Working Paper: NBER ID: w14896
Authors: Guido W. Imbens
Abstract: Two recent papers, Deaton (2009), and Heckman and Urzua (2009), argue against what they see as an excessive and inappropriate use of experimental and quasi-experimental methods in empirical work in economics in the last decade. They specifically question the increased use of instrumental variables and natural experiments in labor economics, and of randomized experiments in development economics. In these comments I will make the case that this move towards shoring up the internal validity of estimates, and towards clarifying the description of the population these estimates are relevant for, has been important and beneficial in increasing the credibility of empirical work in economics. I also address some other concerns raised by the Deaton and Heckman-Urzua papers.
Keywords: No keywords provided
JEL Codes: C10; C50; C90
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| observational studies (C90) | credibility of causal claims (C90) |
| instrumental variables (C36) | local average treatment effect (LATE) (C22) |
| local average treatment effect (LATE) (C22) | causal effect for compliers (C22) |
| randomized experiments (C90) | reliable evidence on causation (C90) |
| job training programs (M53) | labor market outcomes (J48) |
| randomized experiments (C90) | inform policy decisions (D78) |