The Mixtape with Scott

Podcast interviewI’m going to drop this week’s podcast a day early because Dr. Abadie’s doing a workshop for Mixtape Sessions later this week, and thought it would be better to just give everyone a headsup about it and bundle it with this interview too. Dr. Abadie has had a major influence on me. In 2009, I began studying the legalization of indoor sex work on public health and violence against women, a paper that would land me my first Top 5 publication with Manisha Shah, and from the start I decided to use synthetic control to do it. We were one of the early adopters in fact, and I entered into a long pen pal conversation with Alberto over the years. I asked if I could do the “real podcast interview” with him, the one that’s more of the “oral history of economics; personal stories of economists” and he agreed. (He did a shorter non-themed one abt synth last year for me for a substack I was writing abt synth). So I’m super excited and honored to have a chance to interview Dr Alberto Abadie again on the podcast. And I hope you like it.Dr. Abadie is at MIT. Before MIT, he was a professor in Harvard Kennedy School where I once heard he got a standing ovation after a lecture on econometrics. The number of econometricians teaching econometrics to non-econometricians who have gotten standing ovations is a very small set is my hunch; we all are trying to nail it, but few get it. He was one of the best speakers for me when I first saw him speak at the Northwestern causal inference workshop a decade ago (which I’m co-directing again this year with Bernie Black for those interested — here for main, here for advanced). His work spans a lot of topics. He did his doctorate at MIT under Josh Angrist in the 1990s, and then moved into a collaboration with both Josh as well as Guido Imbens with whom he wrote a series of very nice papers on inexact matching. One in econometrica 2006 where they worked out the large sample properties of the method under repeated “matching with replacement”. And another where they worked out a method for using regression adjustment to reduce the bias from inexact matching in a 2011 JASA. I’ve written about both on the substack and they’re great. Over the years, I have come to love them.The inexact matching method finds matches that minimizes the sum of squared matching discrepancies across all confounders, which is a similar objective function to synth which finds weights on donor pool units (as opposed to M:1 matching). Both methods are imputation methods — using comparison groups to impute missing counterfactuals, only one of them builds on unconfoundedness (matching) and the other on a factor model (synthetic control). Both matching and synth have been very influential, but matching predates Alberto by decades going back to the Rubin and Cochrane in the 1970s and 1960s. Alberto, on the other hand, is the author of synthetic control with Gardazebeal in a 2003 American Economic Review article studying the effect of terrorism in Basque Country on economic variables, like GDP. And it has been used now many times, including my study of sex work. But he’s done more than that. He’s done work on complier analysis in instrumental variables, a topic that I am noticing becoming more common nowadays with advances made on the leniency design, as well as his new work on clustering under sampling versus design based concepts of uncertainty. He’s a great one, and I hope you like this interview. Here’s the video:Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Hello Substack readers,I'm excited to share with you the insights from my latest podcast episode, where I had the incredible opportunity to interview Yale professor and renowned economist Steven Berry. In this week's edition, we will:* Introduce you to our esteemed guest, Steven Berry* Delve into the groundbreaking BLP model* Recap the fascinating conversation we hadMeet Steven BerrySteven Berry is the David Swensen Professor of Economics at Yale University, winner of the 1996 Frisch Medal, and a leading figure in the fields of econometrics and industrial organization. With a life that started in the Midwest, Berry's journey into economics was marked by his love for science fiction and the brilliant faculty he studied with at the University of Wisconsin, such as Chuck Manski, Gary Chamberlain, Art Goldberger, John Rust, and many others.The BLP ModelOne of Berry's most significant contributions to the field of economics is the "BLP" model, developed alongside James Levinsohn and Ariel Pakes. Their 1995 Econometrica paper, "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," has had a profound impact on industrial organization and real-world applications.The BLP model offers a powerful tool for understanding demand in various competitive environments, helping both private companies and public policymakers make better decisions. You can find a link to the BLP paper here.Our Conversation with Steven BerryDuring our interview, we explored Berry's life and his experiences in economics. From his early days in the Midwest to his time at Wisconsin and beyond, we delved into the stories and influences that shaped his career. Berry shared his thoughts on the development and real-world applications of the BLP model, as well as his views on the future of industrial organization and econometrics.Our conversation with Berry was a fascinating journey through his life and the evolution of economics over the past few decades. For those who are interested in the intersection of econometrics and industrial organization, or simply curious about the personal stories of an influential economist, this interview is a must-listen.Don't miss the full conversation on this week's episode of the Mixtape with Scott podcast, available on your favorite podcast platform. And as always, be sure to like, share, and subscribe to the podcast, and stay tuned for more "explainers" on econometrics in my Substack.Until next time,Scott CunninghamScott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Dear Mixtape with Scott listeners,We are pleased to announce the release of our latest podcast episode, featuring an insightful conversation with Jon Roth, an exceptionally talented young econometrician from Brown University. With only three years since graduating, Jon has already made significant contributions to the field of econometrics, publishing high-profile papers on difference-in-differences in esteemed outlets such