1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Joys of Economic Research in the Modern World ...

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by doctorquant, Apr 17, 2013.

  1. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Your humble correspondent is oftentimes greatly relieved that his research has little overlap with matters of political import. Seems ivory towers across the land have been trembling of late about some flaws with a prominent piece regarding the relationship between countries' debt levels and their economic growth rates. The work ("Growth in a Time of Debt," by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff and published in the American Economic Review in 2010), suggested that heavy (>90%) public debt was associated with very low to negative economic growth. Turns out there were some methodological flaws with their work that have been pointed out by some other academics.

    This guy sums up the basics pretty well:

    http://www.slate.com/authors.matthew_yglesias.html

    I would caution against throwing R&R under the bus, as some of their critics have, because they readily acknowledge their error. Secondly, the criticism of the work was spurred by R&R sharing their data (that they had assembled over time) with the researchers who called the original piece into question. One of the points raised by those critics (Herndon, Ash and Pollen (HAP)) was that the original piece didn't have several countries' data ... but those data weren't available when the original piece was being done. HAP have implied that R&R selectively withheld those data from their original study, but that's bad form in my book.
     
  2. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    So you're saying debt = awesome?

    Krugman was right!
     
  3. printit

    printit Member


    Isn't this how a marketplace of ideas is supposed to work? I got to conclusion X using Y data. Here's my work. Someone else points out flaw, if any, etc. Good for everyone involved.
     
  4. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    LOL ... no, that's really not how it's shaken out. It's not that it's good, it's just that it's not as bad (so these results suggest) as had been thought. The corrected results suggest something like a 1% or so annual growth penalty which, over 10- and 20-year periods, adds up pretty quickly.

    Note to mods: I'm not trying to open up a political argument here. I'm more drawn to the professional dynamics. I'm sure R&R are highly embarrassed by their error(s), and I'm sure it's magnified because the work itself became Exhibit I in a prominent political debate. Now there's lots of piling on, from both inside and outside academia.

    As an aside, I would caution anyone in any field to be careful in offering up some magical breakpoint as R&R did. The primary argument they made was that once debt exceeds the 90% threshold, growth begins to suffer. I am always skeptical about these psychologically convenient thresholds.

    Yes, this is how it's supposed to work. The journals I target, I have to agree, as a condition of submission, to make my data available. Once I thought I had mislabeled a variable -- on a paper that had been accepted and was in the print-preparation process -- and spent a very, very nervous afternoon trying to verify. Turns out I hadn't messed up ... that called for opening a second bottle of wine that night!
     
  5. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    BS. No nuance allowed. You're a Krugie.
     
  6. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    It takes a long time and a lot of research to really debunk something, especially when it's enthusiastically embraced. So if anyone wants to really disparage R&R, it's going to have to be a long, drawn-out campaign of studies -- which, of course, won't be embraced by the true believers.

    I'm reminded of the original autism/vaccine link study, which was proven to be an out-and-out fraud. There are still studies coming out showing there are no links, but there are a large number of people whose minds will never be changed.
     
  7. printit

    printit Member

    Yes, this is how it's supposed to work. The journals I target, I have to agree, as a condition of submission, to make my data available. Once I thought I had mislabeled a variable -- on a paper that had been accepted and was in the print-preparation process -- and spent a very, very nervous afternoon trying to verify. Turns out I hadn't messed up ... that called for opening a second bottle of wine that night!
    [/quote]


    Not to threadjack, but I would love to hear your thoughts on some of the popular books on economics that have sold well in the last 10-15 years or so. (Naked Economics, Armchair Economist, Undercover Economist, The Drunkard's Walk, etc.) I love these but I'm curious what someone in the field would think.

    As to your broader point, I would think past reputation, good or bad, should be exhibit 1 in any defense against a charge of bias. Someone with a spotless record of good work would get the benefit of the doubt from me a lot quicker than someone without one. Interesting topic for a journalism board, since so many people, rightly or wrongly, think that what journalists write (or don't write) has more to do with the opinion of the journalist then with the facts of the particular issue.
     
  8. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I'm not really in that field, although I use a lot of that field in my work. As I pointed out on another thread, I'm kind of like Reese Bobby (in Talladega Nights) ...

    One thing about a lot of those books, however, is that they're decidedly micro (which I much prefer).
     
  9. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    How effin' cool is this? Turns out the H in Herndon, Ash and Pollen (authors of the critique of the R&R work) is/was a doctoral student. He got the ball rolling on a homework assignment!

    I've shared data with a few doctoral students over the years. Remind me NEVER to do that again! :D
     
  10. SoCalScribe

    SoCalScribe Member

    Yglesias is a clown. He's a legacy who can't tip 15 percent without checking the card in his wallet.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page