This year’s Nobel prizes prompt soul-searching among economists
1–10 of 135 posts
Re: This year’s Nobel prizes prompt soul-searching among economists
#2Re: This year’s Nobel prizes prompt soul-searching among economists
#3Totally bonkers: economists using science to approach "social science" issues. Social sciences should be ashamed that this is not the norm, we should all be startled and surprised that this is a new thing and evidently people have just been using a system of high-fives and good wishes to solve the world's social problems.
Re: This year’s Nobel prizes prompt soul-searching among economists
#4Surprised the article didn't even mention the word econometrics. It being the topic and all.
Re: This year’s Nobel prizes prompt soul-searching among economists
#5Esther Duflo is the most obviously deserving Nobel Prize in Economics pick in decades. Major substantive contributions to development economics coupled with being absolutely the vanguard of the credibility revolution.
The article seems to motivate criticism of RCTs in only the barest manner: "what of external validity?" No shit, Sherlock, which is why the credibility revolution also argues for frequent and cross-contextual replications. "RCTs present ethical quandaries in re denying the control group the benefits of a presumed good intervention". Again, duh. The problem is these presumed good interventions often aren't which is why the most resounding impact of RCTs is not proving treatments successful beyond our wildest dreams, but rather finding a series of disappointing and in some cases devastating null effects. Bringing up deworming is especially rich in light of the serious concerns raised by deworming RCTs about the value and effect.
It is also weird to talk about the credibility term solely or entirely in terms of RCTs. As economists often say RCTs are the gold standard, but there exist many silver standards and causal inference writ large and a broader concern with well identified pseudo-experimental or observational work has also developed thanks to the same forces and same people credited here.
Thank god for Esther Duflo. Oh, and her husband is a half decent economist too, I guess.
Re: This year’s Nobel prizes prompt soul-searching among economists
#6Totally bonkers: economists using science to approach "social science" issues. Social sciences should be ashamed that this is not the norm, we should all be startled and surprised that this is a new thing and evidently people have just been using a system of high-fives and good wishes to solve the world's social problems.
Before we pile on the social sciences, maybe someone familiar with them can tell us why RCTs are so hard to do. There are likely other issues involved that make RCTs very difficult -- I'm guessing some ethical issues at least. I doubt social scientists and economists are just a bunch of idiots or charlatans. Likewise, the recent breakthrough wouldn't be such a breakthrough if it had been easier. I don't have an Economist account so I can't read the rest of the article. Perhaps that was illuminated in the article. Anyways, before we criticize another field, we should at least have a good understanding of it.
Re: This year’s Nobel prizes prompt soul-searching among economists
#7Esther Duflo is the most obviously deserving Nobel Prize in Economics pick in decades. Major substantive contributions to development economics coupled with being absolutely the vanguard of the credibility revolution. The article seems to motivate criticism of RCTs in only the barest manner: "what of external validity?" No shit, Sherlock, which is why the credibility revolution also argues for frequent and cross-cont…
RCTs are obviously a valuable tool for economics, and it deserves a bigger role than it's gotten historically. After the Nobel Prize, RCTs will probably get more attention than they merit for a while. Ultimately, there's a very limited set of economic topics that they can be used to illuminate. Based on the discussions I've had with economists since early October, I feel like we're about to see a lot of effort to push them to and beyond their limits, at the expense of the silver standards you mention. Mind you, I don't think that's a huge problem, and it's better than the original state of zero RCTs. But academia has its own fashions, just like anywhere else.
Re: This year’s Nobel prizes prompt soul-searching among economists
#8There is no Nobel prize for economists, specifically anyway. There is a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, but that was created in 1968 by Sweden's central bank, and has nothing to do with Alfred Nobel other than being from Sweden and "borrowing" his name. I believe the Nobel foundation now manages that award, but there are still only 5 "real" Noble prizes.
Re: This year’s Nobel prizes prompt soul-searching among economists
#9Worth noting that The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not an actual Nobel Prize. It was established by a central bank so they could award people who justify the existence of central banks.
Re: This year’s Nobel prizes prompt soul-searching among economists
#10Worth noting that The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not an actual Nobel Prize. It was established by a central bank so they could award people who justify the existence of central banks.
Do you have any evidence that this was the reason why the prize was established?