Dr. Abdiweli, if elected considering giving the PM post to a Somali Woman....

[Abtigiis]

"The role of social institutions in rural livelihoods" Abtigiis (with john Grill)

"The economics of sensuality in sex industry in Thailand" Abtigiis (with Cudbi Ahmed),,,,,,

 

I don't want to be harsh on the man, but waxooga "WITH hebel" taa nagu yar badatay.

 

Anyway, I am already inclined to give him higher marks on account of the list and honestly feel a bit guilty for besmirching him academically, but I just want to read one of his piece which i will do now.

[Somalia]

Abtigiis;865434 wrote:

War I am struggling right now. Give me the links to the actual works just one of them. All I see is a CV and a list of publications. I don't hate that, but I still want to read one of his works to change my opinion on his academic grit.

 

Still, bear in mind, I am not saying he is not educated. My problem is not his education but other things I said earlier. But just as I read farmajo's thesis and can now confidently speak about his academic comeptency, I want to read Abdiweli's.

Here's one of his very good publications which was lead article, read this one. http://216-230-72-154.client.cypresscom.net/journal2/aej/march_01/ali_pdf.pdf

 

I will try and find his thesis. Unlike Farmaajo, Abdiweli's thesis will not attack any clans.

 

Here is Prof Samatar blasting Farmaajo's thesis, he says Farmaajo is lying about history and he is whitewashing the history of SYL. But you speak well of him. :eek:

 

http://somalitalkradio.com/cod/alfurqaan_samatar.mp3

[Abtigiis]

Generale, i pursued few links and all do not show the actual document. The best I went is one where I am requested to buy the article. If you have any of these papers, do you mind posting a PDF version please?

 

Ok, Somalia, then GD, disregard this request.

[General Duke]

http://216-230-72-154.client.cypresscom.net/journal2/aej/march_01/ali_pdf.pdf

 

Abtigis's we await your response..

[Abtigiis]

ONE OF THE POOREST, CONTRADICTORY, AND SIMPLISTIC ECONOMIC ANALYSIS I HAVE EVER READ! My suspicions about this man's grit are validated. I am goin to write a one-page review of his article and share with you. But just look at the Abstract and the Conclusions (the econometrics models like all social research are a manipulated facility and yield the results of the selected date that one chased) and tell me if they make to you.

 

basically, the Abstract is contradictory. I don't know the advisor who let this work pass, but he is either blind or plain criminal. What does it mean to say "the impact of political instability on economic growth is not conclusive"? Of course, it isn't. But how do you arrive at such conclusions? did he do a "with stability" Vs "instability" comparative analysis in the same country? No! if Somalia's economy grew 10% moe than that of Switzerland while facing political instability, how can one say the emperical evidence shows that the impact of political instability on growth is not as "recent(??how recent) or "current literature??(which literature?) says, where is the evidence that it is not? That is not presented in this paper.

 

Abdiweli's point is that policy disturbances over some time have more impact on economci growth than political instability. I ask: and why is policy instability separated from political instability? If somalia has not government because of war, isn't that also a caused of policy instability? Really shallow analysis!

 

But the worst is the conclusion. First of all, its presentation is wrong. He keeps on saying "this paper presents..." when this is a conclusion and he should have said "This paper presented or outlined ...." If we forgive him for this small lapse, the content is also hallow and not actually true. Look at it for yourself and tell me if it tells you anything. More on the paper later (I will look at the recent literature and the conventional growth models and what they say about the relationship between policy, politics and economic growth).

 

"This paper elaborates upon the effect of political stability on economic growth using a novel

approach. Unlike the literature on growth that emphasizes the turnover of decision makers, this

paper focuses on the volatility of economic policies as the relevant indicator of stability. The

literature on growth ignores the microeconomic instability associated with frequent changes of

government policies. The empirical results of this paper indicate that the effect of political

instability on economic growth is not conclusive. Most of the commonly used proxies for

political instability have failed to explain growth differences across countries. The political

instability indices have no significant effect on growth when a reasonable set of core variables

is also included in the regression equation. The results also show that almost all of the policy

uncertainty variables are significantly and negatively correlated with economic growth.

However, the instability of economic policies has no significant impact on the accumulation of

capital."

 

Confusing and contradictory! cause and effect murdered!

 

 

Conclusion:

 

"This paper tested the relationship among political instability, policy uncertainty, and

economic growth. The political instability variables failed to fully capture the uncertainties

faced by individual investors. Most of the widely used measures of political instability such

as coups, revolutions, and the like have failed to fully capture the effect of constantly

changing policies on the perceptions of important economic agents. This paper presents the

empirical results of the relationship between economic growth and several policy instability

variables using appropriate econometric techniques. The results show that policy instability

has a more dramatic and significant impact on growth than political instability.

