Journal Article Optimal Policies in Dual Economies Get access Kaushik C. Basu Kaushik C. Basu Delhi School of Economics Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 95, Issue 1, August 1980, Pages 187–196, https://doi.org/10.2307/1885356 Published: 01 August 1980

Kaushik Basu of Cornell University reviews “Prioritarianism in Practice” edited by Matthew D. Adler and Ole F. Norheim. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Twelve papers explore the use of prioritarianism as a methodology for evaluating governmental policy, highlighting the value of giving extra weight to the well-being of the worse off in policy assessment across a variety of domains.”

There is a growing appreciation in economics that people have emotional vulnerabilities, commitments to social norms, and systematic irrationalities that impact their decision making and choice in the market place. The flip side of this is that human beings are susceptible to being manipulated by unscrupulous agents single-minded about marketing their services and wares. This paper reviews George Akerlof and Robert Shiller's Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception, alongside other writings in the field, and discusses how this research agenda can be taken forward. The paper shows how this new research can shed light on the ubiquity of corruption in so many societies, and proposes ideas for controlling corruption.

India's high growth over the last fifteen years has inspired several recent books and papers to examine the growth's source and sustainability—the two-volume study by Arvind Virmani being a case in point. This paper evaluates these recent works. It is argued that the cause of the take-off does not fit into any easy ideological category as suggested by Virmani. The current high growth has been achieved in several steps, with distinct factors of propulsion behind each step. There is reason to expect the growth to be sustainable, although destabilizing political tensions will arise from the increasing inequality. The paper also evaluates how India's growth relates to the global economy.

There are many “outsiders” who have written critiques of the global financial system. Insiders typically do not; they have too much to lose. What makes Stiglitz's book, Globalization and Its Discontents, unusual is that it is an insider's critique. This book sketches the unfairness of the global system and how institutions, like the IMF, perpetuate the asymmetries of power and wealth. Though the book provides a morally compelling account of recent global crises, and its plea that we must think about radical change is hard to dismiss, it does not break new analytical ground nor offer concrete suggestions of alternatives.

There are many outsiders who have written critiques of the global financial system. Insiders typically do not; they have too much to lose. What makes Stiglitz's book, Globalization and Its Discontents, unusual is that it is an insider's critique. This book sketches the unfairness of the global system and how institutions, like the IMF, perpetuate the asymmetries of power and wealth. Though the book provides a morally compelling account of recent global crises, and its plea that we must think about radical change is hard to dismiss, it does not break new analytical ground nor offer concrete suggestions of alternatives. (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

The paper brings together the abundant and somewhat anarchic literature on child labor, isolating its central findings and analytical insights. The investigation is especially directed at the micro economics of why child labor occurs and the sort of policy that is likely to succeed in eradicating it. The paper also outlines new directions for analyzing the dynamics of child labor, the possibility of “child-labor traps” and the circumstances in which voluntary contracts should be banned. Various arguments for and against declaring child labor illegal are examined. A final section explores the economics of international child labor standards.

It has been alleged that, contrary to the assumptions in Pareto's Manual, the ability to compare first-differences of utility implies cardinality. It is shown here that the validity of this theorem hinges critically on the framework of analysis. In the framework of the thirties it is valid because of the implicit use of an ‘unrestricted domain’ assumption. In the modern choice-theoretic context it is not in general true but it becomes valid if utility functions are continuous and are defined on a connected topological space.