as Econometrica, Review of Economic Studies, and AER: Insights. Moreover, he has authored a timely literature review on differential timing and has an R&R at JPE: Micro on staggered rollout. In short, he has hit the ground running with many papers that no doubt will be finding their way into all of our papers soon, if they haven’t already.In this episode, Jon shares his journey, from growing up in Massachusetts to discovering his passion for economics. He speaks candidly about how his father's accomplishments as a theoretical physicist led him to believe that his potential might lie more in applied labor economics. However, through a series of events, Jon found himself drawn to econometrics, ultimately excelling in the field.We also discussed Jon's love of sports, his transition from solving problem sets to producing research, and his experience navigating the job market over three years, as he honed his professional identity.As a special opportunity for our listeners, Jon Roth will be teaching an exclusive workshop on the Mixtape Sessions platform on Friday, April 21st, starting at 9 am EST. Don't miss the chance to learn from one of the brightest minds in the field, as he covers much of his own work and more.Join me, your host Scott Cunningham, as we dive into the life and work of Jon Roth in this engaging episode of Mixtape with Scott. We hope you enjoy the conversation as much as we did. Youtube video below. As always, we appreciate your support for Mixtape with Scott. If you enjoy our podcast and want to get even more from our community, consider becoming a paying subscriber to our Substack. I am working hard on trying to provide exclusive value for all paying subscribers, so stay tuned. For now it’s just the warm glow you’ll get from knowing you’re contributing!If you haven't already, please take a moment to share this episode with your friends, colleagues, and anyone you think would enjoy it. Your recommendations are incredibly valuable and help us grow our audience. Remember to also like, follow, and subscribe to Mixtape with Scott on your preferred podcast platform to stay updated on our latest episodes. And leave us a review on Spotify or Apple; those always help.Thank you for being a part of our journey as we continue to explore the fascinating stories of the people shaping the world of economics. We look forward to sharing more thought-provoking conversations with you.Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

This week’s episode is an interview with Joseph Doyle. Joe is the Erwin H. Schell Professor of Management and Applied Economics at the MIT Sloan School of Management who has had a distinguished career as a labor economist studying a range of topics that most outside of economics do not always associate with the field — like child welfare and foster care, juvenile incarceration and its effect on high school completion and adult incarceration, and more. The welfare of children, as it turns out, has been a longstanding research focus of Dr. Doyle’s, and because I’ve written on foster care myself, and because his paper with Anna Aizer study the causal effect that juvenile incarceration has on high school completion and adult incarceration is one of my favorite applied papers ever written by economists, I have constantly gravitated back to him and his work. Dr. Doyle someone I’ve always looked up to for a variety of reasons, not just topics, but also his ingenious approaches to identification of causal effects outside the purely randomized controlled trial. After all, no one would ever entertain the possibility of randomly assigning children to incarceration even if the question of what effect it has on life outcomes is of supreme importance. And so we are dependent on the work of people like Dr. Doyle who care about the topic too, but also have the skill and seriousness of mind and heart to develop plausible strategies to answer the question — not because the methods are cute, but because the question is so vital and important that it begs to be answered. I enjoyed this hour with Dr. Doyle, and hope you do too. Please remember to share, subscribe and like the episode!And apologies the video below is messed up; I got a new computer and the Zoom wasn’t working right. So unlike usually seeing us side by side, it’s one person at a time. And I am off on naming the order of episodes — this is episode 8, not 10. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this week’s podcast episode, The Mixtape with Scott, I am interviewing Paul Oyer. Paul Oyer is a labor economist at Stanford University and author of several books, including "Everything I Needed to Know about Economics I learned from Online Dating", which is one of my favorite "popular general interest books explaining what economics is", as well as "An Economist Goes to the Game" which is about sports and economics. Links below for both. He's a fun, funny and interesting guy whose work in labor economics and personnel economics follows many of my own interests -- how firms hire, what they pay, discrimination, and platforms, just to name a few. I had a lot of fun interviewing Paul and hope you like it too. Thanks for your support, but I welcome even more of it by becoming a subscriber! And of course share this with you friends, family, loved ones, and especially those people you hate. Really rub it in their face with how good your taste in podcasts is.Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this week's episode of the Mixtape with Scott, I interviewed Mike Luca, the Lee J. Styslinger III Associate Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. Mike studies a variety of topics of high relevance to the underlying economic organization of the online sector, such as the design of online platforms, applied causal inference and data science. More to the point, his research helps organizations consume data or all types and produce insights that help them become more informed and about managerial obstacles and solutions. He is also the coauthor of "The Power of Experiments: Decision-Making in a Data Driven World" with Max Bazerman. This is part of my longer series on what I’m calling "economists in tech", which includes my interviews with:* Susan Athey (first chief economist at Microsoft, John Bates Clark award winner, and much more)* Michael Schwarz (current Microsoft chief economist), * John List (former chief economists at Uber and Lyft), * Chris Nosko (VP Head of Science