Audio
Listen to the article
We recently published an article critically assessing the work of Daron Acemoglu, along with a review of his latest book. Professor Acemoglu responds below. Both pieces first appeared online and were reprinted in this week’s edition of The Economist.
- Acemoglu says the “oddly unconvincing” verdict rests on unnamed economists speaking over drinks, with only blogger Noah Smith quoted by name.
- He says criticism of “Baby busts and growth booms” repeats a caveat already made in the paper’s conclusion.
- He calls the timing curious with “What Happened to Liberal Democracy?”, noting only half a chapter addresses AI and democracy.
Your recent piece on me, “The world’s most influential economist is oddly unconvincing” (August 17th), was notable less for its hostility toward my work than for the feebleness of its arguments.
I welcome critical engagement with my research and central ideas; there is much to legitimately contest, from institutions and colonial legacies to automation and the implications of AI. Such critique is vital for scientific progress. However, this article instead stitches together loosely related grievances to suggest unreliable scholarship.
Anonymous verdict over drinks
Allow me to offer three examples. First, your central conclusion that I am “oddly unconvincing” rests on unnamed economists disclosing their true opinions of me over drinks. No individuals who were plied with drinks to uncover this truth are named. Would you publish a letter claiming that, over drinks, most people tell me your newspaper is no longer worth subscribing to? The only person quoted with such views is a blogger, Noah Smith — a flimsy basis for judging a lifetime of academic work.
Baby busts paper and the overlooked caveat
Second, the piece builds a critique around a social-media observation by Jesús Fernández-Villaverde concerning a recent paper, “Baby busts and growth booms,” suggesting our estimates of lower birth rates’ effects may not extrapolate to the future. We make exactly this point in the paper’s conclusion. You dismiss this, writing that such caveats “can get lost and can seem unsophisticated when set against Mr Acemoglu’s reams of maths.” You did not, I understand, interview Professor Fernández-Villaverde.
Cherry-picked disagreements
Third, the criticisms are cherry-picked haphazardly. Some, such as those from Tyler Cowen or Francis Fukuyama, could have been — and indeed were in the past — starting points for fruitful discussions. I welcome such engagement, and I suspect your writers know these disagreements are part of healthy academic debate.
Timing and the liberal democracy book
The timing is also curious, coinciding with the release of my new book, “What Happened to Liberal Democracy?” The book explores aspects of liberal philosophy, the origins of liberal democracy’s past successes, its current crisis, and what kind of new governing philosophy could re-energise liberalism.
The Economist’s review of the book, published alongside the article, is dismissive and claims it “grapple[s] with the question of how AI will shape the future” (“Man’s best frenemy”, August 17th). In fact, only half a chapter addresses AI and democracy. It is hard not to see this as strategic framing, intended to obscure my book’s message and steer it toward The Economist’s favorite topic of defending and promoting AI.
If this is the best you can do with a body of work spanning 33 years, then it is your critique that is “oddly unconvincing.”
Daron Acemoglu
Institute professor
Department of Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING
A good story is worth sharing.
Send this story to someone who values the bigger picture.
See more from GlobeBriefly on Google
Choose us as a preferred source in your Google preferences.
