Discussion Boards

This recent article estimates the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) from randomized safety inspections conducted by OSHA (the U.S. department of Occupational Safety and Health) https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20150024 . Its conclusions are typical of the literature, but the article is fascinating nonetheless--marvelous craftsmanship in several key respects, all undone by one major omission (and its corollaries). It is thus a fascinating example of good and bad craftsmanship and a great illustration of how fitting into the prevailing schema of "quasi-randomized experiments" does not ensure correct conclusions or make craftsmanship irrelevant! Place your thoughts in comments.

Two early thoughts as I am reading: 1. I agree with the description of empirical work as a "craft". When I teach, I always tell students that econometrics (in practice) is as much "art as it is science". And, I try to point and what points in an analysis we have left the science realm and have entered the art realm. 2. The "system" pillar and "vernacular knowledge" seem incontrovertible to me, but the "scale" part is less clear. Yes, we don't want to "sweat the small stuff". But, this requires knowledge that the "stuff" is "small". Too often researchers appeal to the "smallness" of a problem as a justification for ignoring it, but in fact have no idea if the problem is small or not. Thus, ignoring "small" stuff runs the very risk of inducing a lack of credibility. Two common examples of this are issues of measurement error and the choice between LPM/probit/other binary choice models.

In comments, suggest recent papers (working or published) for discussion. When this site reaches critical mass, I'll choose a paper for us to read and discuss. Nominated papers should be noteworthy for their craftsmanship, which could be particularly good or bad, or particularly controversial.