The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con Out of Econometrics
Open accessAbstract
This essay reviews progress in empirical economics since Leamer’s (1983) critique. Leamer highlighted the benefits of sensitivity analysis, a procedure in which researchers show how their results change with changes in specification or functional form. Sensitivity analysis has had a salutary but not a revolutionary effect on econometric practice. As we see it, the credibility revolution in empirical work can be traced to the rise of a design-based approach that emphasizes the identification of causal effects. Design-based studies typically feature either real or natural experiments and are distinguished by their prima facie credibility and by the attention investigators devote to making the case for a causal interpretation of the findings their designs generate. Design-based studies are most often found in the microeconomic fields of Development, Education, Environment, Labor, Health, and Public Finance, but are still rare in Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics. We explain why IO and Macro would do well to embrace a design-based approach. Finally, we respond to the charge that the design-based revolution has overreached.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity
White, H. (1980) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912934 · Cited by 25,861
(1963) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 15,085
Sims, C. A. (1980) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912017 · Cited by 12,727
(1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,252
The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.91.5.1369 · Cited by 8,517
Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans
Kydland, F. E., & Prescott, E. C. (1977) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/260580 · Cited by 7,905
Econometric policy evaluation: A critique
Lucas, R. E. (1976) · Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy · doi:10.1016/s0167-2231(76)80003-6 · Cited by 6,110
(1991) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 6,037
EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
Coleman, J. S. (1968) · Equity & Excellence in Education · doi:10.1080/0020486680060504 · Cited by 5,308
Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation
Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5 · Cited by 4,926
Cited by
Advancing the Empirical Research on Lobbying
de Figueiredo, J. M., & Richter, B. K. (2014) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135308 · Cited by 367
Schmidheiny, K., & Siegloch, S. (2023) · Journal of Applied Econometrics · doi:10.1002/jae.2971 · Cited by 293
Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?
Serghiou, S., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Boyack, K. W., Riedel, N., Wallach, J. D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2021) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001107 · Cited by 139
What Works? A Meta Analysis of Recent Active Labor Market Program Evaluations
Card, D., Kluve, J., & Weber, A. (2015) · doi:10.3386/w21431 · Cited by 136
Causal Empiricism in Quantitative Research
Samii, C. (2016) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/686690 · Cited by 127
Metadata
- Authors
- Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S.
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2109415206
- Cited by
- 381
- References
- 132
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con Out of Econometrics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2139/ssrn.1639809
- The paper
- Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2010). The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con Out of Econometrics. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1639809
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
