Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-g8tfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T13:06:47.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not by technique alone. A methodological comparison of development analysis with Esther Duflo and Elinor Ostrom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2015

AGNÈS LABROUSSE
AGNÈS LABROUSSE*
Affiliation:
Centre de Recherche sur les Institutions, l’Industrie et les Systèmes Economiques d’Amiens (CRIISEA), University of Picardie – Jules Verne, Amiens, France
*
*Email: agnes.labrousse@u-picardie.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This contribution aims at an original comparison of development analysis with Elinor Ostrom and Esther Duflo from a methodological standpoint, scrutinising their relationship to theory and their operative research strategies. Both perspectives are investigated as case studies for a broader discussion about significant trends in economics and social sciences. Duflo and the J-PAL's approach illustrates – in its own way – new trends and some blind alleys in contemporary forms of mainstream economics, whereas Ostrom and the Bloomington school point towards the marked theoretical and methodological reflexivity of institutionalism, its sensitivity to historical diversity and openness towards social sciences. Distinct social philosophies and episteme are at stake displaying a great divide between two brands of realism and pragmatism, two relationships to development, expertise and knowledge. The paper also contrasts Duflo's methodological monism and mechanistic piecemeal analysis with Ostrom's methodological pluralism and adaptive complex systems analysis.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 277 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acemoglu, D. (2010), ‘Theory, General Equilibrium, and Political Economy in Development Economics’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24 (3): 17–32.Google Scholar
Aligica, P. (2003), Rethinking Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School. Interviews with Vincent and Elinor Ostrom, George Mason University, Arlington (VA).Google Scholar
Aligica, P. (2005), ‘Institutional Analysis and Economic Development Policy: Notes on the Applied Agenda of the Bloomington School’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57 (2): 159–165.Google Scholar
Aligica, P. (2013), Institutional Diversity and Political Economy. The Ostroms and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aligica, P. and Boettke, P. (2011), ‘The Two Social Philosophies of Ostroms’ Institutionalism’, The Policy Studies Journal, 39 (1): 29–49.Google Scholar
Angrist, J. D. and Pischke, J. S. (2010), ‘The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics’, NBER Working Paper, 15794, Cambridge (Mass.).Google Scholar
Ashraf, N., Giné, X., and Karlan, D. (2008), ‘Finding Missing Markets (and a disturbing epilogue): Evidence from an Export Crop Adoption and Marketing Intervention in Kenya’, http://poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/FindingMissingMarkets.pdf (accessed the January 28, 2014).Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. (2007), Making Aid Work, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. and Duflo, E. (2009), ‘L’approche Expérimentale en économie du Développement’, Revue d’économie Politique, 119 (5): 691–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, A. and Duflo, E. (2011), Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty, New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Bernard, T., Delarue, J., and Naudet, J. D. (2012), ‘Impact Evaluations: A Tool for Accountability? Lessons from Experience at Agence Française de Développement’, The Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4 (2): 314–327.Google Scholar
Berriet-Solliec, M., Labarthe, P., and Laurent, C., (2014), ‘Empirical validity of the evaluation of public policies: models of evaluation and quality of evidence’, Evaluation, 2 (2): 195–213.Google Scholar
Boettke, P., Palagashvili, L., and Lemke, J. (2013), ‘Riding in Cars with Boys: Elinor Ostrom's Adventures with the Police’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 9 (4): 407–425.Google Scholar
Boyer, R., Chavance, B., and Godard, O. (eds.), (1991), Les Figures de L’irréversibilité en Économie, Paris: EHESS.Google Scholar
Boyer, R., Hiroyasu, U., and Isogai, A. (eds.), (2011), Diversity and Transformations of Asian Capitalisms, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bureau, M.-C., Sarfati, F., Simha, J., and Tuchszirer, C. (2013), ‘L’expérimentation dans l’action publique’, Travail et Emploi, 135: 41–55.Google Scholar
Chanteau, J. P. and Labrousse, A. (2013), ‘L’institutionnalisme Méthodologique d’Elinor Ostrom: Quelques Enjeux et Controverses’, Revue de la régulation, 14 Autumn http://regulation.revues.org/10555.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. and Dupas, P. (2007), ‘Free Distribution or Cost-Sharing? Evidence from a Randomized Malaria Prevention Experiment’, Brookings Global Economy and Development Working Paper 11, December.Google Scholar
Cole, D. and McGinnis, M. (eds.), (2015), Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington School of Political Economy, Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Connolly, P. (2015), ‘The Campbell Collaboration, and the application of evidence-based practice in education’, Workshop on Evidence Based Policy, Académie des Sciences, Paris, 11th September.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. and Ostrom, E. (1995), ‘A Grammar of Institutions’, American Political Science Review, 89 (3): 582–600.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. and Ostrom, E. (2005), “A Grammar of Institutions”, in Ostrom, E. (ed.), Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press: 137–174.Google Scholar