and Analytics at Uber), * Kyle Kretschman (Head of Economics at Spotify),* Ronnie Kohavi (computer scientist with a long career in tech spanning decades, early promoter of A/B testing)This series is, I hope, particularly relevant to those PhD economists and adjacent workers, like data scientists and machine learners, within tech, but also those outside of tech wanting to learn more about the long story of the demand for and supply of PhD economists in tech — which I consider to be the result of a very disruptive, particularly important, technological shift that increased the value of the work that PhD economists do and can do, causing a long march of PhD economists into industry (which is likely to continue growing for a while). Which is itself part of my long term project to collect interviews that when pieced together in the longrun help tell at least a small sliver of the oral history of the last 50 years of economists across many disciplines, many parts of the world, many types of work, many departments, and beneath many influential watershed people and movements that I consider to be particularly interesting (to me). But in many ways, the oral history element, while meaningful to me, is also a convenient hook for me to listen to and help broadcast the personal stories of real people. Real people matter, and their stories matter, not because of how they connect to some larger thing, but as people in and of themselves. And as I say often at the start of each podcast, I am firmly in the camp of those who believe that we navigate our own historical lives through stories, and for many of us, that includes the personal stories of others. These stories, as I call them, function as models that help us understand ourselves as well as compasses as we try to plot out where we are in our journeys, and inform our decision making under uncertainty as we try to navigate our lives in a way that is consistent with our values and help us find our place in society. So thanks for tuning in! I hope you find this interview with Mike illuminating. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Opening music by Wes Cunningham. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

What a pleasure it is this week to introduce my guest on the Mixtape with Scott, Dr. Pedro Sant’Anna. Had you asked me a few years ago the likelihood I’d make such a good new friend this late in life, I would not have guessed it, but from countless conversations on social media, and even more in DM on our Slack channel with two other close friends, Pedro Sant’Anna has become one of my favorite people in life. A constantly upbeat, friendly, energetic man, patient to a fault to explain every single detail of econometrics, and enjoying himself as does so, he is one of the best in the profession. He is as many of you know one of the half dozen important young econometricians that have made major contributions to the difference-in-differences research design. His productivity is intense so I can’t name them all, but the two I know best, almost by heart, are:* Callaway and Sant’Anna (2021), “Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods” Journal of Econometrics* Sant’Anna and Zhou (2020), “Doubly-robust difference-in-differences estimators”, Journal of EconometricsThe first one has over 2000 cites and it was only published a little over a year ago. He also has an Econometrica with Jon Roth on issues related to functional form and parallel trends in diff-in-diff and a review article (also with Jon Roth, but also with John Poe and Alyssa Bilinski) for anyone who wants to in one stop learn everything you need to know about diff-in-diff. In this mixtape episode, though, we learn more than just his papers. Pedro shares his story with me. I hope you like it and I hope as always you come to value both his story, but also the contemporary ongoing series I’m doing on the many stories of economists. Because to quote, Sue Johnson:“We use stories to make sense of our lives. And we use stories as models to guide us in the future. We shape stories, and then stories shape us.”Consider subscribing, sharing and possibly even supporting the substack as I continue to try and accumulate enough stories of living economists that we have those stories to help us make sense of our lives, but also an oral history of the profession. Thank you again for your support! Youtube below!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

This week’s episode of the Mixtape with Scott is a little out of order. Season two’s episodes are going to be a little out of order, based on what feels like the best next episode to present at that time. So I decided after doing my interview with University of Arizona professor of economics, Hide Ichimura, that I wanted to release it because I had such a delightful time talking with him. Dr. Ichimura is an econometrician whose work I’ve gotten to know more recently because it’s been experiencing a little bit of a revival (though it’s always remained very popular over the years) within the difference-in-differences literature thanks, in part, to the Sant’anna and Zhao (2020) Journal of Econometrics on robust diff-in-diff, Callaway and Sant’anna (2021) paper on differential timing, and in many ways, other papers that conduct certain kinds of imputations and estimations that are similar in spirit like Borusyak, et al’s (2022) robust efficient imputation estimator, and even Abadie and Imbens (2011) selection bias adjustment method if you squint your eyes. I had a wonderful experience talking with Dr. Ichimura today. This is sort of part of my broader interest, as I say in the intro, in interviewing econometricians who were active in the 1990s working on topics in causal inference, and to that end, I had in mine two Restuds by Dr. Ichimura with Heckman and Todd (1997) and a 1998 one in Restud also by Heckman and Todd (and the identical title!!), both on program evaluation. But I also just in general wanted to hear his story, and I’m so glad I did and that he would share it. At the end of the episode, I asked him to share with me a paper that, maybe isn’t his favorite, but that has always stuck in his mind. He shared with me Stephen Nickell’s 1979 article in Econometrica entitled “Estimating the Probability of Leaving Unemployment”. As always, opening introduction music is by Wes Cunningham (no relation).And don’t forget to subscribe, share and maybe even support this! This podcast is subsidized by your donations and my workshops! Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this week’s interview on the Mixtape with Scott, I had the pleasure of interviewing Clair Brown, a labor economist at the University of California - Berkeley. Dr. Brown’s career has spanned several topics like discrimination, industrial economics, and climate. Dr. Brown’s late career has made several turns into environmental economics, particularly climate, but also a re-envisioning of the field of economics with her book Buddhist Economics. Dr. Brown’s work has always focused on issues around welfare that are often massaged out of her models, like meaning, community and fairness in labor markets. I thoroughly enjoyed our time together, and I hope you find it interesting too. Please remember to subscribe and share!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Time for a new podcast episode! In this week’s episode, I have the pleasure of sitting down with Dr. Beatrice Cherrier, a widely recognized expert in the history of economic thought, and one of my personal favorite economists around. Beatrice is an associate professor of economics at the Center for Research in Economics and Statistics in France. She is a font of wisdom and insight about more parts of the field of economics than is found in most people who specialize in even one of those areas. But she is also a very endearing person and a pleasure to talk to, and I hope you enjoy this interview. Please remember to share and subscribe! Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this week’s episode of The Mixtape with Scott, I introduce you to the one and only, Dan Hamermesh. Dan is professor emeritus now at the University of Texas where he spent the last part of his career. He’s part of the story of Princeton that I’ve been interested in telling, as he was there from 1969 to 1973 before heading to Michigan State where he was until 1993. He then went down the street from me to Austin at University of Texas until 2014. Dan did his undergraduate in economics from the University of Chicago where he got to see some of the big labor economists of that era up close, like H. Gregg Lewis, who was also Gary Becker’s adviser. It was really interesting to hear Dan’s impressions of Lewis; for the first time, I wondered if all of the ethos and worldview we associate with Becker (“thinking like an economist” where economics was “everywhere”) might in fact be attributable to Lewis, even though Lewis was in many ways a traditional labor economist, and you could say Becker was a bit more nontraditional since he took economics in an imperialistic fashion into areas like the family and discrimination, among others. Dan provides some interesting perspective.Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Dan has been a premier labor economist his entire life, and is an important part of the story of labor and empirical micro of the last quarter of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st century. An unusually productive economist who blended well the price theory of Chicago with contemporary empiricism that we closely associate with labor economics in general. A very funny and energetic man, he is also one of those you tend to say “they’ve forgotten more economics than I’ll ever know”. I thoroughly enjoyed talking with Dan, but I always do. So please welcome MC Hammer himself, Dan Hamermesh. Opening music credits: Wes Cunningham Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Season two of the Mixtape with Scott is up and boy do I have a dynamite first guest. None other than the man himself, Dr. Jeffrey Wooldridge! Jeff, as I say in the opening, is the author of two phenomenally popular books (here, here and here’s the solutions) in econometrics that has raised an entire generation of economists. We have a great conversation about his life and career and I hope you enjoy it!Expect new episodes every Tuesday morning. Thanks to my good friend, Wes Cunningham (no relation), for the amazing opener music he made for me — it’s perfect. And thanks to Arslan Yaqoob who set the music to the awesome montage of last season’s guests and has been producing them for me this entire time. Check out the YouTube video below if you enjoy watching more than listening. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

My guest this week on the podcast is Phillip Levine, the Katharine Coman and A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Economics at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. I’ve only personally met Phil once — at a conference on the family many years ago and just briefly. But I have been a huge admirer of him for many reasons for a long time, ever since graduate school, and I wanted to interview him for a lot of reasons. First, he attended Princeton in the 1980s at that heady time when Orley, Card, Krueger, Angrist and so many others were there. The birth place of the credibility revolution is arguably the Princeton’s Industrial Relations Section where a shift in empirical labor took place that eventually ran through the entire profession and placed it on a new equilibrium. Phil was there, colleagues and students with those people, and himself part of that “first generation” of labor economists who thought that way and did work that way and I wanted to hear about his life and how it passed through, like a river bending and turning, the Firestone library and beyond. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.But I also have a special interest in Phil. I actually first learned difference-in-differences from a book that Phil wrote on abortion policy entitled Sex and Consequences (Princeton University Press). I graduated from the University of Georgia in 2007, but the job market had started in 2006, and around the spring when I had accepted my job at Baylor, I was finishing my dissertation. I had one chapter left and it was going to be an extension of Donohue and Levitt’s abortion-crime hypothesis to the study of gonorrhea. My reasoning was that if abortion legalization had so dramatically changed a cohort by selecting on individuals who would have grown up to commit crimes, then it should show up in other areas too. My argument was relatively straightforward and I’ll just quote it here from the article I later published with Chris Cornwell in the 2012 American Law and Economics Review.