Scholar

Jörg Peters

H-index: 29
Environmental science 29%
Energy 16%
i4replication.bsky.social
We are hosting this year's MAER-Net Colloquium on Friday and Saturday. The program and more information are available here: www.maer-net.org/2025-ottawa

Plenary sessions (with Andrew Gelman, Shinichi Nakagawa and others) and some parallel sessions will be live-streamed for free

Reposted by Jörg Peters

Reposted by Jörg Peters

Reposted by Jörg Peters

Reposted by Jörg Peters

by Justin SandefurReposted by Jörg Peters

jrgptrs.bsky.social
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.
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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:
gallegre.bsky.social
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.
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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.

by Jörg PetersReposted by Alexander Wuttke

jrgptrs.bsky.social
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
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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...
jrgptrs.bsky.social
No need to lie. But if many people ignore the obvious, demonstrating the obvious is important.
ct-economics.bsky.social
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.

by Andreas OrtmannReposted by Jörg Peters

impartialspectator.bsky.social
I'd lie if I said I am surprised.
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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...

Reposted by Jörg Peters

sewenz.bsky.social
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/
jrgptrs.bsky.social
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...
jrgptrs.bsky.social
BAP as a "Canadian kid" qualifies as ethnografic immersion. Chapeau.

References

Fields & subjects

Updated 1m