De Angelis, C. and Fontanarosa, B., (2008), ‘Impugning the Integrity of Medical Science: The Adverse Effects Of Industry Influence’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 299 (15): 833–1835.Google Scholar
Deaton, A. (2009), ‘Instruments of Development: Randomization in the Tropics, and the Search for the Elusive Keys to Economic Development’, Manuscript, Princeton, January 2009.Google Scholar
Desrosières, A. (2008), L’argument Statistique, I & II, Paris: Presse de l’École des Mines.Google Scholar
Devaux-Spatarakis, A. (2014), La méthode expérimentale par assignation aléatoire : un instrument de recomposition de l'interaction entre sciences sociales et action publique en France?, PhD Thesis in Political Science, Bordeaux: University of Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Duflo, E. (2003), ‘Poor but Rational?’, MIT Working Paper, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/747, last accessed February 15, 2013.Google Scholar
Duflo, E. (2009), Expérience, Science et Lutte Contre La pauvreté, Paris: Fayard.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duflo, E. (2010a), Le Développement Humain. Lutter Contre la Pauvreté (I), Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Duflo, E. (2010b), La Politique de L’autonomie. Lutter Contre la Pauvreté (II), Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Duflo, E. (2012), ‘Human Values and the Design of the Fight against Poverty. Paternalism versus Freedom?’, Tanner Lecture, May 2, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Duflo, E. and Kremer, M. (2003), ‘Use of Randomization in the Evaluation of Development Effectiveness’, Paper prepared for the World Bank Operations Evaluation Department, Conference on Evaluation and Development Effectiveness, Washington DC, 15–16 July.Google Scholar
Earl, P. and Potts, J. (2011), ‘A Nobel Prize for Governance and Institutions – Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom’, Review of Political Economy, 23 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Eucken, W. (1939), Die Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie, 6th ed., Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fagot-Largeault, A. (2010), Médecine et Philosophie, Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Ferguson, J. (1990), The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. and Zhang, J. (2011), ‘A New Agenda for Research on the Trajectory of Chinese Capitalism’, Management and Organization Review, 7 (1): 39–62.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1980), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Fourcade, M. (2006), “The Construction of a Global Profession: The Transnationalization of Economics”, American Journal of Sociology, 112 (1): 145–195.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. C., Andersson, K., Ostrom, E., and Shivakumar, S., (2005), The Samaritan's Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glewwe, P., Kremer, M., Moulin, S., and Zitzewitz, E. (2004), "Retrospective vs. prospective analyses of school inputs: the case of flip charts in Kenya," Journal of Development Economics, 74 (1), 251–68.Google Scholar
Gomel, B. and Serverin, E. (2013), ‘L’expérimentation Sociale Aléatoire en France en Trois Questions’, Travail et Emploi, 135: 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenewegen, J. (2011), ‘The Bloomington School and American Institutionalism’, The Good Society, 20 (1): 15–36.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1988), ‘Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design’, Isis, 79 (3): 427–451.Google Scholar
Heilmann, S. (2008), ‘Policy Experimentation in China's Economic Rise’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 43 (1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1958), The Strategy of Economic Development, Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1981), Essays in Trespassing: Economics to Politics and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, J. (1985), ‘The Expanding Domain of Economics’, American Economic Review, 75 (6): 53–56.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. (2001), How Economics forgot History, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Janssen, M., Bousquet, F., and Ostrom, E. (2011), ‘A Multimethod Approach to Study the Governance of Social-Ecological Systems’, Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, 19 (4): 382–394www.nss-journal.org.Google Scholar
Jatteau, A. (2013), ‘Expérimenter le Développement? Des économistes et leurs Terrains’, Genèses, 4 (93): 8–28.Google Scholar
Keel, O. (2011), La Médecine des Preuves - Une Histoire de L’expérimentation Thérapeutique par Essais Cliniques Contrôlés, Montréal: Presses Universitaires de Montréal.Google Scholar
Kirman, A. (1992), ‘Whom or What Does the Representative Individual Represents?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6 (2): 117–136.Google Scholar
Kiser, L. and Ostrom, E. (1982), ‘The Three Worlds of Action: A Metatheoretical Synthesis of Institutional Approaches’, in Ostrom, E. (ed.), London, Sage, 179–222.Google Scholar
Miguel, E. and Kremer, M. (2004), ‘Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities’, Econometrica, 72 (1): 159–217.Google Scholar
Labrousse, A. (2010), ‘Nouvelle économie du Développement et Essais Cliniques Randomisés : Une Mise en Perspective d’un Outil de Preuve et de Gouvernement’, Revue de la régulation, 7, Spring, http://regulation.revues.org/7818.Google Scholar
Labrousse, A. and Zamora, P. (2013), ‘Expérimentations de Terrain et Politiques Publiques du Travail et de l’emploi. Apports récents et mises en perspective – Introduction’, Travail et Emploi, 135: 5–13.Google Scholar
