Chris Blattman

Close this search box.

How causal identification was born in economics

Screen Shot 2016-04-26 at 10.27.39 AM
A simply fantastic interview with Berkeley’s David Card and Princeton’s Alan Krueger on the Equitable Growth blog:

Card: Right. And you mentioned research design. I remember Alan was an assistant professor and I was a professor at Princeton and Alan sat next to me. And he, for some reason, got a subscription to the New England Journal of Medicine. (Laughter.) And —

Zipperer: Intentionally?

Krueger: Yeah. I loved reading the New England Journal of Medicine.

Card: Yeah. And the New England Journal would come in every week, so there was a lot of stuff to read. And the beginning of each article would have “research design.”

Krueger: And “methods.”

Card: Yes, and if you’ve never seen that before and you were educated as an economist in the 1970s  or 1980s, that just didn’t make any sense. What is research design? And I remember one time I said, “I don’t think my papers have a research design.”

And so that whole set of terms entered economics as a result of those kinds of changes in orientation. But I would say that another thing that happened was that Bob LaLonde got a pretty good job and his paper got a lot of attention. And then Josh Angrist, again following up a suggestion from Orley to look at the Vietnam draft—that paper got a lot of attention. And it looked like there was a market, in a way, for this new style of work. It’s not like we were trying to sell something that no one wanted. There was actually a market out there generally, in the labor economics field, at least.

And now it has been fetishized. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. But then I was raised in the cult.

I wonder if interviews like these predict the apocalypse? Something is just so dominant, it looks like it can never fall. And suddenly it does.

Hat tip to Suresh Naidu.

67 Responses

Why We Fight - Book Cover
Subscribe to Blog