“The characteristics of the marginal (unborn) child could explain risky sexual behavior that leads to disease transmission. For example, Gruber et al. (1999) show that the child who would have been born had abortion remained outlawed was 60% more likely to live in a single-parent household. Being raised by a single parent is a strong predictor of earlier sexual activity and unprotected sex, evidenced by the higher rates of teenage pregnancy among the poor.”It’s funny the order in which things go. I think I somewhat understood what I was doing because I already had planned to do my study before reading Phil’s book. I was going to use the early repeal of abortion in 1969/1970 in five states (California and New York being two of them) followed by the 1973 Roe v. Wade as this staggered natural experiment to see whether abortion legalization led to a drop in gonorrhea a generation later. I had adapted a graph I’d seen by Bill Evans to illustrate how the staggering of the roll out would lead a visual “wave” of declines in gonorrhea in the repeal stages among an emerging cohort that would last briefly until the Roe cohort entered. Visually, I believed you should see a drop in gonorrhea for 15yo starting in 1986 that would get deeper until 1988, flatten, and then disappear completely by 1992. The design for this idea came from a paper I just linked to above — by Phil Levine. It was entitled “Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who is the “Marginal Child”?” coauthored with Doug Staiger and Jon Gruber, published in the 1999 QJE. It came out two years before Donohue and Levitt’s 2001 QJE on abortion and crime and arguably really set the stage for that paper. The two papers are very different — Phil, Staiger and Gruber are looking at who was aborted using instrumental variables with the five “repeal states” as the instrument. The abstract is worth reading:“Cohorts born after legalized abortion experienced a significant reduction in a number of adverse outcomes. We find that the marginal child would have been 40–60 percent more likely to live in a single-parent family, to live in poverty, to receive welfare, and to die as an infant.” They used, in other words, instrumental variables whereas Donohue and Levitt used a lagged abortion ratio measure, if I recall correctly. Phil’s paper really struck me as the more credible design at that time because the staggering of legalization gave such precise predictions — something about the timing, something about the location. It just really haunted me for a long time.Well, while I was preparing for that project, reading the literature on the economics of abortion, continuing my ongoing interest in the economics of sexual behavior, Phil has a chapter where he sets up for the reader a table explaining something called “difference-in-differences”. While econometrics was my field, I couldn’t recall hearing what

Chris Nosko is a PhD economist. He did his PhD in economics at Harvard in the mid 2010s before going to Chicago Booth take a job as an assistant professor. But for a year prior to taking that job, between Harvard and Chicago, he did a postdoc fellowship at eBay where he, Thomas Blake and Steve Tadelis met and worked together on a project involved a serendipitous event at the company in which eBay quit paying for branded key words (e.g., “eBay Volvo decals”, “eBay typewriters”) on some but not all search engine auctions. They asked for the data on traffic to the site before and after eBay quit paying for branded keywords for all search engines (both those they kept paying and those they didn’t), ran a simple event study diff-in-diff and found evidence that search engine marketing at eBay was perhaps not causing increased traffic to the site. They convinced management to field a large RCT which confirmed their diff-in-diff results, and that study was published in Econometrica. Not a shabby way to start a career as an economist. For many of us, a PhD in economics from Harvard, a successful partnership with eBay resulting in a study destined for a Top 5 and a tenure track job at Chicago Booth meant staying at Booth and having a career as an academic. No one outrightly says that the only meaningful life you can have as an economist is to be an academic, as it’s vulgar, opinionated and obviously false to talk that way about how someone else should live their life, but the norms are pretty powerful nonetheless. Well, starting around the time that Chris got his job at Booth, tech began experiencing a surge in hiring of PhD economists, largely driven by Amazon’s nearly insatiable appetite for them. Talking with people at Amazon, I have learned that behind this push was Pat Bajari, and behind Pat Bajari was Jeff Bezos who had long believed economics, and economists more specifically, had unique value. As Susan Athey said to me, though, in an interview earlier, Bajari though had to do pull a rabbit out of a hat. Whereas the first wave of economists to tech — people like Hal Varian, Susan Athey, Preston McAfee — had largely been micro theorists helping craft the foundations of a business model through auctions and advertising that would support search engines, arguably the core arteries of the internet itself — Bajari would have the task of bringing in young people, fresh out of grad school, and in Athey’s words, make them productive. And one of the people Bajari would ultimately tap do that was Chris Nosko, an assistant professor at Chicago Booth and someone trained in structural industrial organization, one of the economics’ more interesting experiments of fusing deep microeconomic theory with econometric estimation. