The fact economists (and apparently an economic anthropologists) think this upends our development narratives is not so much an individual failing as emblematic of how disciplines/disciplinary conversations can hold us back.

1/11 https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1302962453748350976

. @ClarkIDCE's development theory core course covers Dependency Theory and World Systems Theory (I teach it next week). Both go back more than 50 years. Both cover the key points in this paper.

I admit, it's a bit staggering that anyone in development thinks this is new.

2/11

(yes, the quantification is possibly interesting. But the quantification isn't what "upends our conventional narrative." The framing is what is clearly purported to be a surprise. Let's not try to dodge this, OK?)

BUT...pointing at an individual/group of authors and mocking them misses the point: we all live with disciplinary blinders (though @ClarkIDCE we work hard to shed them), and those blinders are often deeply unproductive.

3/11

I've railed (at length) at behavioral economists who claim to have "discovered" things about human behavior that anthropologists and geographers have known for decades.

For example: https://www.edwardrcarr.com/opentheechochamber/2011/04/26/qualitative-research-was-already-here/

4/11

It feels to me like disciplinary myopia is intensifying these days, but I have no concrete data to support that. Maybe I am just aging into the cranky old man I suppose I am destined to become. But I also feel like production pressure in academia is driving us this way.

5/11

Hitting the big journals in one's field often requires engaging the big debates in that field to the detriment of observations in other fields. Producing a lot of publishable articles shoves everyone toward the MPU (minimum publishable unit). MPU articles are boring.

6/11

I am concerned that the usual disciplinary myopia is being intensified by increased production pressure, and as a result we are going to see a lot more reinventions of the wheel. The implications of this are more than merely annoying.

7/11

I work (mostly) at the intersection of climate change and development. There are huge challenges already visible in this area of inquiry and practice, and new challenges emerging all the time.

We have limited research and implementation capacity.

8/11

So when we duplicate each other...we are wasting scarce time and effort that could be productively dedicated to addressing other otherwise-unaddressed issues.

9/11

So we should lament duplicative research, particularly when it duplicates knowledge that should be seen as canonical in the field.

But dragging the authors is also wasted time and effort.

10/11

Better we put that astonishment and rage into rebuilding the academy into a place where reading across disciplines is normal and even expected, where we avoid duplication and seek out complementarity. There is so much to do, and so little time.

/fin

Addendum: well, draggers gonna drag. But if you are going to drag, at least note that @jasonhickel has a Ph.D. in Anthro (from my alma mater @UVA), not Econ.

Lazy econ bashing takes away from necessary critique of econ.