Woodford
Official Economics Nobel Prize 2019 Predictions thread
-
One of these. Already 1/3 have won.
Your customized ranking of the top 5% authors in RePEc
You used the harmonic mean of rankings following 6 methods and you asked the two best and worst scores for each of the authors to be neglected:
AWScCites: Number of Citations, Weighted by Number of Authors and Recursive Impact Factors
HIndex: h-index
RCAuthors: Number of Registered Citing Authors, Weighted by Rank (Max. 1 per Author)
AWScPages: Number of Journal Pages, Weighted by Number of Authors and Recursive Impact Factors
Students: Strength of students
Euclid: Euclidian citation scoreRank Name Score
1 James J. Heckman 4
2 Andrei Shleifer 4.84
3 Joseph E. Stiglitz 5.67
4 Robert J. Barro 6.47
5 Daron Acemoglu 7.58
6 Jean Tirole 8.91
7 Robert E. Lucas Jr. 12.34
8 Olivier J Blanchard 13.07
9 Kenneth S Rogoff 17.81
10 David E. Card 19.96
11 John Y. Campbell 20.18
12 Edward C. Prescott 24.02
13 Lawrence H. Summers 24.74
14 N. Gregory Mankiw 25.86
15 Robert Ernest Hall 29.74
16 Michael Woodford 29.77
17 Richard Blundell 31.64
18 Ross Levine 32.89
19 Mark L. Gertler 34.31
20 Robert F. Engle III 34.68
21 Gary S. Becker † 34.89
22 Thomas J. Sargent 36.72
23 Elhanan Helpman 37.01
24 Carmen M. Reinhart 37.9
25 Raghuram G. Rajan 39.35
26 Maurice Obstfeld 39.79
27 Paul R. Krugman 40.21
28 Alan B. Krueger 40.35
29 Angus S. Deaton 43.56
30 M Hashem Pesaran 44.12
31 James H. Stock 44.75
32 Eugene F. Fama Sr. 44.92
33 Lawrence F. Katz 45.37
34 Peter C. B. Phillips 50.5
35 Edward Ludwig Glaeser 51.66
36 Jerry A. Hausman 52.1
37 Robert W. Vishny 53.31
38 Jeffrey Alexander Frankel 53.74
39 Lars Peter Hansen 53.93
40 Zvi Griliches † 54.5
41 George A. Akerlof 55.39
42 Robert G. King 58.02
43 Ben S. Bernanke 58.28
44 Avinash Kamalakar Dixit 58.81
45 Christopher Sims 59.82
46 Whitney Newey 61.8
47 Dani Rodrik 62.61
48 Mark W. Watson 62.95
49 Robert J. Shiller 64.38
50 Clive W. J. Granger † 65.37 -
Field experiments allow us to PRETEND TO be scientists. List is a lock this year
There fixed it for you. Also RCTs cover a tiny percentage of problems to be answered. And most of them are kind of trivial anyway.
Distributing tampons in an African village might lead to some uptick but pales in comparison to institutional changes like a better trade policy or better fiscal policy, both of which you can't run an RCT on. Deaton got this one down pat -
Also, there is a deeper problem with the RCT crowd: and that is their addiction to Reduced Form Econ. It is worth remembering that the most famous reduced form eqn. the Phillips Curve broke down completely in the 70s and its successor the NK version of it broke down in the 2010s.
Friedman's essential contribution was understanding this before anyone else and providing for a structural alternative. There is no guarantee that this will not happen to most of the List/Duflo,Banerjee results
-
Also, there is a deeper problem with the RCT crowd: and that is their addiction to Reduced Form Econ. It is worth remembering that the most famous reduced form eqn. the Phillips Curve broke down completely in the 70s and its successor the NK version of it broke down in the 2010s.
Friedman's essential contribution was understanding this before anyone else and providing for a structural alternative. There is no guarantee that this will not happen to most of the List/Duflo,Banerjee resultsWhat about the structural people then, like Rust/Wolpin/Keane/Rosenzweig? I wouldn't mind but it looks like their work isn't cited by the "RCT/natural experiment" crowd very often. Which is sad, since Wolpin, Todd, Attanasio all do both (check out Wolpin and Todd's papers on the PROGRESA RCTs).