Disequilibrium,power and economic systems

Summary This is a review article of D.B.J. Schouten's new book Macht en wanorde, Een vergelijking van economische stelsels (Power and Disorder, A Comparison of Economic Systems). After having summarised the book's contents, three points are discussed: (a) does the book offer a comparison of economic systems as its subtitle suggests; (b) how does Schouten's theory relate to disequilibrium analysis and does it give a better understanding of disequilibria than disequilibrium analysis; (c) is Schouten's proposal of a centrally-guided rate of return policy indeed to be preferred above a centrally-guided wage policy in order to overcome the basic problem in capitalist market economies of slow and sometimes perverse adjustments?D.B.J. Schouten,Macht en wanorde, Een vergelijking van economische stelsels, (Power and Disorder, A Comparison of Economic Systems), H.E. Stenfert Kroese b.v., Leiden/Antwerpen, 1980: Pp. 270. Dfl. 47,50.I am indebted to Professor Th. van de Klundert for useful comments.     

Aid Quality and Donor Rankings

This paper offers new measures of aid quality covering 38 bilateral and multilateral donors, as well as new insights about the robustness and usefulness of such measures. The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the follow-up 2008 Accra Agenda for Action have focused attention on common donor practices that reduce the development impact of aid. Using 18 underlying indicators that capture these practices—derived from the OECD-DAC’s Survey for Monitoring the Paris Declaration, the new AidData database, and the DAC aid tables—the authors construct an overall aid quality index and four coherently defined sub-indexes on aid selectivity, alignment, harmonization, and specialization. Compared with earlier indicators used in donor rankings, this indicator set is more comprehensive and representative of the range of donor practices addressed in the Paris Declaration, improving the validity, reliability, and robustness of rankings. One of the innovations is to increase the validity of the aid quality indicators by adjusting for recipient characteristics, donor aid volumes, and other factors. Despite these improvements in data and methodology, the authors caution against overinterpretation of overall indexes such as these. Alternative plausible assumptions regarding weights or the inclusion of additional indicators can still produce marked shifts in the ranking of some donors, so that small differences in overall rankings are not meaningful. Moreover, because the performance of some donors varies considerably across the four sub-indexes, these sub-indexes may be more useful than the overall index in identifying donors’ relative strengths and weaknesses.