Re: Levitt article
Here it is. Fabio, we expect better work from you next time! :-) Alex http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/magazine/03LEVITT.html?pagewanted=printposition= -- Alexander Tabarrok Department of Economics, MSN 1D3 George Mason University Fairfax, VA, 22030 Tel. 703-993-2314 Web Page: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/ and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621 Tel. 510-632-1366
Re: Levitt article
It is an annoying piece, even if it shows the public what Levitt is up to, because it strongly indicates that Levitt is an outlier in the profession in his interests. Forty years ago, he would have been a rarity in the profession. Today, he is pretty standard. Bill Sjostrom - Original Message - From: Alex Tabarrok [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 2:34 PM Subject: Re: Levitt article Here it is. Fabio, we expect better work from you next time! :-) Alex http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/magazine/03LEVITT.html?pagewanted=printposition= -- Alexander Tabarrok Department of Economics, MSN 1D3 George Mason University Fairfax, VA, 22030 Tel. 703-993-2314 Web Page: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/ and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621 Tel. 510-632-1366
Re: Levitt article
What I found interesting is that in economics, like in many other fields, there are problem solvers (people who figure out specific paradoxes, empirical facts, etc) and theory builders. Levitt is a supremely able problem solver, a niche that didn't exist 30-40 years ago in the economics profession. Fabio On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, William Sjostrom wrote: It is an annoying piece, even if it shows the public what Levitt is up to, because it strongly indicates that Levitt is an outlier in the profession in his interests. Forty years ago, he would have been a rarity in the profession. Today, he is pretty standard. Bill Sjostrom
Re: Levitt article
In an earlier message, William Sjostrom suggested that Levitt's research is typical of the economics field. I am very curious about this statement, because it is at odds with my casual empiricism, and I would like to see it backed by some concrete evidence. Perhaps this reflects my own ignorance of the literature, but I would like to know who does such clever, but careful empirical work. If this is true, I'd like to read it. Are there people out there that collect interesting data to approach previously intractable questions from a new direction? The best example of this that I can think of is a working paper that estimated the scope of corruption in Indonesia by looking at how the stock prices of companies that has close links to the Suharto government reacted to news about his health. I can't seem to find this paper to provide you with a citation. Dimitriy V. Masterov ___ Dimitriy V. Masterov Center for Social Program Evaluation 1155 East 60th St. Room 038 Chicago, IL 60637 Work: (773)256-6005 Fax: (773)256-6313
Re: Levitt article
In my own biased view, one such group are experimentalists. The best experimental work provides extremely clever manipulations that generate data to address previously empirically intractable questions. The AER is full of such clever and careful work. Recent AER examples include Henrich et. al.'s efforts to use experiments to learn about how trust and market performance are related, Fehr et. al.'s efforts to examine the effect of sanctions on cooperation, List et. al.'s field experiments with baseball cards, and on and on (including work by ICES colleagues)... On balance I would argue that Levitt is indeed unusually clever (in the sense that he comes up with good questions and also finds interesting natural manipulations to study them), but that his particular approach to economic science is not novel: Vernon Smith has been using it for decades. - Dan - Original Message - From: Dimitriy V. Masterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:52 PM Subject: Re: Levitt article In an earlier message, William Sjostrom suggested that Levitt's research is typical of the economics field. I am very curious about this statement, because it is at odds with my casual empiricism, and I would like to see it backed by some concrete evidence. Perhaps this reflects my own ignorance of the literature, but I would like to know who does such clever, but careful empirical work. If this is true, I'd like to read it. Are there people out there that collect interesting data to approach previously intractable questions from a new direction? The best example of this that I can think of is a working paper that estimated the scope of corruption in Indonesia by looking at how the stock prices of companies that has close links to the Suharto government reacted to news about his health. I can't seem to find this paper to provide you with a citation. Dimitriy V. Masterov ___ Dimitriy V. Masterov Center for Social Program Evaluation 1155 East 60th St. Room 038 Chicago, IL 60637 Work: (773)256-6005 Fax: (773)256-6313
Re: Levitt article
In an earlier message, William Sjostrom suggested that Levitt's research is typical of the economics field. I am very curious about this statement, because it is at odds with my casual empiricism, and I would like to see it backed by some concrete evidence. Perhaps this reflects my own ignorance of the literature, but I would like to know who does such clever, but careful empirical work. If this is true, I'd like to read it. Are there people out there that collect interesting data to approach previously intractable questions from a new direction? I did not quite mean that most economists were as clever as Levitt. I meant only that the kinds of problems Levitt works on are now pretty standard. Crime has been a common topic among economists for decades. The reference to Levitt's work on real estate agents is basically just agency theory, again a topic for empirical work for some years. I do not mean to denigrate Levitt's creativity, which is simply huge. My complaint was about the way the Times told the story. They made it sound as if economists sit around all day making vague philosophical observations about capitalism and socialism, or something like that, rather than working on the small problems that most of us spend most of our time working on. Bill Sjostrom + William Sjostrom Senior Lecturer Centre for Policy Studies National University of Ireland, Cork 5 Bloomfield Terrace, Western Road Cork, Ireland +353-21-490-2091 (work) +353-21-490-3658 (fax) +353-21-463-4056 (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ucc.ie/~sjostrom/
Re: Levitt article
and on (including work by ICES colleagues)... On balance I would argue that Levitt is indeed unusually clever (in the sense that he comes up with good questions and also finds interesting natural manipulations to study them), but that his particular approach to economic science is not novel: Vernon Smith has been using it for decades. - Dan Correct me if I am wrong, but a big difference between Vernon Smith and Levitt is that Smith focuses mostly on a single area - experimental econ with a cognitive focus - while Levitt is a bit more wide ranging in his interests. Nothing wrong with that, but maybe that's a reason Levitt is so distinctive. Few people have the cleverness to consistently spot interesting puzzles and then have the tenacity to find data that can actually test hypotheses. Of course, the long term interesting question: will such puzzle solving lead to greater economic insight? I think so. In mathematics, such puzzle solvers are good at showing all sorts of cherished ideas are wrong and the evidence accumulated from such research can force people to think in new ways. Also, puzzle solvers are good at finding tricks that can be used to solve other problems. I wouldn't be surprised if Levitt's long term legacy is like that of Paul Erdos the mathematician who was notorious for solving goofy problems, but whose solutions forced people to rethink a lot of math. Fabio
