Clark (1985) - Revision history

Ed at 23:14, 29 September 2020

2020-09-29T23:14:41Z

2020-09-29T17:22:24Z

2020-09-29T17:19:14Z

2020-09-29T17:05:34Z

2020-09-29T16:47:42Z

2011-06-08T00:20:48Z

How might these tests be run if one had quantitative evidence?

2011-06-08T00:12:41Z

2011-06-07T23:28:14Z

2011-06-07T23:24:45Z

What is the author's hypothesis?

2011-06-07T04:01:54Z

How does the author rule out alternative hypotheses?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Article
 |Has page=Clark (1985)
-|Has title=
+|Has bibtex key=
 |Has author=Clark
 |Has year=1985

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 |Has page=Clark (1985)
 |Has title=
-|Has author=
+|Has author=Clark
 |Has year=1985
 |In journal=

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 |Has title=
 |Has author=
-|Has year=
+|Has year=1985
 |In journal=
 |In volume=

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Article
-|Has page=
+|Has page=Clark (1985)
 |Has title=
 |Has author=

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:47, 29 September 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{Article
		+	\|Has page=
		+	\|Has title=
		+	\|Has author=
		+	\|Has year=
		+	\|In journal=
		+	\|In volume=
		+	\|In number=
		+	\|Has pages=
		+	\|Has publisher=
		+	}}
	==Theory Questions:==		==Theory Questions:==
	===What is the research question? ===		===What is the research question? ===

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ===How might these tests be run if one had quantitative evidence? ===
-Suppose one were able to find a natural experiment in which settlers from different local cultures randomly inhabited.
+One could test the hypotheses above the technology, worker experience and etc had no effect on worker productivity by finding a source of random, exogenous variation.
 ===What problems might arise in this quantitative analysis?===
 The biggest problem is that local culture -- the author's primary driving force behind differences in outcomes -- is hard to distribute randomly.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 The author never directly tests the hypothesis, but goes about "proving" his case by examining and disproving a thorough set of alternative hypotheses.
 ===How does the author rule out alternative hypotheses? ===
@@ Line 16: / Line 18: @@
 The author addresses a number of alternative hypotheses about why New England was so productive:
-* Costs of labor: On page
+* Are machines more efficient across countries? Table 5 shows that they aren't.
-* Technological:
+Related to the final point, the authors also note that in New England, a lot of the workers were immigrants from Ireland, where productivity was a lot less. If "inherit ability" was an issue, the Irish immigrants should have been less productive. Verbal arguments about selection offered on pg 167.
 ===How might these tests be run if one had quantitative evidence? ===
 ===What problems might arise in this quantitative analysis?===

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:28, 7 June 2011
Line 25:		Line 25:
	===How might these tests be run if one had quantitative evidence? ===		===How might these tests be run if one had quantitative evidence? ===
	===What problems might arise in this quantitative analysis?===		===What problems might arise in this quantitative analysis?===
−
−	~~==Empirical Questions: ==~~
−	~~=== What's the author's hypothesis? ===~~
−	~~=== How it is tested? ===~~
−	~~=== What do the tests achieve? ===~~
−	~~=== How could the tests be improved? ===~~
−	~~=== What are the tests' strengths and weaknesses? ===~~
−	~~=== Can you think of any alternative empirical tests?===~~

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ===What is the author's hypothesis? ===
-The author believes that local culture explains the difference and that differences in technology, management, worker training and inherent worker ability do not satisfy as explanations. Phrased another way, he believes that the "inefficiency of low wage labor" is responsible for the differences in productivity.
+The author believes that local culture explains the difference and that differences in technology, management, worker training and inherent worker ability do not satisfy as explanations.
 ===How does the author test the hypothesis? ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:01, 7 June 2011
Line 13:		Line 13:

	===How does the author rule out alternative hypotheses? ===		===How does the author rule out alternative hypotheses? ===
		+
		+	The author addresses a number of alternative hypotheses about why New England was so productive:
		+
		+	* Costs of labor: On page
		+
		+	* Technological:
		+	* Managerial differences: Some scholars believe that
		+	* Worker training
		+	* Inherent worker ability

	===How might these tests be run if one had quantitative evidence? ===		===How might these tests be run if one had quantitative evidence? ===