Alexander Robert William Robson wrote:
> Isn't one of the most important parts of doing "quality" empirical work
> the proper collection of data? Hasn't it been estabished that
> the C-K failed this test miserably?
Other than the circular argument that "they didn't collect data properly
because the results came out wrong," what's so bad about their data
collection. Yes, they used telephone interviews, and these aren't
perfect, but their method wasn't worse than usual. Also they actually
sent people to do live interviews and non-respondents and to record
restaurant closings. One more serious complaint is that they gathered
info on number of full and part-time employees, but not employee hours.
That's true, but it also would have been very hard to get an answer to
that question over the phone with a busy manager.
When I put the C/K study in the 90th percentile of quality for published
empirical work, I don't mind if you take that as a left-handed
compliment. But I don't see how they failed "miserably" even then.
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan
"We may be dissatisfied with television for two quite different
reasons: because our set does not work, or because we dislike
the program we are receiving. Similarly, we may be dissatisfied
with ourselves for two quite different reasons: because our body
does not work (bodily illness), or because we dislike our
conduct (mental illness)."
--Thomas Szasz, *The Untamed Tongue*
