Let me be clear about my own views on Daron Acemoglu and The Economist’s recent piece on him.

I’ve long been critical of Acemoglu’s work, especially his work on institutions. After he was awarded the Nobel Prize together with Johnson and Robinson, I published an essay arguing that their work on institutions and development ignores colonial violence and wrongly identifies Western institutions as superior. I’ll link the essay in the replies.

Critique comes with the territory of being one of the world’s most famous economists. Acemoglu probably knows this and actually engages with his critics, constructively at times, as far as I can tell.

The Economist’s piece on Acemoglu is not framed like a serious critique of his work — it’s framed like a hit piece, trying to dig up anecdotal evidence for why Acemoglu is “overrated.” It’s a bizarre, sloppy article, and it’s strange that they would publish something like that. Then again, perhaps it’s a political move by The Economist given that Acemoglu has become more critical of unregulated capitalism.

And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that, in his response letter, Acemoglu takes issue with The Economist citing Noah Smith to make their case. While Smith’s newsletter is popular, people on this platform who have engaged with Smith know that he directs childish and inane insults at people, and even entire ethnic groups. I’ve seen Smith refer to pro-Palestine protesters as “Palestine fucks.”

So, yes, it’s hard to read The Economist’s critique of Acemoglu as anything more than a hit piece, and I fully support Acemoglu blasting the magazine for this unserious piece.