( Most disputes over replication in economics papers with historical or development themes seem like a waste of time because so much of the time, even if the results are robust they are trivial or make little difference to the big picture )
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
but that’s one of the things I had in mind. of all the papers covered in that critique, the only one that actually addresses an important historical topic and, if the results were robust, should alter priors is Nunn/slave trade. (Nunn’s paper comes out looking good in the Kelly critique).
the Napoleonic blockade paper is a perfect example of historically UNinteresting regardless of whether the results are robust or not. we know from history that protection continued until 1860 & did not end with the blockade. & the French cotton textile industry was never competitive internationally.
For analyses of this sort, I don't see the point in using statistical significance at all -- so it's hard to put much stock into what the value of t is in any event.
Comments
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022199624001545