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Nosko was a Ariel Pakes student at Harvard and was well versed in so many different parts of economics and modern technology that it almost seems predestined that he would ultimately leave Chicago Booth permanently and go to Amazon when Bajari finally convinced him to, but that’s all selection on the dependent variable reasoning. When we look back in time at decisions we made, our mind tends to forget that there was a moment when we could’ve gone left instead of right. The same with Chris — there was a decision that had to be made to leave a career as an academic. The decision materialized into what it materialized, but to pretend it was easy, or that it didn’t have risk, or that Chris didn’t try to manage that risk in some ways is really unfair to our earlier selves or even our future selves who are in situations facing, not probabilistic risk but more like Knightian uncertainty in which no one truly has a clue what possibly could happen. But Chris did leave. Sort of. He took “a leave of absence” from Booth in 2015 and took a job at Amazon, then permanently left Booth in 2016. He spent four years at Amazon before leaving for Uber, one of the more impressive firms to ever exist for creating an actual open marketplace solving two sided matching problems through algorithms and prices. Algorithms, prices and rules — three ways, no doubt there are others, in which modern economies coordinate productive activity. Is it really so surprising that economics might be valued by tech firms given the complex coordination they try to solve using all three?Thank you for reading Scott's Substack. This post is public so feel free to share it.Chris has been at Uber for four years. He is now Vice President and Head of Science and Analytics for Uber Product there. Within tech, economists sort into tons of different jobs with titles that to an academic don’t make a ton of sense — just like so much of what academics’ lives takes place within administrative units that make little sense to anyone else. If Chris isn’t the chief economist, though, at Uber, I figure he’s probably up there. And

** THE EARLIER PODCAST WAS MISSING TEN MINUTES SO I HAD TO REPOST **Brigham Frandsen is a professor at BYU’s economics program. He did his undergrad at BYU double majoring in physics and economics where he coauthored two articles — one in physics on lasers, one on the distribution of income with his professor, the famed James McDonald. In this interview, we discuss a lot of things about his life, BYU’s own production function at producing future economists through careful and intensive mentoring of undergraduates, his time at MIT where he worked with Josh Angrist, and his own research as a labor economist and applied econometrician. I found this to be a really enjoyable talk as I learned more about topics I really wasn’t expecting to learn about. I think one of the themes I see emerging in econometrics over the last few decades that is now becoming a little more salient to me as time passes is the issue of heterogenous treatment effects. Heterogenous treatment effects for instance is at the core of the local average treatment effect literature that Angrist and Imbens were involved in (as well as others at the time). You see it too in the problems with twoway fixed effects and difference-in-differences with staggered adoption. And it’s in Brigham’s work too — from his earliest paper with James McDonald on income distribution, to his newer work with Lars Lefgren on bounds. I think when the story is written, we will see that this heterogeneity and selection have been focal points for econometricians and applied researchers and Brigham will be one of many people I think who helped pushed that forward.If you want to learn more from Brigham, you can though — he’s teaching a workshop on machine learning and causal inference at Mixtape Sessions Oct 27-28. You’ll get to pick up some python probably while you’re at it — a twofer!Thanks for tuning in for the podcast. Apologies for the double posting on this — apparently my software refused to convert the MP4 video to more than 45 minutes no matter what I did. But I have a new workflow and it won’t happen again. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Background stuff about causal inference Josh Angrist once quipped (on my podcast!) that a paper he wishes he had written was written by his classmate, Bob LaLonde. It was LaLonde’s job market paper, later published in the AER, that arguably helped bring to broader attention some of the empirical problems around causal inference within applied labor at the time. It was very ingenious too. LaLonde took a job trainings program conducted as an RCT, showed that the causal effect of the program was around $800-900, then dropped the experimental control group. He then pulled in six datasets from nationally representative surveys of Americans (3 from Current Population Survey, 3 from Panel Survey Income Dynamics). He reran the analysis with and without covariates adjustment. Not surprising to modern readers, the estimates were severely biased. Not only were the magnitudes off, most of the time the results showed a negative result. This is noteworthy mainly because of the RCT because the RCT established the ground truth of the trainings program — the truth was the program caused an average return of $800-900. So if using typical methods couldn’t even get close to that — well, that’s a problem. And they didn’t, and one more spark of many sparks that lit the fuse that became the credibility revolution occurred. LaLonde’s paper was published in 1986. Angrist would graduate in 1989 and take a job at Harvard where he’d meet Guido Imbens. During the time together at Harvard in the 1990s, Imbens and Angrist would meet with Don Rubin, the head of the stats department, and between the three of them, several breakthrough contributions to instrumental variables were born. Rajeev Dehejia Revisits LalondeIn the midst of this time were Angrist, Imbens and Rubin were all at Harvard, there was a young graduate student in the economics department named Rajeev Dehejia. Rubin and Imbens one semester co taught an innovative new class on causal inference and Rajeev was one of the students who took it that year. Together with his classmate, Sadek Wahba, the two students decided after the class concluded to not so much replicate Lalonde, but rather extend the analysis using the more up-to-date methods learned from Imbens and Rubin. They chose the propensity score and published two papers reevaluating the Lalonde data — one in 1999 JASA and one in 2002 Restat. The propensity score analysis ultimately did much better than what Lalonde’s analysis had done. A lot of gains were made simply from recognizing the serious common support violations rampant in all six of those datasets. One value of the propensity score is, after all, the dimension reduction you get from taking for instance 10 variables and collapsing into one scalar (the propensity score). Once they did, they saw how bad the negative selection was. A huge number of people on the non experimental controls had propensity scores with so many zeroes after the decimal it was like the data was saying “these people in the CPS wouldn’t appear in that treatment group in a million years!”That’s how I knew of Dehejia for years — the author of two papers showing that propensity score analysis might have promise for program evaluation with deep negative selection baked into the data. I saw him as one of the earliest researchers in the broader credibility revolution trained by that next wave of people connected to Princeton Industrial Relations Section like Angrist as well as Imbens and Rubin who began reshaping our applied practices in paper after paper. So it is a great pleasure to introduce him to you this week in my podcast The Mixtape with Scott. