Indian-American MIT Prof Abhijit Banerjee and wife win Nobel in Economics
Stockholm: Indian-American Abhijit Banerjee, who won the 2019 Nobel Prize for Economics jointly with his wife Esther Duflo and another economist Michael Kremer on Monday, is currently the Ford Foundation International Professor of Economics at the US-based Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Banerjee, born in 1961 in Mumbai, bagged the award for his "experimental approach to alleviating global poverty". The 58-year-old economist received his PhD in 1988 from Harvard University. He also studied at the University of Calcutta and Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
In 2003, he founded the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), along with his French-American wife Duflo, who is also a MIT professor, and Sendhil Mullainathan..
He remains one of the lab's directors, according to the MIT website.
Banerjee is a past president of the Bureau for the Research in the Economic Analysis of Development, a Research Associate of the NBER, a CEPR research fellow, International Research Fellow of the Kiel Institute, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Econometric Society, and has been a Guggenheim Fellow and an Alfred P Sloan Fellow and a winner of the Infosys prize.
He is the author of a large number of articles and four books, including 'Poor Economics', which won the Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award in 2011.
The 'Poor Economics' has been translated into more than 17 languages.
"Why would a man in Morocco who doesn't have enough to eat buy a television? Why is it so hard for children in poor areas to learn, even when they attend school? Does having lots of children actually make you poorer? Answering questions like these is critical if we want to have a chance to really make a dent against global poverty," Banerjee wrote in the book 'Poor Economics'.
He is the editor of three more books and has directed two documentary films.
He also served on the UN Secretary-General's High-level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, the website said.
Duflo, born 1972 in Paris, received her PhD in 1999 from MIT. In her research, she seeks to understand the economic lives of the poor, with the aim to help design and evaluate social policies. Duflo is the Abdul Latif Jameel Professor of Poverty Alleviation and Development Economics in the Department of Economics at the MIT.
She has worked on health, education, financial inclusion, environment and governance. Duflo's first degrees were in history and economics from Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris.
She has received numerous academic honors and prizes including the Princess of Asturias Award for Social Sciences (2015), the A.SK Social Science Award (2015), Infosys Prize (2014), the David N Kershaw Award (2011), a John Bates Clark Medal (2010), and a MacArthur "Genius Grant" Fellowship (2009).
With Banerjee, she co-authored the book, 'Poor Economics'.
Duflo is the Editor of the American Economic Review. She is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
We are completely immune, says SC; flags half-baked running commentary on pending cases
New Delhi (PTI): Observing that half-baked truth and ill-informed running commentary on sub-judice cases affect public perception, the Supreme Court on Friday asserted that it is "completely immune" from reporting of cases for the sake of publicity or narrative building.
The observations were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi during the hearing of a case concerning the repatriation of certain individuals deported to Bangladesh, when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta took strong exception to a news article published in an English daily on the issue.
"There is a concurrent and simultaneous narrative-building exercise going on. I am sure it does not affect your lordships. There are certain tabloids which are normally known and used for narrative building exercises. Unfortunately, today, to my amazement and shock, I read a front page story in a reputable and dependable newspaper like..., it must have escaped the editorial attention," the law officer said.
During the proceedings, the court was informed that Sunali Khatun, a pregnant woman, and her eight-year old son have come back to India and currently, she is getting medical attention at her father's residence in Birbhum in West Bengal.
ALSO READ: Shivakumar will become CM after ongoing winter session of Karnataka legislature: Cong MLA
The bench fixed January 6 to hear the Centre's appeal against a Calcutta High Court judgement that directed the repatriation of certain individuals deported to Bangladesh on the alleged ground that the due process was not followed.
During the proceedings, the solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, raised the issue of the news report.
Terming the reportage as "tabloid-like", the top law officer said, "I do not want to escalate ... but attempts are made to build a particular kind of narrative" in a bid to influence the outcome.
The law officer said he was sure that the bench is not influenced by any such reports, but it does cast doubt about the intention to build a particular kind of narrative.
"My faith was shaken," Mehta said.
"We are completely immune from publicity and pseudo-publicity stunts. Narratives should not affect the lives of individuals," Justice Bagchi said, adding that the judges hardly get time to see newspapers.
Referring to the names of leading English newspapers, the top law officers said they cannot be reduced to "the level of these tabloids, where you plant stories. It is for the newspaper to decide".
Advising the law officer to "just ignore them", the CJI, however, said, "Ideally, ill-informed running commentary on sub-judice matters should not be made."
"The problem is half-baked distorted facts and ill-informed facts are being reported," he said.
"Reporting that a matter is coming up (for hearing) is fine. But if you thrust your opinion, then that is an issue. The issue is with half-baked truth and ill-informed opinion which affects public perception," the CJI added.
The CJI assured the law officer saying, "we do not accept pleadings which are outside."
"Once the judgment is passed, any constructive criticism is always most welcome," the CJI added.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, referred to the media's role in recent times in countries like the UK and the US, and said immigration issues are part of a "global discourse" and comments and public discourses are held on social media and other platforms.
"People write opinions in the US and England on immigration. As long as you don't attribute motive, it is not sacrilege," Sibal said.
At the outset, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde brought to the court's attention the plight of another deportee, Sweety Bibi, who remains stuck with her husband and two children.
ALSO READ: Six bodies recovered so far from site of Arunachal accident, many still missing
Hegde offered to provide documents proving their Indian citizenship. He urged the solicitor general to take up the other case on humanitarian grounds, saying, "that side of the border is very difficult for Indians."
The law officer assured Hegde that he will look into the issue and the verification may take sometime.
The court said once documents are verified, modalities for their return could be considered in a time-bound manner.
The case involves families who had been working as daily wagers in Delhi's Rohini area for two decades.
They were detained by police on June 18 on suspicion of being illegal Bangladeshi immigrants and deported on June 27.
The Calcutta High Court, in its impugned order, had observed that the deportation violated the Union Home Ministry’s own protocols, which require an inquiry by the state government before deportation.
The high court had noted that the "overenthusiasm" in deporting the detainees disturbed the "judicial climate".
Sibal reiterated this point during the hearing and said, "The Union does no inquiry for 30 days before deporting them."