The empirical results also indicate that the impact of political instability on economic

growth is not conclusive. None of the commonly used measures of political instability have

any significant impact either on the composition or the amount of capital investment.

Further research is needed to seek better measures and channels through which political

instability affects economic growth.

 

First of all, how can one gloss over as core an issue as the economic paradigm he is analyzing by simplying saying "current growth literature". There are lots of these literature and they all vary. Is he talking about Liberal economic paradigm on growth: hershmann, etc, or neo-liberals, or developmental state theories? This is the first thing he should have clarified, and but it is amateurish that cause and effect is thrown out when separating policy instability from political instability (war etc).

 

This paper is fine from undergraduate student but from a graduate student , it is a DISASTER! I am honestly shocked by how poor this paper is!

 

I said I will come with a full review!

[General Duke]

^^^ by all means send it to the Journal and also ask them why they gave such a poor piece the best article Award?

[Carafaat]

Abtigiis;865461 wrote:

ONE OF THE POOREST, CONTRADICTORY, AND SIMPLISTIC ECONOMIC ANALYSIS I HAVE EVER READ! My suspicions about this man's grit are validated. I am goin to write a one-page review of his article and share with you. But just look at the Abstract and the Conclusions (the econometrics models like all social research are a manipulated facility and yield the results of the selected date that one chased) and tell me if they make to you.

 

basically, the Abstract is contradictory. I don't know the advisor who let this work pass, but he is either blind or plain criminal. What does it mean to say "the impact of political instability on economic growth is not conclusive"? Of course, it isn't. But how do you arrive at such conclusions? did he do a "with stability" Vs "instability" comparative analysis in the same country? No! if Somalia's economy grew 10% moe than that of Switzerland while facing political instability, how can one say the emperical evidence shows that the impact of political instability on growth is not as "recent(??how recent) or "current literature??(which literature?) says, where is the evidence that it is not? That is not presented in this paper.

 

Abdiweli's point is that policy disturbances over some time have more impact on economci growth than political instability. I ask: and why is policy instability separated from political instability? If somalia has not government because of war, isn't that also a caused of policy instability? Really shallow analysis!

 

But the worst is the conclusion. First of all, its presentation is wrong. He keeps on saying "this paper presents..." when this is a conclusion and he should have said "This paper presented or outlined ...." If we forgive him for this small lapse, the content is also hallow and not actually true. Look at it for yourself and tell me if it tells you anything. More on the paper later (I will look at the recent literature and the conventional growth models and what they say about the relationship between policy, politics and economic growth).

 

"This paper elaborates upon the effect of political stability on economic growth using a novel

approach. Unlike the literature on growth that emphasizes the turnover of decision makers, this

paper focuses on the volatility of economic policies as the relevant indicator of stability. The

literature on growth ignores the microeconomic instability associated with frequent changes of

government policies. The empirical results of this paper indicate that the effect of political

instability on economic growth is not conclusive. Most of the commonly used proxies for

political instability have failed to explain growth differences across countries. The political

instability indices have no significant effect on growth when a reasonable set of core variables

is also included in the regression equation. The results also show that almost all of the policy

uncertainty variables are significantly and negatively correlated with economic growth.

However, the instability of economic policies has no significant impact on the accumulation of

capital."

 

Confusing and contradictory! cause and effect murdered!

 

 

Conclusion:

 

"

This paper tested the relationship among political instability, policy uncertainty, and

economic growth. The political instability variables failed to fully capture the uncertainties

faced by individual investors. Most of the widely used measures of political instability such

as coups, revolutions, and the like have failed to fully capture the effect of constantly

changing policies on the perceptions of important economic agents. This paper presents the

empirical results of the relationship between economic growth and several policy instability

variables using appropriate econometric techniques. The results show that policy instability

has a more dramatic and significant impact on growth than political instability.

The empirical results also indicate that the impact of political instability on economic

growth is not conclusive. None of the commonly used measures of political instability have

any significant impact either on the composition or the amount of capital investment.

Further research is needed to seek better measures and channels through which political

instability affects economic growth.

 

First of all, how can one gloss over as core an issue as the economic paradigm he is analyzing by simplying saying "current growth literature". There are lots of these literature and they all vary. Is he talking about Liberal economic paradigm on growth: hershmann, etc, or neo-liberals, or developmental state theories? This is the first thing he should have clarified, and but it is amateurish that cause and effect is thrown out when separating policy instability from political instability (war etc).

 

This paper is fine from undergraduate student but from a graduate student , it is a DISASTER! I am honestly shocked by how poor this paper is!

 

I said I will come with a full review!

 

Duke, I told you not to post that paper. Your only damaging your "Professor".

[General Duke]

Carafaat;865478 wrote:

Duke, I told you not to post that paper. Your only damaging your "Professor".

Yup Harvard, George Mason, the Atlantic Economic Journal and all the peer assessed journals are wrong and Carafat & Abtigi's are right..

I am loving this..