Laurent, C., Baudry, J., Berriet-Solliec, M., Kirsch, M., Perraud, D., Tinel, B., Trouvé, A., Allsopp, N., and Bonnafou, P. (2009), ‘Pourquoi s’intéresser à la notion d’evidence-based policy?’, Tiers-Monde, 200 (4): 853–873.Google Scholar
Lee, A. and Done, M. L. (1999), ‘The Use of Nonpharmacologic Techniques to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Meta-Analysis’, Anesthesia and Analgesia, 88 (6): 1362.Google Scholar
Low, B., Ostrom, E., Simon, C., and Wilson, J. (2003), ‘Redundancy and Diversity: Do They Influence Optimal Management?’, in Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, L. (eds.), Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83–114.Google Scholar
Marks, H. (1997), The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900–1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Masquelet, A. (2006), Le Raisonnement Médical, Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
McCartney, M. (2004), ‘Dynamic versus Static Efficiency: The Case of Textile Exports from Bangladesh and the Developmental State’, Post-autistic Economics Review, 26, August, http://www.paecon.net/PPAEReview/issue26/McCartney26.htm.Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. D. (2011) ‘An Introduction to IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A Simple Guide to a Complex Framework for the Analysis of Institutions and Their Development’, Policy Studies Journal, 39 (1): 169–183.Google Scholar
Meager, R. (2015), ‘Understanding the Impact of Microcredit Expansions: A Bayesian Hierarchical Analysis of 7 Randomised Experiments’, Preliminary Working Paper, MIT, September 9.Google Scholar
Monnier, E. (1992), Évaluations de l’action des Pouvoirs Publics, Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
Morvant-Roux, S., Guérin, I., Roesch, M., and Moisseron, J. Y. (2014), ‘Adding Value to Randomization with Qualitative Analysis: The Case of Microcredit in Rural Morocco’, World Development, 56, 302–312.Google Scholar
Myrdal, G. (1957), Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, London: Duckworth and Co.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1965), Public Entrepreneurship: A Case Study in Ground Water Basin Management, PhD Thesis in political science, Los Angeles: UCLA.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (ed.), (1982), Strategies of Political Inquiry, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1996), ‘Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development’, World Development, 24 (6): 1073–1087.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1998), “A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address”, American Political Science Review, 92 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1999), ‘Coping With Tragedies of the Commons’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2 (1): 493–535.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005), Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007a), ‘A Diagnostic Approach for Going Beyond Panaceas’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (39): 15181–15187.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007b), ‘Challenges and Growth: The Development of the Interdisciplinary Field of Institutional Analysis’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3 (3): 39–264.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2011), ‘Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework’, Policy Studies Journal, 39 (1): 7–27.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Gibson, C., Shivakumar, S. J., and Andersson, K. (2001), Aid, Incentives, and Sustainability: An Institutional Analysis of Development Cooperation, Stockholm: Sida.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Parks, R., and Whitaker, G. (1977), Policing Metropolitan America, Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. and Basurto, X. (2011), “Crafting Analytical Tools to Study Institutional Change”, Journal of Institutional Economics, 7 (3): 317–343.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1973), ‘Order and Change Amid Increasing Relative Ignorance’, Working Paper n°W73-1, Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1980), ‘Artisanship and Artifact’, Public Administration Review, 40 (4): 309–317.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1997), The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerabilities of Democracies, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1999), ‘Crypto-Imperialism, Predatory States, and Self-governance’, in McGinnis, M. (ed.), Polycentric Governance and Development, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 166–185.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1905), The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P. (eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, vol. 5 (1935).Google Scholar
Perroux, F. (1961), L’économie du XXe siècle, Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Poteete, A., Janssen, M. A., and Ostrom, E. (2010), Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Quentin, A. and Guérin, I. (2013), ‘La Randomisation à l’épreuve du Terrain – L’exemple du Projet de Microassurance Sky au Cambodge’, Revue Tiers Monde, 213 (1): 179–200.Google Scholar
Ramsey, S. and Scoggins, J. (2008), ‘Practicing on the Tip of an Information Iceberg? Evidence of Under-publication of Registered Clinical Trials in Oncology’, The Oncologist, 13 (9): 925–929.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. (2009), “The New Development Economics: We Shall Experiment, But How Shall We Learn?”, in Cohen, J. and Easterly, W., (eds)., What Works in Development? Thinking Big and Thinking Small, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Schulz, K. F. (1995), ‘Subverting Randomization in Controlled Trials’, JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 274 (18), 1456–1458.Google Scholar