Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Jörg Ankel-Peters

@jrgptrs.bsky.social

2K followers 290 following 190 posts

development & environmental economist. energy access, climate policy, research transparency, replication & meta-science. #FirstGen bit.ly/40e2aQj

Videos

Environmental science 29%

Energy 16%

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Reposted by Jörg Peters

Reposted by Lars P. Feld, Jörg Peters, Art Carden , and 1 more Lars P. Feld, Jörg Peters, Art Carden, John G. McNutt

Reposted by Jörg Peters

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

IVs are the steroids of economics.

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

Thank you - and yes! That's what I meant by "non-confirmatory". But still, doesn't it imply that you can put out any empirical claim? As long as it is published (highly), it counts. If someone shows you selectively picked results (which hardly anyone does anyhow) you simply start a wild debate.

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

Thanks. Yes, many things are coming together. But I think the IV fragility is implicitly part of Albouy's critque because his modifications make the IV extremely weak. Basically the mechanism that "destroys" the results. But you are right, people are extremly skeptical of AJR's IV, see here:

Reposted by Jörg Peters

Guillaume Allègre @gallegre.bsky.social · 1d

There are 2️⃣ ways to make it in economics.
1️⃣ AJR's way : take a consensual general claim and "prove" it with a dubious instrument.
2️⃣ The other way : take a contrarian general claim and "prove" it with a dubious instrument.

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

A specific gem for AJR aficionados, if you ask me, is the huge difference in how experts judge AJR's *general* theoretical claim (institutions matter for growth) vs their *specific* theoretical claim (settler mortality matters for institutions, which matter for growth). 5/8

2 1 1

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

You mean ours or AJR? Both are interesting ideas in any case :-) For AJR I'd say everything has been said on the quantitative note - the open question is what it *means*. At least that would be my take.

1 1

Reposted by Alexander Wuttke

Reposted by Marta Kołczyńska

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

Our paper goes straight to economics' self-identification as a Popperian discipline. It is hard to maintain the Popperian ideal if (non-confirmatory) robustness replications always end up in unresolved debates like this one – which we believe they mostly do. 8/8

1 3

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

So, what does this mean? Nothing bad in any case if your account of science is a very deliberative one. Yet the more you believe in an authoritative role of science – which most economists probably do – the more troubling the lack of consensus is. 7/8

1 1

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

Back to the debate. The final and main question of our survey was simply whether respondents, overall, agree with AJR or with Albouy. There is a slight tendency towards Albouy, but a significant proportion of experts is clearly in the pro-AJR camp. We interpret this as no consensus. 6/8

Reposted by Guillaume Allègre

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

1 2

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

Our short survey provided a concise and neutral summary of the debate papers. Following this summary, we asked respondents how convincing they found the respective arguments. Some preferred AJR's arguments, others preferred Albouy's. 4/8

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

Respondents are also fairly familiar with the debate papers, that is, AJR’s original paper from 2001, as well as Albouy’s comment and AJR’s reply published simultaneously in 2012. 3/8

1 1

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

We did a survey among experts. How do we define "expert"? We did not mass-email or post the survey on social media. Instead, we emailed it exclusively to people who cite one of the debate papers or methodologically similar papers. It seems we successfully recruited experts: 2/8

1 1

Reposted by Michael Kevane

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

Thought about scientific consensus recently? We have a new DP @i4replication.bsky.social that probes into the famous replication debate between Acemoglu, Johnson & Robinson (AJR) and Albouy - and how experts assess this debate. We find that they disagree. 1/8 www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10...

4 11 27

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 1d

No need to lie. But if many people ignore the obvious, demonstrating the obvious is important.

Reposted by Jörg Peters, Philippe Quirion

Michael Jakob @ct-economics.bsky.social · 1d

New piece on growth dependence out in Futures.

To account for the possibility that environmental sustainability can only be achieved with lower economic output, this study carries out a thought experiment in which ambitious environmental policies result in economic contraction.

3 5 7

Reposted by Jörg Peters

Andreas Ortmann @impartialspectator.bsky.social · 1d

I'd lie if I said I am surprised.

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 3d

New DP @i4replication.bsky.social: Meta-analysis on green nudges correcting for publication bias. "Behavioral interventions on households and individuals are unlikely to deliver material climate benefits." www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10...

1 2 3

Reposted by Jörg Peters

Sebastian E. Wenz @sewenz.bsky.social · 3d

And the 1st Replication Award of the Academy of Sociology goes to..

Sergio Lo Iacono, Wojtek Przepiorka, Vincent Buskens, Rense Corten, Marcel van Assen, and Arnout van de Rijt

for "The competitive advantage of sanctioning institutions revisited: A multilab replication"

#AkadSoz25 #sociology

1/

4 8 26

Reposted by Richard S.J. Tol, Andreas Ortmann, Ian Hussey , and 2 more Richard S.J. Tol, Andreas Ortmann, Ian Hussey, Jens Rommel, Johannes Breuer

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 3d

16 27

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 3d

BAP as a "Canadian kid" qualifies as ethnografic immersion. Chapeau.

1 1

Reposted by Benjamin K. Sovacool, Jörg Peters, Dustin Mulvaney , and 1 more Benjamin K. Sovacool, Jörg Peters, Dustin Mulvaney, Anthony Burke

Jessica Green @greenprofgreen.bsky.social · 5d

Today is the day!!! Existential Politics is out in the world!

Read about why we’re doing climate policy wrong (too focused on measuring emissions) & what we should do instead (focus on $$ to constrain fossil asset owners & expand green asset owners). Just in time for #COP30.

Existential Politics

A new way to tackle the real politics of climate change through asset revaluation

press.princeton.edu

5 21 56

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 6d

New DP @i4replication.bsky.social : Meta-analysis on the price elasticity of heating and cooling energy demand. www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10...

1 2

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 7d

Natürlich ist das so, wie Sie sagen. Trotzdem ist es erheblich lokaler (was die Spürbarkeit angeht) als Emissionsvermeidung. Deshalb: man kann doch nicht den "Vibe Shift" wegreden, indem man auf lokale Anpassungsmaßnahmen verweist. Das ist am Problem vorbei argumentiert.

Jörg Ankel-Peters @jrgptrs.bsky.social · 7d

Für Anpassung wird sich sowieso stets eine Mehrheit finden lassen. Die wirkt ja unmittelbar, und eben vor Ort. Der Vibe Shift betrifft die Emissionsvermeidung, und über die diesbzezügliche Regulation entscheiden keine Kommunen und keine entschlossenen Minderheiten. Sondern eben Mehrheiten.