Difference between Development Studies and Development Economics.

[Batman2743]

Hi all,

 

Since, many of us here are interested in development economics, I was hoping if some light could be shed on the fundamental differences between development economics and development studies.

 

Thanks.

[Karina 07]

Hi all,

 

Since, many of us here are interested in development economics, I was hoping if some light could be shed on the fundamental differences between development economics and development studies.

 

Thanks.

 

Development Studies: you can pursue development economics but you don't have to; other options include more historical/political/sociological/anthropological/etc. work.

 

Development Economics: you pursue development economics but almost wholly ignore social/etc. phenomenon.

 

I'm actually more in favour of development studies than development econ, because I feel that especially with development you need to have at least some grasp of these other areas even if you do end up spending most of your time working on econ issues; I mean, they affect the econ issues so strongly. And I feel like in general you've more freedom in a development studies program than in a development econ program, so that you're less likely to get the chance to take any of these kinds of side courses in the devt econ program.

 

That being said, each program is different because these programs are less standardized than, say, the Econ PhD, and so you should investigate each one thoroughly.

 

:2cents:

[asquare]

Development Studies: you can pursue development economics but you don't have to; other options include more historical/political/sociological/anthropological/etc. work.

 

Development Economics: you pursue development economics but almost wholly ignore social/etc. phenomenon.

 

Karina, I understand the underlying point you are making, but I think you are going a little too far with the limits of development economics. There is a lot of work about behavioral and social phenomena in development economics! Consider Dean Karlan's work on commitment savings, Nava Ashraf's job market paper, or the recent work Baland et al. have done on pretending to be poor. Also, there's a Berkeley job market candidate this year who does some really excellent work on related issues.

 

I'd say that the distinction is that development economics is a branch of economics and builds upon the core models of the discipline, while development studies is an interdisciplinary field that uses models and techniques from economics as well as sociology, anthropology, and others that Karina mentioned.

[Karina 07]

Karina, I understand the underlying point you are making, but I think you are going a little too far with the limits of development economics. There is a lot of work about behavioral and social phenomena in development economics! Consider Dean Karlan's work on commitment savings, Nava Ashraf's job market paper, or the recent work Baland et al. have done on pretending to be poor. Also, there's a Berkeley job market candidate this year who does some really excellent work on related issues.

 

I'd say that the distinction is that development economics is a branch of economics and builds upon the core models of the discipline, while development studies is an interdisciplinary field that uses models and techniques from economics as well as sociology, anthropology, and others that Karina mentioned.

 

I'm talking about development economics programs, which are mostly taught rather than research, and what is taught is sort of like the first-year econ PhD sequence in that it's a lot of basic models. Development economics as a field doesn't have to be like that, but as a program it's what it will tend towards.

 

A good friend of mine was talking with her advisor, who has an econ PhD and was warning her that economics still doesn't really consider x, y, and z and that certain models are still in use. The friend didn't really believe this, but then we both took some courses from a development economics program, and sure enough, there appeared those models, with no mention of x, y and z.

 

I did debate for a while whether to put "largely" ignores instead, but seeing as how it seemed the OP was talking about programs, and in my experience development econ *programs* do almost wholly ignore these things, I stuck with that. Which isn't to imply that development econ as a field has to be that way; but I do think that if one has purely econ training and nothing else, one's more likely to miss something, particularly in development. The fact that some people have done really great work in development that is cognizant of these things doesn't really change this.

[asquare]

The fact that some people have done really great work in development that is cognizant of these things doesn't really change this.

No, it's just an existence proof that development economics is not incompatible with recognition of social or cultural factors that influence economic behavior :)

 

There are strengths and weaknesses to both types of programs, but I think the fundamental differences are in the tools and models. There's good and bad research within each, and IMO, good research involves getting the model right. When cultural factors affect the model, they should be included!

[asianeconomist]

In my view, the primary distinction between development economics and development studies lies in their relatively distinct program objectives.

 

DS is essentially targeted towards training development practitioners.Limited research is involved, but with major focus on descriptive issues & nearly never uses formal mathematical modeling. Intuition is deemed to be more important.

 

On the other hand, Development Economists are primarily researchers with limited applied (read non-academic) interests. Their forte is model-building and rigorous empirical analysis using econometric techniques. Intuition is indeed important, but often takes a back-seat in comparison to formalism.

 

It is important to note that although both DS & DE graduates are hired by IGOs, NGOs, Donors etc., they will often function quite differently. For example, faced with a real-life problem, such as: improving access to clean drinking water in a village, the DE people would evaluate the alternative intervention measures and devise evaluation procedures. Consequently, DS practitioners would visit the field and chalk-out the implementation procedures.

 

It is true, that in both academic & professional settings, these demarcation lines are not always strictly adhered to. However, distinct differences do exist.

[Karina 07]

DS is essentially targeted towards training development practitioners.

 

Here is where I say it depends on the program. Sussex's is stellarly practical. Oxford's is stellarly academic, nobody comes out a practitioner.

[asianeconomist]

Here is where I say it depends on the program. Sussex's is stellarly practical. Oxford's is stellarly academic, nobody comes out a practitioner.

 

IDS indeed has a empirical bent and Oxford's Economics for Development utilizes quite advanced Micro & Macro economic concepts. However, Oxford's program is not a "Development Studies" program, it is rather a "Development Economics" program. This is the exact point that I am trying to make.

 

In fact, along with Yale's IDE & KSG's MPA/ID, Oxford's program are probably the only programs that provides a rigorous approach to development. Refer to Cambridge's MPhil in Development Studies for comparison, which has a more practical inclination.

 

If the OP is indeed prospecting Development Economics, then it might be worthwhile to take a look at the AREs (Berekely, MSU, OSU, Cornell.......).

[Karina 07]

IDS indeed has a empirical bent and Oxford's Economics for Development utilizes quite advanced Micro & Macro economic concepts. However, Oxford's program is not a "Development Studies" program, it is rather a "Development Economics" program. This is the exact point that I am trying to make.

 

In fact, along with Yale's IDE & KSG's MPA/ID, Oxford's program are probably the only programs that provides a rigorous approach to development. Refer to Cambridge's MPhil in Development Studies for comparison, which has a more practical inclination.

 

If the OP is indeed prospecting Development Economics, then it might be worthwhile to take a look at the AREs (Berekely, MSU, OSU, Cornell.......).

 

Oxford has both a Development Studies (2 year, MPhil) and a Development Economics (1 year, MSc) program. Its Development Studies program deals wholly with theory, and it is that which I was referencing (I would agree that Cambridge's is more practical. It's also 1 year long. Although Sussex is maybe considered even more practical than Cambridge).

[agarwaen.mormegil]

maybe i'm wrong. but my notion regarding the difference between DS and DE is: DS= less math, DE=more math, a LOT of math. As a previous comment stated, DS is far more descriptive and i reckon more subjective, interdisciplinary in approach and less quantitative in nature.

[MattyG]

Would love to hear updates on this discussion! I'm interested in a multi-disciplinary approach to development and I would love to study how programs are designed and implemented, especially from an impact lens, with a view to being actively involved in implementing effective development programs. I feel the more the more practical the focus, the better, as I'm more interested in practice than theory.