Attend Spring Meetings on development topics from Apr 18-23. Comment and engage with experts. Calendar of Events

Syndicate content

Add new comment

Timothy, I think you exaggerate the degree of nonsupport from PK. Their JPE paper is technically very clear, and I understand they did try to help RM. David claims that they were not as open about their data and code as they should have been. Maybe PK can respond on that point, as I don’t think either you or I know the details. It seems to me that one of the two points made by Pitt could have been easily verified by RM, namely the missing control variable. The other point was more subtle, and required skill in advanced econometrics to see. That took time to figure out. Some of what we do in economic research is unavoidably complicated. But this was not RM’s critique; indeed, they claimed they had used essentially the same (complicated) econometric method. As it turns out, their method does not handle properly the inherent censoring, as Pitt explains. However, as I just pointed out in a response on David’s blog, we must surely have more empathy for PK here than your comment suggests. For two years now, the RM paper has been circulating, with the authors drawing ample attention to it (ranging from a JEL paper by Morduch to testimony before the US Congress by Roodman), saying that PK’s main findings could not be replicated–that PK got it wrong. In the last week we have learnt that the key mistakes were in RM’s replication effort. This is not harmless stuff. Surely we can agree that this should not have happened this way. Martin