The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics

TLDR

The credibility revolution in empirical microeconomics began with Leamer’s 1983 critique, showing that robust research designs—especially random assignment—enhance credibility, though critics warn that prioritizing design may favor answers over questions. The authors contend that the primary driver of this revolution is a heightened focus on high‑quality empirical research designs, and they examine the view that this emphasis may have swung too far. They review Leamer’s critique, identify key contributors such as improved data, advanced econometric theory, and a central role for research design, and note that progress is less pronounced in macroeconomics and industrial organization. They respond to the concern that design emphasis is excessive, concluding that it poses little worry.

Abstract

Since Edward Leamer's memorable 1983 paper, “Let's Take the Con out of Econometrics,” empirical microeconomics has experienced a credibility revolution. While Leamer's suggested remedy, sensitivity analysis, has played a role in this, we argue that the primary engine driving improvement has been a focus on the quality of empirical research designs. The advantages of a good research design are perhaps most easily apparent in research using random assignment. We begin with an overview of Leamer's 1983 critique and his proposed remedies. We then turn to the key factors we see contributing to improved empirical work, including the availability of more and better data, along with advances in theoretical econometric understanding, but especially the fact that research design has moved front and center in much of empirical micro. We offer a brief digression into macroeconomics and industrial organization, where progress—by our lights—is less dramatic, although there is work in both fields that we find encouraging. Finally, we discuss the view that the design pendulum has swung too far. Critics of design-driven studies argue that in pursuit of clean and credible research designs, researchers seek good answers instead of good questions. We briefly respond to this concern, which worries us little.