Tracking the Credibility Revolution across Fields

TL;DR

This paper examines the evolution of credibility-enhancing research methods across various fields, highlighting the rise of difference-in-differences and experimental approaches, with notable growth in finance and macroeconomics since 2002.

Contribution

It provides an updated analysis of methodological trends in credibility research across multiple disciplines using recent NBER working papers.

Findings

Difference-in-differences grew more than other methods since 2002.

Finance and macroeconomics show increased use of experimental and quasi-experimental methods.

Bartik and shift-share instruments have grown significantly across fields.

Abstract

This paper updates Currie, Kleven, and Zwiers (2020) by examining the credibility revolution across fields, including finance and macroeconomics, using NBER working papers up to May 2024. While the growth in terms related to identification and research designs have continued, finance and macroeconomics have lagged behind applied micro. Difference-in-differences and regression discontinuity designs have risen since 2002, but the growth in difference-in-difference has been larger, more persistent, and more ubiquitous. In contrast, instrumental variables have stayed flat over this period. Finance and macro, particularly corporate finance, has experienced significant growth in mentions of experimental and quasi-experimental methods and identification over this time period, but a large component of the credibility revolution in finance is due to difference-in-differences. Bartik and shift-share instruments have grown across all fields, with the most pronounced growth in international trade and investment, economic history, and labor studies. Synthetic control has not seen continued growth, and has fallen since 2020.