I am involved in a journal club session for undergraduate single honours economics. It is part of a wider module that will utilise case-studies, empirical projects, presentations, seminars etc., to cultivate enthusiasm for economic research and to prepare people for the final year dissertation in second term. There are five groups so we are going for one paper each to start off. Anyone got any thoughts on the list below? Designed to be representative of modern empirical economics but relatively accessible.
1. Almond, Douglas (2006) “Is the 1918 Influenza Pandemic Over? Long-Term Effects of In Utero Influenza Exposure in the Post-1940 U.S. Population,” Journal of Political Economy, v. 114, pp. 672–712.
2. Carmen M. Reinhart & Kenneth S. Rogoff, 2008. "This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises," NBER Working Papers 13882, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc
3. Banerjee, Abhijit & Duflo, Esther, 2008. "The Experimental Approach to Development Economics," CEPR Discussion Papers 7037, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
4. Craig Burnside & David Dollar, 2000. "Aid, Policies, and Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 847-868, September.
5. Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, 2008. "Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox," NBER Working Papers 14282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
3 comments:
Not being deferential here but it mightn't hurt to throw in your paper on well-being. Two reasons: it really brings econometrics "home" and it's always good to expose undergrads to research being conducted in their department. I still remember smiling when I saw my intermediate macro lecturer's name in the AER. (Similarly you could use Devereux's cradle to the grave or Kevin's LC paper, etc.)
The Burnside and Dollar results are...delicate to say the least. There are also some issues about the suitability of their instruments. It was a shockingly influencial paper though. I humbly suggest augmenting it with Easterly's and Roodman's work. They did a few papers which break the BD result.
Also, I seems to me that the IV techniques have moved on since BD. All that said, its defo a good starting point for the aid lit.
Good point Enda - we will be having some sessions with some of the faculty so we can cover that base there.
Agree with you Rob. The reason we chose BD is that it ignited such a massive debate that is still ongoing. We will give a brief introduction to this.
Post a Comment