How to prevent future Reinhart-Rogoff meltdowns
All economics papers can't be subject to a time-consuming peer review, but sweeping studies should raise a red flag
Topics: On the Economy, Reinhart-Rogoff, GDP, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Business News, Politics News
In the midst of the Reinhart-Rogoff meltdown, a commenter was aghast to learn that their paper was not peer reviewed.* She asked, reasonably, how could the newspapers report findings that had not gone through that process?
It’s a fair question, and I should expand on the too glib remarks from my post:
So the answer is to only accept peer-reviewed work as economic knowledge, right? Nope. That would be a) too limiting, and b) wouldn’t advance the epistemological cause as much as you think. Peers have their own sets of biases, particularly as gate keepers.
First, had R&R gone through the peer-review process, I’m fairly confident that a) the spreadsheet error would NOT have been found, but b) the paper would have been sent back to them for failing to provide even a cursory analysis of the possibility of reverse causality (slower growth leading to higher debt/GDP ratios vs. the R&R claim of the opposite). Re “a,” peer reviewers do not routinely replicate findings, though they should when possible (more work these days is with proprietary data sets which cannot legally be shared).
But given “b”—this influential work would perhaps not have seen the light of day without significant revision—how is it that I’m not calling for more peer reviewing?
That’s where the “too limiting” part comes in. First, a lot of what’s important in economics is fairly simple analysis of trends—descriptive data—without the behind-the-scenes number crunching of the type R&R did. You learn a lot about austerity, for example, by simply plotting GDP growth rate of countries engaged in it, or wage inequality by observing the movements of different wage percentiles over time. Looking back on my own posts, you’ll see employment plotted against employment, real wage trends, growth rates…none of which take hardly any data manipulation and none of which depend on choices that would concern a reviewer.
So to insist that everything gets peer reviewed, including the presentation of descriptive data published by reliable sources (e.g., BLS or BEA), would be to raise the bar unnecessarily high. Of course, that’s not to say that descriptive data presenters can’t make mistakes, and we do. So in the best of all possible worlds, it would be better if such work was checked by peers before it was publicized, even on blogs. Which brings me to the next problem.
Jared Bernstein joined the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in May 2011 as a Senior Fellow. From 2009 to 2011, Bernstein was the Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Follow his work via Twitter at @econjared and @centeronbudget. More Jared Bernstein.





Ken Cuccinelli Once Filed An Amendment To Change Virginia's State Song To The Beatles' "Taxman"
Masters Of The Universe: Lawmakers Obsess Over Threats From Space
Commerce Appointment Opens A New White House Rift
Comments
8 Comments