Person:
Alacevich, Michele

Heyman Center for the Humanities, Columbia University
Profile Picture
Author Name Variants
Fields of Specialization
History of development ideas, policies and institutions
Degrees
ORCID
External Links
Author at Columbia University
Departments
Heyman Center for the Humanities, Columbia University
Externally Hosted Work
Contact Information
Last updated: January 31, 2023
Biography
Michele Alacevich, Associate Director for Research Activities at the Heyman Center for the Humanities, Columbia University, specializes in the history of 20th century development institutions and ideas, and international history. Current interests include the history of development, the policies of postwar reconstruction in Southern Europe, and the history of social sciences in the 20th century, with a focus on the linkages between the history of ideas, economic and political history, and the history of economic thought. His book The Political Economy of the World Bank: The Early Years (Stanford University Press, 2009) has been translated into Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, and Arabic. His publications include articles in Journal of Global History, History of Political Economy, Review of Political Economy, Rivista di Storia Economica, and Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Before moving to Columbia University, Michele Alacevich was a research scholar at Harvard University (2010-2011), Columbia University (2009-2010), and the World Bank (2006-2008). He holds a Ph.D. in business history from the University of Milano, Italy (2006).

Filters

2000 - 20194
Browse document type tree
Reset filters

Settings

Statistics
Citations
Supported Language: en ×

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    The Political Economy of the World Bank : The Early Years
    (Stanford: Stanford University Press and the World Bank, 2009) Alacevich, Michele
    This book covers the early years of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), commonly known as the World Bank when it first confronted the issue of development as a fundamental part of its mission. The book is mainly concerned with how the Bank interpreted its mission and, more specifically, how its mission was born: what events shaped it, what cultural and ideological background influenced it and what was the historical context in which it arose. So this book is a contribution to the study of the prehistory of development, understood in its social and economic context. In this respect, the study of the early years of the World Bank offers excellent context for observation for three reasons. First, during its history there is a clear separation between the growth phase and the phase of social objectives. Second, in the first years of activity already the Bank could hear murmurs of opposition. Finally, there was a sudden change in the mandate of the institution changed from supporting the reconstruction of Europe after the war, to help developing countries. The transition from one phase to another was a formative one and redefined the institution. The upshot of the foregoing was to set a fertile ground for exploring the signs of conflict between the different approaches to development. The first chapter deals with the historiography that underlies the writing. It refers to a wide literature using periods of transition or crisis in the history of the institution to understand its dynamics and mechanisms. Reducing its support for European reconstruction, the Bank focused on the development of countries. The internal tensions that arose and led to a complete break between the Bank and the director of the mission (the economist Lauchlin Currie) are very useful for understanding better the evolution of the institution. The third chapter explores the tensions between Currie and the Bank and particularly, between Currie and the economist Albert Hirschman, who the Bank replaced as envoy to Colombia. The final chapter focuses again on the International Bank and particularly in lending mechanisms for developing countries.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Visualizing Uncertainties, or How Albert Hirschman and the World Bank Disagreed on Project Appraisal and Development Approaches
    (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012-11) Alacevich, Michele
    Since its birth in 1944, the World Bank has had a strong focus on development projects. Yet, it did not have a project evaluation unit until the early 1970s. An early attempt to conceptualize project appraisal had been made in the 1960s by Albert Hirschman, whose undertaking raised high expectations at the Bank. Hirschman's conclusions -- published first in internal Bank reports and then, as a book in 1967 -- disappointed many at the Bank, primarily because they found it impractical. Hirschman wanted to offer the Bank a new vision by transforming the Bank's approach to project design, project management and project appraisal. What the Bank expected from Hirschman, HOWEVER, was not a revolution but an examination of the Bank's projects and advice on how to make project design and management more measurable, controllable, and suitable for replication. The history of this failed collaboration provides useful insights on the unstable equilibrium between operations and evaluation within the Bank. In addition, it shows that the Bank actively participated in the development economics debates of the 1960s. This should be of interest for development economists today who reflect on the future of their discipline emphasizing the need for a non-dogmatic approach to development. It should also be of interest for the Bank itself, which is stressing the importance of evaluation for effective development policies. The history of the practice of development economics, using archival material, can bring new perspectives and help better understand the evolution of this discipline.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    The World Bank's Early Reflections on Development : A Development Institution or a Bank?
    (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2008-07) Alacevich, Michele
    Until the late 1960s, the World Bank presented itself as an institution devoted to making sound and directly productive project loans. Yet, during its very early years, some discussions developed inside the Bank regarding the possibility of issuing different types of loans, namely (i) loans aimed at tackling social issues ("social loans"), and (ii) loans aimed at providing foreign currency to address disequilibria in the balance of payments ("impact loans"). This paper brings together historical analysis and theories of organization development to study the housing issue as a case in point. The analysis reveals that the Bank was unwilling to lend for housing programs not because these were not sound - in fact, they were - but because they were geared toward achieving social welfare objectives and were not directly linked to productive investment projects, such as dams, power stations, and railroads. This early decision had a significant impact on the subsequent development of the Bank's view of policy-making: it locked the institution into a particular lending pattern, and deprived it of important intellectual resources. It was not until the late 1960s that the Bank began to take social issues into consideration, rather late compared with other multilateral institutions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Early Development Economics Debates Revisited
    (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2007-12) Alacevich, Michele
    Development economics in its early years created the image of a fierce fight between advocates of contrasting theories or approaches- "balanced growth" vs. "unbalanced growth" or "program loans" vs. "project loans." This view has the merit to highlight such conflicts in great detail; yet it fails to take into account the reality of development economics as it was practiced in the field. This paper reassesses these old conflicts by complementing the traditional focus on theoretical debates with an emphasis on the practice of development economics.A particularly interesting example is the debate between Albert Hirschman, one of the fathers of the "unbalanced growth" approach, and Lauchlin Currie, among the advocates of "balanced growth" on how to foster iron production in Colombia in the 1950s. An analysis of the positions held by these two economists shows that they were in fact much less antithetical than is usually held and, indeed, were in some fundamental aspects surprisingly similar. Debates among development economists during the 1950s thus must be explained-at least partially-as the natural dynamics of an emerging discipline that took shape when different groups tried to achieve supremacy-or at least legitimacy-through the creation of mutually delegitimizing systemic theories.