Better LATE Than Nothing: Some Comments on Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009)
回应Deaton (2009)与Heckman和Urzua (2009)对实验和准实验方法的批评，认为这些方法提升了经济学实证研究的可信度，并讨论了其他相关问题。
Two recent papers, Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009), argue against what they see as an excessive and inappropriate use of experimental and quasi-experimental methods in empirical work in economics in the last decade. They specifically question the increased use of instrumental variables and natural experiments in labor economics and of randomized experiments in development economics. In these comments, I will make the case that this move toward shoring up the internal validity of estimates, and toward clarifying the description of the population these estimates are relevant for, has been important and beneficial in increasing the credibility of empirical work in economics. I also address some other concerns raised by the Deaton and Heckman–Urzua papers.