Acemoglu and Robinson argue that the these predictions were off primarily because the Big Push model ignored politics and institutions:
Of course, things didnâ€™t quite work out that way. In fact, many of the economies about which Rosenstein-Rodan was bullish are not much richerÂ today than they were in 1961. Liberia and Haitiâ€™s economies contracted since then. Angola, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda havenâ€™t done so well either. We of course know that Afghanistan, India and Pakistan grew more slowly than South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Singapore. Argentina and Haiti were no match for Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Panama.
The main reason why Rosenstein-Rodan got it so wrong is because he completely ignored the role of institutions and politics.
It’s hard to disagree that Rosenstein-Rodan should have taken these into account – but are they the primary drivers? What about geography, natural resources, export commodity prices, health and the myriad other factors which might drive a country’s growth rate? Without a little more effort, the models lack of effectiveness doesn’t tell us anything about whyÂ it is ineffective. I understand that Acemoglu and Robinson consider institutions to be the chief determinant of everything since the beginning of time, but arguing that the Rosenstein-Rodan prediction is wrong because it ignored institutions is a little like arguing that a car missing all four wheels won’t drive because – damn it – it’s also missing four tires.
Slightly more disconcerting: A&J are only displaying a subset of predictions from Rodan’s original paper. Why? My guess is that eye-balling the full dataset doesn’t reveal as much. This calls our for a slightly more rigorous approach than pointing to a few bad predictions. Even better, does someone have the time to crunch the numbers and see if Rodan’s predictions are less useful than predictions being made today?