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Shoshana Grossbard, Economist, Professor, Editor, Becker’s StudentI recently volunteered to teach a new class on the history of economic thought and it has been profoundly rewarding for me. I love economics but I also love the stories of its players, my tribe, the economists. This person critiquing that person, this idea twisting around that other persons idea. The idea I might get paid to study people like Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus? Pinch me — I must be dreaming. What’s been interesting to me is how much I recognize. Even though I have never read Malthus theory of gluts before, it’s somehow eerily familiar. But it’s more than just seeing the traces of later theories in these early writers. Reading history is also helping reframe the broad story of economics itself — the story of capitalism, its tensions, the conflicts between people, the appropriation and division of surplus, and the organization accomplished through markets and exchange. Reading history helps makes sense of me and others when I see the full sweep of the times and the debates. But some people are remembered, some people aren’t. Some ideas were dropped and some hung around. Sometimes they were omitted because the theories while useful and intriguing explanations then were not as useful as another explanation that would replace it. That process of what we remember and what we forget happens at all levels, big and small, and it too is part of the story of economics in a way. This idea that now long gone economists were once in their offices working earnestly on ideas we have collectively chosen to ignore and forget is not itself tragic, though. Nor is what was selected to persist glorious. Both simply are. Most of the things I have chosen or done in fact no one will ever know. Most of the words I have said, no one was present to hear. History has forgotten more than it has remembered. Nevertheless I want to know. I want to learn all the stories, all the people, all the ideas, all the ways that ideas are forged and changed and kept and passed around. I know that it sounds a bit dramatic to say “My people”. What a strange way to self identify. And yet it is genuine. I am an economist. It will say in my tombstone that I was an economist even. I am more an economist than I am almost any other thing. So perhaps that’s why I care about the stories of the economists — the people and the ideas. I care about the people too. I care especially about the stories that for one reason or another would simply never be told were we not to ask and listen with open mind and accepting hearts, the hallmark of curiosity. I see my podcast as a way to collect the stories of people whose stories don’t show up in the footnotes of our textbooks. I do it around topics I care about like causal inference, economists in tech, and public policy. And one of the series I have been doing I call “Becker’s students”. I chose Gary Becker because it was Becker’s Nobel prize speech more than any other intellectual experience I had that prompted me to get a PhD in economics. He has cast a massive shadow over me. And my series so far has included interviews with two of his former students from when he was a professor at Columbia University: Robert Michael and Michael Grossman. But this week I am talking with one of his students from the University of Chicago where he spent the majority of his career. My guest this week is Shoshana Grossbard, professor of economics at San Diego State University, and editor of Review of Economics of the Household. This interview was one of the best interview experiences I have had yet. Shoshana was honest, warm, and most of all very candid about her career, about the history of household economics, the things that had major impacts on her, but also the discouragements in her career. That she would share both the highs and lows as well as her thoughts about economics as a science and its practitioners so transparently with me of all people was deeply humbling for me. You will learn that Becker was an important figure for her, not surprisingly as he was her advisor, but like many important people to us who we’ve known for years, the relationship was also a complicated one. His influence cast a long shadow over who she chose to become, and I appreciated that she was so forthright. I hope you like this interview too. Please tell others about it! Don’t forget to subscribe and if you like it, consider supporting it!Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

From the earliest days of economics as a formal science, economists have been trying to understand the causes of the wealth of nations. In the field of development economics, the introduction of the randomized controlled trial has become an important tool in the broader toolbox of economists for trying to understand the many things that may cause the improvement of human welfare in lower income countries, too. This work has been ground breaking and recognized by the Nobel committee for its lasting importance. Like many others, I have been inspired by the development economists relentless effort to address poverty through rigorous causal inference and program evaluation. While most people know that randomization is an important ingredient in causal inference, what is not as widely known is the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption, or SUTVA for short. We know that randomized treatments can eliminate selection bias and thus allow us to use realized outcomes in place of potential outcome. SUTVA requires that the potential outcomes themselves be stable and unchanging when treatment assignments of other units change, which brings to mind complex problems with externalities between people and interference when designing experiments, but as Imbens and Rubin note in their 2015 book, SUTVA also requires that treatments not vary unknowingly across units. Such “hidden