spending identify the productivity of public capital. Even where public capital could be very productive, regressions and evaluations may suggest that public investment spending has little impact. Second, everything currently said about total factor productivity in developing countries is deeply suspect, as there is no way empirically to distinguish between low output (or growth) attributable to investments that created no factors and low output (or growth) attributable to low (or slow growth in) productivity in using accumulated factors. Third, multivariate growth regressions to date have not, in fact, controlled for the growth of capital stock, so spurious interpretations have emerged. This paper - a product of Poverty and Human Resources, Development Research Group - is part of a larger effort in the group to understand the importance of public sector actions for economic growth.
Despite great progress around the world in getting more kids into schools, too many leave without even the most basic skills. In India’s rural Andhra Pradesh, for instance, only about one in twenty children in fifth grade can perform basic arithmetic. The problem is that schooling is not the same as learning. In The Rebirth of Education, Lant Pritchett uses two metaphors from nature to explain why. The first draws on Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom’s book about the difference between centralized and decentralized organizations, The Starfish and the Spider. Schools systems tend be centralized and suffer from the limitations inherent in top-down designs. The second metaphor is the concept of isomorphic mimicry. Pritchett argues that many developing countries superficially imitate systems that were successful in other nations— much as a nonpoisonous snake mimics the look of a poisonous one. Pritchett argues that the solution is to allow functional systems to evolve locally out of an environment pressured for success. Such an ecosystem needs to be open to variety and experimentation, locally operated, and flexibly financed. The only main cost is ceding control; the reward would be the rebirth of education suited for today’s world.
No matter if I fall, I get up again. If I fall 5,000 times, I will stand up another 5,000 times.' -- William, a 37-year-old from El Gorri n, Colombia Why and how do some people move out of poverty and stay out while others remain trapped? Most books on growth and poverty reduction are dominated by the perspectives of policy makers and academic experts. In contrast, 'Moving Out of Poverty: Success from the Bottom Up' presents the experiences of poor people who have made it out of poverty. The book's findings draw from the Moving Out of Poverty research conducted in communities in 15 countries in Africa, East Asia, Latin America, and South Asia. The authors synthesize the results of qualitative and quantitative research based on discussions with over 60,000 people in rural areas. They offer bottom-up perspectives on the processes and local institutions that play key roles in escapes from poverty. The study finds that there are no differences in the initiatives taken by the poor, the rich, and the upwardly mobile. What, then, explains the difference in outcomes? The authors demonstrate how in the face of deep social inequalities that block access to economic opportunities and local democracies individual initiative and empowerment by themselves are often not enough to escape poverty. This book will be of interest to all concerned with equity in an increasingly unequal world.
May 2000 - Using the word capital to represent two different concepts is not such a problem when government is responsible for only a small fraction of national investment and is reasonably effective (as in the United States). But when government is a major investor and is ineffective, the gap between capital and cumulative, depreciated investment effort (CUDIE) may be enormous. A public sector steel mill may absorb billions as an investment, but if it cannot produce steel it has zero value as capital. The cost of public investment is not the value of public capital. Unlike for private investors, there is no remotely plausible behavioral model of the government as investor that suggests that every dollar the public sector spends as investment creates capital in an economic sense. This seemingly obvious point has so far been uniformly ignored in the voluminous empirical literature on economic growth, which uses, at best, cumulated, depreciated investment effort (CUDIE) to estimate capital stocks. But in developing countries especially, the difference between investment cumulated at cost and capital value is of primary empirical importance: government investment is half or more of total investment. And perhaps as much as half or more of government investment spending has not created equivalent capital. This suggests that nearly everything empirical written in three broad areas is misguided. First, none of the estimates of the impact of public spending identify the productivity of public capital. Even where public capital could be very productive, regressions and evaluations may suggest that public investment spending has little impact. Second, everything currently said about total factor productivity in developing countries is deeply suspect, as there is no way empirically to distinguish between low output (or growth) attributable to investments that created no factors and low output (or growth) attributable to low (or slow growth in) productivity in using accumulated factors. Third, multivariate growth regressions to date have not, in fact, controlled for the growth of capital stock, so spurious interpretations have emerged. This paper - a product of Poverty and Human Resources, Development Research Group - is part of a larger effort in the group to understand the importance of public sector actions for economic growth.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.