Newsletters
Nobel-winning economist Daron Acemoglu pushed back against The Economist after the British magazine published a sharply critical article about his academic research and public commentary, calling it a "hit piece" and asking for an opportunity to respond.
"I am not happy about The Economist’s article, which feels like a hit piece," Acemoglu wrote on X on Wednesday.
"There is also a background to it, which is more troubling (as I will share at some point). I asked them to allow me to respond. I am waiting for their answer. If not in the magazine, I will share my response here."
The British magazine’s article, titled "The world’s most influential economist is oddly unconvincing," examined Acemoglu’s standing in economics while taking a critical look at his academic research and public commentary.
The article described him as one of the field’s leading figures, noting that he ranked among the most-cited economists and that his views carried considerable weight among other economists and the media.
It also raised criticism of Acemoglu’s theoretical work, citing one unnamed economist who viewed much of his research as useful but argued that he used his models to support populist policies that had already been tried and failed.
The newspaper also supported this criticism by quoting economist and blogger Noah Smith, who had criticized Acemoglu for years.
The magazine then turned to the research that helped earn Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences.
Their 2001 study examined why some countries were richer than others, linking differences in prosperity to the institutions established during the colonial period. The paper had been cited more than 23,000 times by other researchers.
The Economist raised questions about the data behind the study, pointing to a 2024 Nobel Committee report that acknowledged some of the mortality figures used in the research were "superficial" in places.
It also cited a 2012 study by University of Illinois economist David Albouy, who found that mortality rates from other countries had been used for some nations. The magazine argued that correcting those figures weakened the reliability of the original findings.
The article also examined a study Acemoglu and his co-authors published in June on declining birth rates and GDP growth per working-age person.
The Economist cast doubt on whether relationships identified in historical data could still explain economic conditions in countries where birth rates were falling rapidly. It pointed to economists including the University of Pennsylvania’s Jesus Fernandez-Villaverde, who questioned whether those past relationships remained useful for understanding current demographic changes.
The magazine also criticized Acemoglu’s public commentary, particularly his views on American politics. It argued that his assessments did not go much beyond established ideas and described them as surprisingly shallow for an economist of his stature.
The criticism also drew attention on social media, particularly among economists and academics, who waited for a response from the 58-year-old economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Set as preferred source
Set as preferred source
1 min read
1 min read
