Syndicate content

IO meets development

Jim Levinsohn on the scope for doing work with industrial organization and development

David McKenzie's picture

Late last year I posted several posts on why we don’t see more work combining industrial organization and development. I just received some thoughts on this question from Jim Levinsohn, Professor of Economics and Management at Yale, and a long-time leader in this area. He kindly agreed to let me share them here:
On why we don’t see more work

IO and Development Part 3: Where are some opportunities for work intersecting these areas?

David McKenzie's picture

The first two posts on this topic this week have looked at the gap in the use of IO in development, and some possible reasons why IO tools might not be used as much. Today, the final post in my Q&A with Dan Keniston [DK] and Katja Seim [KS], looks at where there might be low-hanging fruit from better use of methods from IO in development.

Why don’t we see more work at the intersection of IO and Development? Part Two - methods

David McKenzie's picture

Yesterday’s Q&A with Dan Keniston [DK] and Katja Seim [KS] looked at whether there was a gap in the use of IO methods in development, and for some examples of good work at this intersection of fields. Today I ask about a couple of reasons why we don’t see as much work in this area.

Why don’t we see more work at the intersection of IO and Development? Part One – is there a gap?

David McKenzie's picture

Ever since I was in grad school I remember hearing people say that development and industrial organization (IO) seem like natural fields for graduate students to specialize in, and yet my sense is that far fewer people take this combination than development and labor, or development and public economics for example. This is seen in literature produced – the figure below shows the share of the last 100 BREAD Working Papers in development that have different subfields (according to their JEL codes):