Discussion Boards

The Impact of Nurse Turnover on Quality of Care and Mortality in Nursing Homes, Yaa Antwi and John Bowblis, in the American Journal of Health Economics, 2018, right here: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1162/ajhe_a_00096 This uncomplicated article involves three types of regressions: a basic pooled model, one adding fixed effects, and another adding instruments. The issue involves closing the loop. The direction of possible bias is clear, and addition of fixed effects (which is expected to reduce bias) moves the coefficient estimate accordingly, but the use of IV moves the estimate very far in the other, unexpected direction. This unexpected result is unexplained. In addition, the issue of experimental content arises, not in the main regression, but in the first-stage regression using the instrument, reinforcing the point made in article #5, that issues with experimental content can take many forms and arise in a variety of circumstances, even those designed to produce "good" estimates that can be given causal interpretations.

Supply-Side Responses to Public Quality Ratings, Ian McCarthy and Michael Darden, in the American Journal of Health Economics, 2017, right here: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1162/AJHE_a_00070 This article addresses an issue that I have looked at myself on the demand side (here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hec.968 ). Confusion about the experimental unit leads to problems with experimental content. The first clues show up in the tables (in N) and a key figure. This article demonstrates that using the research designs that are most popular these days does not let you abnegate concerns about craftsmanship!

Fully Grown, by Dietrich Vollrath, published 2020 by the University of Chicago Press, book web site here: https://growthecon.com/fully/ . The provocative thesis of this book doesn't inoculate it from criticism. In critically assessing the book, three themes emerge. First, weakness in the application or interpretation of theory. Second, problems constructing graphs and interpreting descriptive statistics. Third, a lack of organic knowledge, or, better put, inorganic presentations of basic ideas. The first shows up in Chapters 5, 11, and 16. The second shows up in Chapter 2 (the interpretation of Figures 2.1 and 2.2), Chapter 13 (a subtle but consequential error in constructing Fig. 13.2), and Ch. 15 (statistical misinterpretation). The third shows up in two different examples in Chapter 4, which must be seen to be believed. Throughout the book, arguments are sloppily constructed and sloppily supported, and Ph.D.-level economists should be able to recognize that--whether you specialize in micro or macro. Give this book a look, see if you can recognize the things I am referring to, and place your thoughts in comments.