Reliving the 1950s: The big push, poverty traps, and takeoffs in economic development

William Easterly

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    The classic narrative of economic development - poor countries are caught in poverty traps, out of which they need a Big Push involving increased investment, leading to a takeoff in per capita income - has been very influential in foreign aid debates since the 1950s. This was the original justification for foreign aid. The narrative lost credibility for a while but has made a big comeback in the new millennium. Once again it is invoked as a rationale for large foreign aid programs. This paper applies very simple tests to the various elements of the narrative. Evidence to support the narrative is scarce. Poverty traps in the sense of zero growth for low-income countries are rejected by the data in the whole period 1950-2001 and for most sub-periods. The poorest quintile also does not have significant negative growth of the relative income ratio to the world's richest country over 1950-2001, nor is relative growth for the lowest quintile significantly different than other quintiles. The claim that "well-governed poor nations" are caught in poverty traps is rejected by simple regressions that control for both initial income and quality of government (instrumenting for the latter). The idea of the takeoff also does not garner much support in the data. Takeoffs are rare in the data, most plausibly limited to the Asian success stories. Even then, the takeoffs are not associated with aid, investment, or education spending as the standard narrative would imply.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)289-318
    Number of pages30
    JournalJournal of Economic Growth
    Volume11
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Dec 2006

    Fingerprint

    Economic development
    Poverty trap
    Big push
    Foreign aid
    Government
    Low-income countries
    Per capita income
    Asia
    Justification
    OR education
    Relative income
    Credibility
    Income
    Education spending
    Rationale

    Keywords

    • Economic development
    • Economic growth
    • Foreign aid
    • Poverty trap

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Economics and Econometrics

    Cite this

    Reliving the 1950s : The big push, poverty traps, and takeoffs in economic development. / Easterly, William.

    In: Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 11, No. 4, 12.2006, p. 289-318.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{b2f618bec94f47b7bc777c1e57d89b76,
    title = "Reliving the 1950s: The big push, poverty traps, and takeoffs in economic development",
    abstract = "The classic narrative of economic development - poor countries are caught in poverty traps, out of which they need a Big Push involving increased investment, leading to a takeoff in per capita income - has been very influential in foreign aid debates since the 1950s. This was the original justification for foreign aid. The narrative lost credibility for a while but has made a big comeback in the new millennium. Once again it is invoked as a rationale for large foreign aid programs. This paper applies very simple tests to the various elements of the narrative. Evidence to support the narrative is scarce. Poverty traps in the sense of zero growth for low-income countries are rejected by the data in the whole period 1950-2001 and for most sub-periods. The poorest quintile also does not have significant negative growth of the relative income ratio to the world's richest country over 1950-2001, nor is relative growth for the lowest quintile significantly different than other quintiles. The claim that {"}well-governed poor nations{"} are caught in poverty traps is rejected by simple regressions that control for both initial income and quality of government (instrumenting for the latter). The idea of the takeoff also does not garner much support in the data. Takeoffs are rare in the data, most plausibly limited to the Asian success stories. Even then, the takeoffs are not associated with aid, investment, or education spending as the standard narrative would imply.",
    keywords = "Economic development, Economic growth, Foreign aid, Poverty trap",
    author = "William Easterly",
    year = "2006",
    month = "12",
    doi = "10.1007/s10887-006-9006-7",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "11",
    pages = "289--318",
    journal = "Journal of Economic Growth",
    issn = "1381-4338",
    publisher = "Springer New York",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Reliving the 1950s

    T2 - The big push, poverty traps, and takeoffs in economic development

    AU - Easterly, William

    PY - 2006/12

    Y1 - 2006/12

    N2 - The classic narrative of economic development - poor countries are caught in poverty traps, out of which they need a Big Push involving increased investment, leading to a takeoff in per capita income - has been very influential in foreign aid debates since the 1950s. This was the original justification for foreign aid. The narrative lost credibility for a while but has made a big comeback in the new millennium. Once again it is invoked as a rationale for large foreign aid programs. This paper applies very simple tests to the various elements of the narrative. Evidence to support the narrative is scarce. Poverty traps in the sense of zero growth for low-income countries are rejected by the data in the whole period 1950-2001 and for most sub-periods. The poorest quintile also does not have significant negative growth of the relative income ratio to the world's richest country over 1950-2001, nor is relative growth for the lowest quintile significantly different than other quintiles. The claim that "well-governed poor nations" are caught in poverty traps is rejected by simple regressions that control for both initial income and quality of government (instrumenting for the latter). The idea of the takeoff also does not garner much support in the data. Takeoffs are rare in the data, most plausibly limited to the Asian success stories. Even then, the takeoffs are not associated with aid, investment, or education spending as the standard narrative would imply.

    AB - The classic narrative of economic development - poor countries are caught in poverty traps, out of which they need a Big Push involving increased investment, leading to a takeoff in per capita income - has been very influential in foreign aid debates since the 1950s. This was the original justification for foreign aid. The narrative lost credibility for a while but has made a big comeback in the new millennium. Once again it is invoked as a rationale for large foreign aid programs. This paper applies very simple tests to the various elements of the narrative. Evidence to support the narrative is scarce. Poverty traps in the sense of zero growth for low-income countries are rejected by the data in the whole period 1950-2001 and for most sub-periods. The poorest quintile also does not have significant negative growth of the relative income ratio to the world's richest country over 1950-2001, nor is relative growth for the lowest quintile significantly different than other quintiles. The claim that "well-governed poor nations" are caught in poverty traps is rejected by simple regressions that control for both initial income and quality of government (instrumenting for the latter). The idea of the takeoff also does not garner much support in the data. Takeoffs are rare in the data, most plausibly limited to the Asian success stories. Even then, the takeoffs are not associated with aid, investment, or education spending as the standard narrative would imply.

    KW - Economic development

    KW - Economic growth

    KW - Foreign aid

    KW - Poverty trap

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845359744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845359744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1007/s10887-006-9006-7

    DO - 10.1007/s10887-006-9006-7

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:33845359744

    VL - 11

    SP - 289

    EP - 318

    JO - Journal of Economic Growth

    JF - Journal of Economic Growth

    SN - 1381-4338

    IS - 4

    ER -