George Berger wrote:
>
> Bryan
>
> I am astounded that you would rate Card/Krueger's papers as high quality
> work. If any one of us had submitted a paper to the AER (or other top
> journal) where the relevant unregulated margins that Peter spoke of were not
> properly controlled and where sloppy data collection over the telephone
> occurred, the paper would be rejected out of hand.
I don't think so. Their collection was by no means especially sloppy
for phone interviews, and many of those get published.
Of course, if a referee didn't like a piece for other reasons, they
would usually start complaining about data quality, etc.
> Furthermore, their approach to theory
> is treated in the next to last chapter in the book and while they use the
> monopsonistic model, they do not develop the theory very well (there are many
> problems with the monopsonistic model, none of which are elucidated in their
> exposition).
I agree completely. C/K are very weak on theory. That's part of my
original point contrasting their Mariel boatlift with their NJ minimum
wage piece - the two findings are diametrically opposed but never
reconciled.
--
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*
