Best of #econtwitter - Week of September 17, 2023: paper summaries

Welcome readers old and new to this week’s edition of Best of Econtwitter. Please submit suggestions — very much including your own work! — over email or on Twitter @just_economics.

Idiosyncratic favorites

^“When we put all tests on the same standardized scale, the association with income is more than twice as large for the AG than it is for IQ.”

^skimming this paper (new out in NBER) looks interesting, would read a more in-depth thread :)

^🧐

Paper summaries

^this last point is a consistent finding in this new lit […based on technology as of Q3 2023]

^commentary

^this idea made some tweeters unhappy (possibly because it makes them ZMP workers), Rachel Glennerster comments: “I think its important to distinguish different objectives of qual interviews […] maybe call it something else other than qualitative interviews”

^commentary from Matthew Kahn, “My complaint with the modern climate change "causal effects" literature is that it doesn't feature a supply side”

Request for paper threads

• https://twitter.com/nberpubs/status/1703121806184345814

• https://twitter.com/nberpubs/status/1699407554315481115

• https://twitter.com/nberpubs/status/1700252899140374640

More paper summaries

^research is much more fun when you have actual skin in the game; Harvey responds; Asness ‘sorry. but’; Chen comments; context

^“Effect sizes this big don’t exist in education so this will be selection bias somehow”, I haven’t looked into it but seems bad: