Вопросы теоретической экономики

Литература

1. Капелюшников Р.И. (2018). О современном состоянии экономической науки: полусоциологические наблюдения. // Куда движется современная экономическая наука? – М.: ИЭ РАН. С.8 – 33.
2. Кошовец А.Б. (2019). «Горизонтальный прогресс» экономической науки: между конструируемой реальностью и технонаукой. – М.: ИЭ РАН.
3. Либман А.М. (2008). Теоретические и эмпирические исследования в современной экономике: проблемы коммуникации // Вопросы экономики. № 6. С. 4-19.
4. Либман А.М. (2018). Эмпирические исследования в экономике: «Революция достоверности»? // Куда движется современная экономическая наука? – М.: ИЭ РАН. С.34 – 52.
5. Олейник А.Н. (2021). О возможных методологических основаниях прагматической экономической теории: Т. Байес и Дж. Дьюи // Вопросы теоретической экономики. №3. C. 34-51.
6. Соколов М.М. (2015). Социология как чудо. Процесс sence-building в одной академической дисциплине // Социология власти. T. 27. № 3. C. 13-57.
7. Andrews I., Kasy M. (2019). Identification of and correction for publication bias // American Economic Review. Vol. 109. No. 8. Pp. 2766-2794.
8. Angrist J.D., Krueger A.B. (2001). Instrumental variables and the search for identification: From supply and demand to natural experiments // Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 15. No. 4. Pp. 69-85.
9. Angrist J.D., Pischke J.S. (2010). The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics // Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 24. No. 2. Pp. 3-30.
10. Athey S., Imbens G.W. (2017). The state of applied econometrics: Causality and policy evaluation // Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 31. No. 2. Pp. 3-32.
11. Auspurg K., Brüderl J. (2021). Has the сredibility of the social sciences been credibly destroyed? Reanalyzing the “many analysts, one data set” project // Socius. Vol. 7. Pp. 1-14.
12. Auspurg K., Hinz T., Schneck A. (2014). Ausmaß und Risikofaktoren des Publication Bias in der deutschen Soziologie // Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Vol. 66. Issue 4. Pp. 549-573.
13. Baldassarri D., Abascal M. (2017). Field experiments across the social sciences // Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 43. Pp. 41-73.
14. Ball P. (2006). Econophysics: Culture crash // Nature. Vol. 441. Issue 7094. Pp. 686-689.
15. Bates R.H., Greif A., Levi M., Rosenthal J L., Weingast B.R. (1999). Analytic narratives – Princeton: Princeton University Press.
16. Bendassolli P.F. (2013). Theory building in qualitative research: Reconsidering the problem of induction // Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung. Vol. 14. No. 1. Pp. 1-20.
17. Berning C.C., Weiß B. (2016). Publication bias in the German social sciences: an application of the caliper test to three top-tier German social science journals // Quality & Quantity. Vol. 50. No. 2. Pp. 901-917.
18. Brodeur A., Cook N., Heyes A. (2020). Methods matter: P-hacking and publication bias in causal analysis in economics // American Economic Review. Vol. 110. No. 11. Pp. 3634-3660.
19. Calude C.S., Longo G. (2017). The deluge of spurious correlations in big data // Foundations of Science. Vol. 22. No. 3. Pp. 595-612.
20. Colander D. (1992). The lost art of economics. // Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 6. No. 3. Pp. 191-198.
21. De Long J.B., Lang K. (1992). Are all economic hypotheses false? // Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 100. No. 6. Pp. 1257-1272.
22. Deaton A., Cartwright N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials // Social Science & Medicine. Vol. 210. Pp. 2-21.
23. Du Plessis S. (2006). The miracle of the Septuagint and the promise of data mining in economics. Economic Working Paper 15/06: Stellenbosch University.
24. Dunning T. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: a design-based approach. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Duvendack M., Palmer-Jones R., Reed W.R. (2017). What is meant by "replication" and why does it encounter resistance in economics? // American Economic Review. Vol. 107. No. 5. Pp. 46-51.
26. Eisenhardt K.M., Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges // Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 50. No. 1. Pp. 25-32.
27. Fanelli D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data // PloS One. Vol. 5. Issue 4. Article e10271.
28. Fanelli D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries // Scientometrics. Vol. 90. No. 3. Pp. 891-904.
29. Foletti A., Fais S. (2019). Unexpected discoveries should be reconsidered in science—a look to the past? // International Journal of Molecular Science. Vol. 20. No. 16. Pp. 1-10.
30. Franco A., Malhotra N., Simonovits G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer // Science. Vol. 345. Issue 6203. Pp. 1502-1505.
31. Freese J., Peterson D. (2017). Replication in social science // Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 43. Pp. 147-165.
32. Gallen T., Raymond B. (2021). Broken instruments. – SSRN Working Paper.
33. Gehman J., Glaser V.L., Eisenhardt K.M., Gioia D., Langley A., Corley K.G. (2018). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building // Journal of Management Inquiry. Vol. 27. No. 3. Pp. 284-300.
34. Gelman A. (2011). Causality and statistical learning // American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 117. No. 3. Pp. 955-966.
35. Gelman A., Loken E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science: data-dependent analysis – a "garden of forking paths" - explains why many statistically significant comparisons don't hold up. // American Scientist. Vol. 102. No. 6. Pp. 460-466.
36. Gerber A.S., Malhotra N. (2008). Publication bias in empirical sociological research: Do arbitrary significance levels distort published results? // Sociological Methods & Research. Vol. 37. No. 1. Pp. 3-30.
37. Gerring, J. 2012. Mere description // British Journal of Political Science. Vol. 42. No. 4. Pp. 721-746.
38. Grunow M., Schneider H., Wagner G., Wagner J. (2018). Editorial // International Journal for Re-Views in Empirical Economics. Vol. 2. Pp. 1-6.
39. Hamermesh, D.S. (2007). Replication in economics // Canadian Journal of Economics. Vol. 40. No. 3. Pp. 715-733.
40. Humpfreys M. (2017). Political games: Mathematical insights on fighting, voting, lying and other affairs of state. – New York: Norton.
41. Ioannidis J.P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. // PLoS Medicine. Vol. 2. Issue 8: e124.
42. Karafillidis A. (2013). Erklärungen in rekursiven Verhältnissen // Zeitschrift für Theoretische Soziologie. Vol. 2. No. 2. Pp. 218-239.
43. Keynes J.M. (1940). On a method of statistical business-cycle research. A comment // Economic Journal. Vol. 50. Issue 197. Pp. 154-156.
44. King G. (1995). Replication, replication // PS: Political Science & Politics. Vol. 28. Issue 3. Pp. 444-452.
45. Krauss A. (2018). Why all randomised controlled trials produce biased results // Annals of Medicine. Vol. 50. No. 4. Pp. 312-322.
46. Krugman P. (1998). Two cheers for formalism // Economic Journal. Vol. 108. Issue. 451. Pp. 1829-1836.
47. Leamer E.E. (2010). Tantalus on the road to asymptopia // Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 24. No. 2. Pp. 31-46.
48. Leatherdale S.T. (2019). Natural experiment methodology for research: a review of how different methods can support real-world research // International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Vol. 22. No. 1. Pp. 19-35.
49. Lenz G.S., Sahn A. (2021). Achieving statistical significance with control variables and without transparency // Political Analysis. Vol. 29. No. 3. Pp. 356-369.
50. Libman A. (2018). Der lange Schatten der Vergangenheit: Historisches Erbe und quantitative Sozialwissenschaften // Osteuropa. Vol. 68. No. 6. Pp. 49-66.
51. Lieberman E.S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research // American Political Science Review. Vol. 99. No. 3. Pp. 435-452.
52. Loken E., Gelman A. (2017). Measurement error and the replication crisis // Science. Vol. 355. Issue 6325. Pp. 584-585.
53. Mankiw N.G. (2006). The macroeconomist as scientist and engineer // Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 20. No. 4. Pp. 29-46.
54. McCloskey D.N. (1985). The loss function has been mislaid: The rhetoric of significance tests // American Economic Review. Vol. 75. No. 2. Pp. 201-205.
55. Mellon J. (2021). Rain, rain, go away: 176 potential exclusion-restriction violations for studies using weather as an instrumental variable. – SSRN Working Paper.
56. Morgan S.L., Winship C. (2015). Counterfactuals and causal inference. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Muñoz J., Young C. (2018). We ran 9 billion regressions: Eliminating false positives through computational model robustness // Sociological Methodology. Vol. 48. No. 1. Pp. 1-33.
58. Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science // Science. Vol. 349. Issue 6251.
59. Pluckrose H., Lindsay J., Boghossian P. (2021). Understanding the “grievance studies affair” papers and why they should be reinstated: A response to Geoff Cole // Sociological Methods & Research. Forthcoming.
60. Ravallion M. (2020). Should the randomistas (continue to) rule? – National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 27554.
61. Rodrik D. (2008). The new development economics: We shall experiment, but how shall we learn? – HKS Working Paper No. RWP08-055.
62. Rosenthal R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results // Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 86. No. 3. Pp. 638-641.
63. Rosenzweig M.R., Wolpin K.I. (2000). Natural "natural experiments" in economics // Journal of Economic Literature. Vol. 38. No. 4. Pp. 827-874.
64. Roth A.E. (2002). The economist as engineer: Game theory, experimentation, and computation as tools for design economics // Econometrica. Vol. 70. No. 4. Pp. 1341-1378.
65. Rubinstein A. (2006). Dilemmas of an economic theorist // Econometrica. Vol. 74. No. 4. Pp. 865-883.
66. Sala-i-Martin X. (1997). I just ran two million regressions // American Economic Review. Vol. 87. No. 2. Pp. 178-183.
67. Samii C. (2016). Causal empiricism in quantitative research // Journal of Politics. Vol. 78. Issue 3. Pp. 941-955.
68. Schumpeter J. (1933). The common sense of econometrics // Econometrica. Vol. 1. No. 1. Pp. 5-12.
69. Sekhon J.S., Titiunik R. (2012). When natural experiments are neither natural nor experiments // American Political Science Review. Vol. 106. No. 1. Pp. 35-57.
70. Shadish W.R. (1995). The logic of generalization: Five principles common to experiments and ethnographies // American Journal of Community Psychology. Vol. 23. No. 3. Pp. 419-428.
71. Shrout P.E., Rodgers J.L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis // Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 69. Pp. 487-510.
72. Silberzahn R., Uhlmann E.L., Martin D.P., Anselmi P., Aust F., Awtrey E., et al. (2018). Many analysts, one data set: Making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results // Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. Vol. 1. No. 3. Pp. 337-356.
73. Simonsohn U., Simmons J.P., Nelson L.D. (2019). Specification curve: Descriptive and inferential statistics on all reasonable specifications. – SSRN Working Paper.
74. Sims C.A. (2010). But economics is not an experimental science // Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 24. No. 2. Pp. 59-68.
75. Smith G., Cordes J. (2020). The phantom pattern problem: The mirage of big data. – Oxford: Oxford University Press.
76. Sovey A.J., Green D.P. (2011). Instrumental variables estimation in political science: A readers’ guide // American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 55. Issue 1. Pp. 188-200.
77. Spanos A. (2000). Revisiting data mining: ‘hunting’ with or without a license // Journal of Economic Methodology. Vol. 7. No. 2. Pp. 231-264.
78. Su H.C., Colander D. (2021). The economist as scientist, engineer, or plumber? // Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Vol. 43. No. 2. Pp. 297-312.
79. Uhlig H. (2012). Economics and reality // Journal of Macroeconomics. Vol. 34. No. 1. Pp. 29-41.
80. von Eye A., Losel F., Mayzer R. (2003). Is it all written in the stars? A methodological commentary on Sachs' astrology monograph and re-analyses of his data on crime statistics // Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling. Vol. 45. No. 1. Pp. 78-91.
81. Young C. (2009). Model uncertainty in sociological research: An application to religion and economic growth // American Sociological Review. Vol. 74. Issue 3. Pp. 380-397.
82. Young C., Holsteen K. (2017). Model uncertainty and robustness: A computational framework for multimodel analysis // Sociological Methods & Research. Vol. 46. No. 1. Pp. 3-40.