Visual Experiment Results (About the 2021 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences)
https://doi.org/10.26794/2220-6469-2022-16-1-6-16
Abstract
The article is devoted to analysing the achievements of the laureates of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2021. The author described the methods of natural experiment used by the laureates in their research. Further, the author noted the differences between different types of experiments: laboratory, field, computer and mental (thought, imaginary). The author described details of two of their studies (which have become classic) on the consequences for the labour market of the influx of immigrants and the increase in the minimum wage. The methods and results of the laureates’ research on assessing the consequences of state programs and structural decisions are also analysed. In conclusion, the author considered new experimental and econometric research methods, which the laureates have significantly improved. In particular, it concerns the method of counter samples and an example from the author’s research using this method.
About the Author
Yu. P. Voronov
Institute of Economics and Organization of Industrial
Production SB RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yuri P. Voronov — Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Leading Researcher, Laboratory for Modelling and Analysis of Economic Processes
Novosibirsk
References
1. Feynman R. P., Leighton R. B., Sands M. The Feynman lectures on physics. Vol. 1: Mainly mechanics, radiation, and heat. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1977. 560 p. (Russ. ed.: Feynman R.P., Leighton R.B., Sands M. Sovremennaya nauka o prirode. Zakony mekhaniki. Prostranstvo. Vremya. Dvizhenie. Vol. 1. Moscow: AST; 2019. 478 p.).
2. Card D., DellaVigna S., Malmendier U. The role of theory in field experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2011;25(3):39–62. DOI: 10.1257/jep.25.3.39
3. Imbens G.W., Wooldridge J.M. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature. 2009;47(1):5–86. DOI: 10.1257/jel.47.1.5
4. Haavelmo T. The probability approach in econometrics. Econometrica. 1944;12:1–115. DOI: 10.2307/1906935
5. Borovičková K., Shimer R. High wage workers work for high wage firms. NBER Working Paper. 2017;(24074). URL: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24074/w24074.pdf
6. Menzel K. Large matching markets as two-sided demand systems. Econometrica. 2015;83(3):897–941. DOI: 10.3982/ECTA12299
7. Card D. Immigration and inequality. American Economic Review. 2009;99(2):1–21. DOI: 10.1257/aer.99.2.1
8. Card D., Peri G. Immigration economics: A review. 2016. URL: http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/cardperi-jel-april 6–2016.pdf
9. Card D., Cardoso A.R., Heining J., Kline P.M. Firms and labor market inequality: Evidence and some theory. Journal of Labor Economics. 2018;36(S 1):13–70. DOI: 10.1086/694153
10. Radin B. Policy makers: Don’t forget implementation and experimentation. Academia Letters. 2021:1375.
11. Card D., Peri G. Immigration economics by George J. Borjas: A review essay. Journal of Economic Literature. 2016;54(4):1333–1349. DOI: 10.1257/jel.20151248
12. Card D. Is the new immigration really so bad? The Economic Journal. 2005;115(507): F300-F323. URL: https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/new-immig.pdf
13. Edo A., Rapoport H. Minimum wages and the labor market effects of immigration. Labor Economics. 2019;61:101753. DOI: 10.1016/j.labeco.2019.101753
14. Imbens G.W. Sensitivity to exogeneity assumptions in program evaluation. American Economic Review. 2003;93(2):126–132. DOI: 10.1257/000282803321946921
15. Imbens G. Matching methods in practice: Three examples. NBER Working Paper. 2014;(19959). URL: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19959/w19959.pdf
16. Rosenbaum P. R., Rubin D. B. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician. 1985;39(1):33–38. DOI: 10.2307/2683903
17. Voronov Yu. P. Applied experimental economics. Novosibirsk: Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch of RAS; 2009. 216 p. (In Russ.).
18. Angrist J.D., Pischke J.-S. Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2008. 373 p.
19. Angrist J.D., Pischke J.-S. Undergraduate econometrics instruction: Through our classes darkly. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2017;31(2):125–144. DOI: 10.1257/jep.31.2.125 (Russ. ed.: Angrist J.D., Pischke J.-S. Prepodavanie ekonometriki v bakalavriate: mrachnoe vpechatlenie. Kvantil’ = Quantile. 2019;(14):1–20.).
20. Koenker R., Bassett G.W., Jr. Regression quantiles. Econometrica. 1978;46(1):33–50. DOI: 10.2307/1913643
21. Athey S., Bayati M., Imbens G., Qu Zh. Ensemble methods for causal effects in panel data settings. NBER Working Paper. 2019;(25675). URL: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25675/w25675.pdf
22. Rosenbaum P.R., Rubin D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
23. Neyman J. Sur les applications de la theorie des probabilites aux experiences agricoles: Essai des principes. Master’s thesis. 1923. Excerpts reprinted in English: Speed T.P. Introductory remarks on Neyman (1923). Statistical Science. 1990;5(4):463–472. DOI: 10.1214/ss/1177012030
24. Rubin D.B. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1974;66(5):688–701. DOI: 10.1037/h0037350
25. Stock J.H., Watson M. Introduction to econometrics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson; 2011. 832 p. (Russ. ed.: Stock J., Watson M. Vvedenie v ekonometriku. Moscow: Delo; 2015. 864 p.).
Review
For citations:
Voronov Yu.P. Visual Experiment Results (About the 2021 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences). The world of new economy. 2022;16(1):6-16. https://doi.org/10.26794/2220-6469-2022-16-1-6-16
Views:
335
Email this article 