To EAs, "development economics" evokes the image of RCTs on psychotherapy or deworming. That is, after all, the closest interaction between EA and development economists. However, this characterization has prompted some pushback, in the form of the argument that all global health interventions pale in comparison to the Holy Grail: increasing economic growth in poor countries. After all, growth increases basically every measure of wellbeing on a far larger scale than any charity intervention, so it's obviously more important than any micro-intervention. Even a tiny chance of boosting growth in a large developing country will have massive expected value, more than all the GiveWell charities you can fund.
The argument is compelling[1] and well-received - so why haven't "growth interventions" gone anywhere? I think the EA understanding of growth is just too abstract to yield really useful interventions that EA organizations could lobby for or implement directly. We need specific [...] ---Outline:(02:31) Sectoral Transformation(03:21) 1. Agricultural productivity growth can drive sectoral transformation... or hurt it.(08:44) 2. Education leads people to move out of agriculture (but with some negative spillovers).(10:39) 3. Barriers to reallocation are surprisingly small; people select into sectors based on their skills.(12:36) 4. Most sectoral transformation today comes from people moving into services, not manufacturing.The original text contained 5 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. ---
First published:
December 2nd, 2023

Source:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/H7rjCEmhcWscZsEnE/what-do-we-really-know-about-growth-in-lmics-part-1-sectoral
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.