economics Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 when? it's almost late april......... my guess: tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeeves0923 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 You have been a good guesser in the past... who do you think will get it? My vote is Pat Bajari. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Rule Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Checking my sent mail, it came out on Friday April 20th two years ago. So I predict this Friday. Ditto Bajari. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
economics Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 i think results will come out tomorrow (otherwise, if it's after the 22nd, it seems as if it's end of april, which is too late and sets a norm for procrastination) i don't think bajari will make it, for two reasons: 1) athey's stuff was too close to his... (she won in 2007) 2) his last name sound indian, and they'd rather pick chetty or mullainathan before they pick a someone who only sounds indian instead, i think it's time for development, public or econometrics. (a macro guy would be too "timely" and fashionable... ) predictions: duflo, mullainathan, chetty (too young) or saez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Rule Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 i think results will come out tomorrow (otherwise, if it's after the 22nd, it seems as if it's end of april, which is too late and sets a norm for procrastination) Ok, let's go back further. Acemoglu, 2005, Friday. Levitt, 2003, Friday. Friday, Friday, Friday... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KGkhan23 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 2) his last name sound indian, and they'd rather pick chetty or mullainathan before they pick a someone who only sounds indian Good lord that is hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
economics Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Ok, let's go back further. Acemoglu, 2005, Friday. Levitt, 2003, Friday. all their first names were "Friday"? wtf? also, ok, either tomorrow, and if not tomorrow, then friday! :) i narrowed down my predictions to 4 people. any other thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Rule Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 1) athey's stuff was too close to his... (she won in 2007) I expect the Clark medal to exhibit less cycling through fields than the Nobel, because the age constraint influences voting. The Nobel committee can cycle through fields and not worry about a candidate becoming ineligible in later years (barring a candidate on the verge of death). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMoreEcon Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 M. and B. are good guesses, but Chetty is way too young (only 30, right?). Many other good guesses are just barely too old (Glaeser, List, etc). Maybe Duflo, but I think M. would get it instead (less controversial, yet works on some of the same topics) unless it's D's last year of eigibility. My guesses are M. and, if M. will still be eligible next year, Bajari might get it. Still think Duflo is too controversial re: randomization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KGkhan23 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Do you have to be a US citizen? If so, I think Duflo and Saez are out. Not sure about Mullainathan. Chetty would be fine, but they've got another ten shots to give him one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piffle_dragon Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I'm curious, is Duflo brilliant or does she just manage to apply sophisticated techniques really well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AREStudentHopeful Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 You could give Chetty another few years. Don't give him the medal as an incentive to increase his work quality for the next few years. See what he can really do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KGkhan23 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I'm curious, is Duflo brilliant or does she just manage to apply sophisticated techniques really well? I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable to answer that (though I would guess yes), but regardless, she has spearheaded the most prominent movement in development econ these days, so she's gotta get some love for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMoreEcon Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable to answer that (though I would guess yes), but regardless, she has spearheaded the most prominent movement in development econ these days, so she's gotta get some love for that. Two key factors. Program/policy evaluation is easy with randomization (you gain a lot), so it's not so difficult (simple difference-in-difference, eg.). Also the "prominent movement in development econ" in INCREDIBLY controversial, so that makes it even more difficult for her to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KGkhan23 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Two key factors. Program/policy evaluation is easy with randomization (you gain a lot), so it's not so difficult (simple difference-in-difference, eg.). Also the "prominent movement in development econ" in INCREDIBLY controversial, so that makes it even more difficult for her to win. I'd rather not get into a debate on methods because I'll only embarrass myself, but I had no clue randomization was so controversial. I can understand from an ethical perspective how it can be seen that way (experimenting on people, leaving others alone as control groups..) but within the profession? I guess I could just be out of the loop... I don't know any development people, I just know what I read online and hear on this forum. So do other economists see results from randomization as unreliable? Do they think it lacks creativity? It just seems unusual that they could get their papers consistently published in legit journals if it's so controversial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bscout Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I completely agree with what GR wrote. I'd rather not get into a debate on methods because I'll only embarrass myself, but I had no clue randomization was so controversial. I can understand from an ethical perspective how it can be seen that way (experimenting on people, leaving others alone as control groups..) but within the profession? I guess I could just be out of the loop... I don't know any development people, I just know what I read online and hear on this forum. So do other economists see results from randomization as unreliable? Do they think it lacks creativity? It just seems unusual that they could get their papers consistently published in legit journals if it's so controversial. Here you have one side of the debate and here is the other (also Heckman has a nice paper about this issue). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KGkhan23 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Here you have one side of the debate and here is the other (also Heckman has a nice paper about this issue). Thanks for the links bscout! I've read through most of Deaton's before, but hadn't seen Imbens' response. If anyone else wants to read the Deaton paper, here is one you don't have to pay five dollars to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savingtheplanet Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Also the "prominent movement in development econ" in INCREDIBLY controversial, so that makes it even more difficult for her to win. I'm sorry, but this is just untrue. There is huge consensus between economists under the age of 50 on the value of randomization in field experiments. There are very few skeptics (Heckman and Deaton are prominent amongst them), and many of their criticisms apply only to the very early work in field experiments, when people were still figuring this stuff out. Carefully designed field experiments are powerful tools to distinguish between models, and need not be atheoretical. c.f. some of List's stuff, or recent Duflo stuff on hyperbolic discounting, or Mullainathan's ongoing work on wage incentives and commitment devices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp3690 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I don't think you have to be a US citizen, just a member of the AEA. Acemoglu is Turkish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italos Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I don't think you have to be a US citizen, just a member of the AEA. Acemoglu is Turkish. You have to be both a US citizen and an AEA memeber. Acemoglou has 2 citizenships( the US and the Turkish one). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krchan63 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 You have to be both a US citizen and an AEA memeber. Acemoglou has 2 citizenships( the US and the Turkish one). I dont think so. See David Card!! He is not American,but he is Canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesparky Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I dont think so. See David Card!! He is not American,but he is Canadian. Thanks to this, I was looking up the John Bates Clark Medal on Wikipedia and saw The award was made biennially until 2007, but is being awarded every year from 2009 because many deserving went unawarded. The committee cited economists such as Edward Glaeser and John A. List in campaigning that the award should be annual.Seeing John List's name, I clicked on it and was greeted by this: This page is about the economist John A. List, not the mass murderer John List.:3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp3690 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Random observation for jeeves: Now that I've cracked the mystery of your identity, you think you're up for becoming the reason for the first ever occurence of three people with the same surname, but unrelated otherwise, becoming famous in economics? The other two already are, it's up to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathemagician Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Yeah, John List the murderer always comes up first. It should be John List the economist's life goal to replace the murderer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonio Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Random observation for jeeves: Now that I've cracked the mystery of your identity, you think you're up for becoming the reason for the first ever occurence of three people with the same surname, but unrelated otherwise, becoming famous in economics? The other two already are, it's up to you. Why do you count only two famous economists with that surname?? I really think there are at least three (or even four)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.