Skip to content

🏅 Nobel Focus: Esther Duflo & Abhijit Banerjee
Full Names Esther Duflo & Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee
Born Duflo: October 25, 1972, Paris, France; Banerjee: February 21, 1961, Kolkata, India
Nobel Prize 2019, Economic Sciences (shared with Michael Kremer)
Field Development Economics
Key Work Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty (2011)

The People

Abhijit Banerjee grew up in Kolkata, the son of two economists. His mother, Nirmala Banerjee, was a development economist at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta; his father, Dipak Banerjee, taught economics at Presidency College. Economics was, quite literally, the family business. Banerjee studied at Presidency College himself, then at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, and earned his PhD at Harvard in 1988. He joined MIT's economics department and became one of the most prominent theorists in development economics — publishing influential work on credit markets, institutional economics, and the behavior of the poor.

Esther Duflo's path to development economics began in Paris, where she grew up the daughter of a pediatrician and a mathematics professor. As a teenager, she was drawn to history and social justice. She studied at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, then came to MIT for her PhD, where Banerjee became her doctoral advisor. Their intellectual partnership deepened into a personal one; they married in 2015. Duflo was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal in 2010 (given to the most outstanding American economist under forty), and in 2019, at age forty-six, she became the youngest person and only the second woman ever to win the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences.

Together, they co-founded the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) at MIT in 2003 — a research center dedicated to reducing poverty by ensuring that policy is informed by scientific evidence. J-PAL has since conducted or supported over 1,000 randomized evaluations across 90 countries, and its research has influenced policy affecting hundreds of millions of people.

The Contribution

Banerjee and Duflo's central contribution was methodological and philosophical. They argued that the grand questions that had consumed development economics for decades — "Does foreign aid work?", "Is corruption the root cause of poverty?", "Do free markets reduce deprivation?" — were too broad to answer. These questions lumped together hundreds of different mechanisms, contexts, and interventions under a single label, making definitive answers impossible.

Their alternative: break big questions into small, testable ones, and answer them with randomized controlled trials. Does providing free bed nets increase their use, compared to charging a small price? (Yes — and the free nets were used just as much as the paid ones, contradicting the argument that people do not value free things.) Does deworming children increase school attendance? (Yes — the health gains from a cheap deworming pill had large educational spillovers, making it one of the most cost-effective development interventions known.) Does providing information about the returns to education increase enrollment? (Sometimes — it depends on who delivers the information and how it is framed.)

This approach drew on three commitments. First, empiricism over ideology — let the data settle debates that theory alone cannot resolve. Second, attention to the details of implementation — a program that works in one context may fail in another if local conditions differ. Third, taking the lives of the poor seriously — understanding that poor people face complex decision environments, make rational trade-offs given their constraints, and are not simply waiting to be told what to do by outsiders.

Their 2011 book Poor Economics synthesized years of RCT evidence into a readable narrative that challenged assumptions held by both the political left (that more money solves everything) and the political right (that the poor are poor because of bad decisions). Their 2019 book Good Economics for Hard Times extended the approach to migration, trade, inequality, and climate change — arguing that the same commitment to evidence and humility could improve policy debate in rich countries too.

The Key Insight

Stop asking "does aid work?" and start asking "does this specific intervention, delivered this way, in this context, improve this measurable outcome?" The shift from grand theory to granular evidence transformed development economics from a field of passionate disagreement into one where progress can be measured, replicated, and scaled.

Why It Matters Today

The "randomization revolution" that Banerjee, Duflo, and Kremer launched has reshaped how governments, NGOs, and international organizations think about poverty reduction. Policies are increasingly expected to cite experimental evidence. Organizations like J-PAL, Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA), and the World Bank's Development Impact Evaluation group now run thousands of RCTs annually.

