The book has been well received.
Robert Solow commented: :"Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo are allergic to grand generalizations about the secret of economic development. Instead they appeal to many local observations and experiments to explore how poor people in poor countries actually cope with their poverty: what they know, what they seem (or don't seem) to want, what they expect of themselves and others, and how they make the choices that they can make. Apparently there are plenty of small but meaningful victories to be won, some through private and some through public action, that together could add up to a large gains for the world's poor, and might even start a ball rolling. I was fascinated and convinced."
Madeleine Bunting reviewed the book for
The Guardian, writing: :"[Banerjee and Duflo] offer a refreshingly original take on development, and they are very aware of how they are bringing an entirely new perspective into a subject dominated by big polemics from the likes of Jeffrey Sachs and William Easterly... they are clearly very clever economists and are doing a grand job to enrich their discipline's grasp of complex issues of poverty – so often misunderstood by people who have never been poor."
Nicholas Kristof reviewed the book for
The New York Times, writing: :"Randomized trials are the hottest thing in the fight against poverty, and two excellent new books have just come out by leaders in the field. One is
Poor Economics, by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo... These terrific books move the debate to the crucial question: What kind of aid works best?" Development economist
William Easterly reviewed the book for the
Wall Street Journal, writing: :"Marvelous, rewarding...
More Than Good Intentions and
Poor Economics are marked by their deep appreciation of the precariousness that colors the lives of poor people as they tiptoe along the margin of survival. But I would give an edge to Mr. Banerjee and Ms. Duflo in this area—the sheer detail and warm sympathy on display reflects a true appreciation of the challenges their subjects face... They have fought to establish a beachhead of honesty and rigor about evidence, evaluation and complexity in an aid world that would prefer to stick to glossy brochures and celebrity photo-ops. For this they deserve to be congratulated—and to be read."
James Tooley reviewed the parts of the book about education for
Econ Journal Watch. Although he was critical of the authors' conclusions in those chapters, he generally praised their overall approach: :
Poor Economics "is contextualised with stories of the realities of lives of the poor, with evidence adduced to support or dismiss particular policy proposals. All of the chapters are interesting and challenging...I favour much of their general approach. Experts, I agree, should have to "step out of the office" and get their boots muddy. I'm also in favour of "relying on evidence", and of being judicious, even cautious, with big ideas."
Sanjay G. Reddy in his 2012 article "Randomise this! On poor economics" in the journal
Review of Agrarian Studies was more critical of the authors approach than many others. He concludes by arguing as follows: He also includes a footnote with the attempt at humour
One can think of at least three interpretations of the title, not all favourable to the authors..
Poor Economics won the 2011
Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award. ==Editions==