The impact on specific policies has been substantial. Kremer's early work on deworming in Kenya led to mass deworming programs that now reach over 280 million children annually. RCTs on conditional cash transfers influenced the design of programs from Mexico's Progresa/Oportunidades to India's Direct Benefit Transfer system. Evidence on the effectiveness of community health workers shaped staffing decisions in dozens of countries.

But the RCT approach has also attracted thoughtful criticism. Some economists argue that the focus on "what works" at the local level neglects the structural and institutional factors — property rights, governance, industrial policy — that drive long-run development. Angus Deaton, himself a Nobel laureate, has cautioned that RCTs can tell you whether an intervention works in a specific setting but cannot easily tell you why it works or whether it will work elsewhere. Lant Pritchett has argued that the biggest gains in poverty reduction have come from broad economic growth (as in China and India), not from the sum of individual RCT-tested programs.

These are valid debates — but they do not diminish the core contribution. Before the RCT revolution, development policy was driven largely by ideology, anecdote, and institutional inertia. After it, there is at least a body of rigorous evidence to inform decisions, even if that evidence is not sufficient on its own.

In India

India has been the single most important testing ground for the RCT approach, and J-PAL's influence on Indian policy has been substantial:

  • Pratham's "Teaching at the Right Level": RCTs across Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and other states showed that grouping children by learning level and using remedial tutoring dramatically improved basic literacy and numeracy. The evidence convinced multiple state governments to adopt the approach, eventually reaching tens of millions of children.
  • Rajasthan immunization camps: Banerjee, Duflo, and collaborators tested whether small incentives (a kilogram of lentils) increased childhood immunization rates at mobile health camps in rural Rajasthan. Immunization rates tripled in the incentive group — a tiny nudge with large health consequences.
  • Hyderabad microfinance evaluation: The rigorous RCT of microcredit in Hyderabad (published 2015) found that access to microloans increased business investment but did not significantly improve consumption, health, or women's empowerment — tempering the claims of microfinance advocates and redirecting policy attention toward more effective interventions.
  • J-PAL South Asia at IFMR Chennai: The regional office has partnered with Indian state and central governments on evaluations of programs ranging from MGNREGA implementation to police training to air quality monitoring, embedding experimental evidence into the Indian policy cycle.

Connection to Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire tells the story of one individual's escape from poverty through a combination of street-acquired knowledge and extraordinary luck. Banerjee and Duflo's work addresses the same starting point — the lives of the urban and rural poor in India — but asks a fundamentally different question: not "how does one person escape?" but "what interventions, at scale, can improve outcomes for millions?"

The film shows Jamal surviving on his wits in the informal economy, navigating child labor, evading exploitation, and eventually winning a quiz show jackpot. Banerjee and Duflo's research shows what happens to the millions of children who do not win the jackpot — and tests, rigorously, which programs make a measurable difference in their lives. The Pratham reading program that their RCTs validated reaches far more children than any quiz show. The deworming interventions they helped evaluate cost pennies per child and yield years of additional schooling.

The connection is this: the film makes poverty visible and emotionally resonant. The research makes poverty addressable and structurally tractable. One generates empathy; the other generates evidence. Development requires both.

Key Publications

  1. Banerjee, A. V. & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. PublicAffairs. — The accessible synthesis of their RCT-based approach to understanding the economic lives of the poor.
  2. Banerjee, A. V. & Duflo, E. (2019). Good Economics for Hard Times. PublicAffairs. — Extends the evidence-based approach to migration, inequality, trade, and climate in both rich and poor countries.
  3. Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2015). "The Miracle of Microfinance? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 22-53. DOI: 10.1257/app.20130533
  4. Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). "Remedying Education: Evidence from Two Randomized Experiments in India." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235-1264. DOI: 10.1162/qjec.122.3.1235
  5. Miguel, E. & Kremer, M. (2004). "Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities." Econometrica, 72(1), 159-217. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00481.x — Kremer's foundational deworming RCT, co-awarded the 2019 Nobel.

Learn More

Back to Module 4 | Film Analysis: Slumdog Millionaire