variation in treatment” can make causal interpretation difficult if not possible. But SUTVA also brings to mind the problems of external validity. When someone reading of a study’s large gains in a field experiment, they might then decide to roll out such a program at large scale. Assume for simplicity constant treatment effects for a moment — can they expect the same thing to happen in their community what happened in this particular trial? They can insofar as they do not inadvertently change the treatment itself by unknowingly varying the inputs in important ways. If the RCT found large literacy gains using a particular type worker, but to bring it to scale, the policymaker foregoes using those same inputs, then it becomes a new empirical question as to whether the effect found in the lab will in fact scale, even with constant treatment effects. But we have known this for centuries. Concepts like production functions and cost functions directly speak to these very things. Successful policy requires evidence but also a set of skills that maybe aren’t there when designing or evaluating an RCT. It requires both cognitive skill, and perhaps even moreso non cognitive skill, as often the economist then must wear both a scientist hat, a manager hat, and an entrepreneur hat. And not every economist has those skills, or maybe even is interested in venturing into the messy world of building socially impactful policy. But I have also been inspired by a small group of applied development economists like Noam Angrist, Co-founder and Executive Director of Youth Impact (formerly Young 1ove), and Paul Niehaus at GiveDirectly, who create organizations that try to bring effective programs to larger scale while simultaneously committing themselves to constant evaluation of themselves and their programs. Whether it’s a trend or not, I don’t know, but I have been intrigued. This week on The Mixtape with Scott, I have the pleasure of interviewing one of these economist entrepreneurs, Noam Angrist. Noam is, as I said, the co-founder and executive director of Youth Impact, a non-profit focused on improving the welfare of young people around the world through education and health programs. I met him for the first time several years ago because I noticed what he was doing and had done and wanted to introduce him to my students. So I wrote and asked him if he would be willing to be the de facto keynote speaker at a conference I was helping organize on causal inference. He graciously agreed and spoke with us about the organization he had helped found and the work they were doing in developing countries scaling rigorously evaluated interventions to reach thousands of youth around the world. I was very intrigued because of the blend of causal inference and economics with such creative entrepreneurial work. Given the explosive success of the credibility revolution at changing hearts and minds, I suppose it was only a matter of time before economist-entrepreneurs trained in that way of thinking would begin moving outside of academic departments and into other parts of the world. We have seen it with economists in tech. Noam Angrist is an example of the contemporary economist-entrepreneur who works closely with governments, academia and even commerce to bring the best of all things to help achieve the age-old quest of economics of improving the well being of humans alive today.In this interview, Noam and I talked about growing up in Massachusetts and the looking back serendipitous injury in high school that put him on a path to studying economics at MIT. He’s since embarked on an ori

Who is Leah Boustan?Leah Boustan is a professor of economics at Princeton University and this week’s guest on The Mixtape with Scott. Her research has to date largely focused on two of the largest demographic events in US history: the Great Migration of African-Americans from the rural South to industrial cities in the North and West in the mid-twentieth century, and a period of mass migration from Europe to the US from 1850-1920. She is author of two books related to both topics: Competition in the Promised Land (Princeton University Press, 2017) and Streets of Gold: America’s Untold Story of Immigrant Success (PublicAffairs, 2022) with Ran Abramitzy. Leah’s work with Ran on immigration to the US takes advantage of large digitized records from the Census which they linked together so that they could follow individuals over decades. This allowed them to trace out the fortunes of migrants across multiple waves of the Census to ask and attempt to answer several fundamental questions like:* Did immigrants of the past pull themselves up “by their bootstraps” as the stories are often told to us and remembered?* Did the children of immigrants move up America’s economic ladder as fast as their “peers” — children, in other words, of established residents?* Does assimilation today by immigrants happen at a similar or different speed as those in the past?The conversation was enriching for me, as all of my interviews with Leah are. In Leah you see, also a unique story of entrance into economics — through high school debate, not mathematics, where she grew to love studying the nuances of public policy from an objective yet passionate research-oriented point of view. The roads we take through our lives look like a straight line in hindsight but as we’ve seen with other guests are anything but at the time. Leah became an economist the way she became an economist, but I think it is a story nonetheless that many can identify with. And an article in economics that she thinks about a lot? Goldin and Katz 2002 JPE, “The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women’s Career and Marriage Decisions”. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this week’s episode of The Mixtape with Scott, I had the pleasure of interviewing Kyle Kretschman, Head of Economics at Spotify. It was a great opportunity for me because Kyle is one of the first economists I have spoken to who didn’t enter tech as a senior economist (e.g., John List, Susan Athey, Michael Schwarz, Steve Tadelis). Kyle entered tech straight out of graduate school. He spent much of his career at Amazon, a firm that has more PhD economists than can be easily counted. Under Pat Bajari’s leadership there, Kyle grew and his success was noticed such that he was then hired away by Spotify to lead up their economics team. At the end of the interview, I asked Kyle an economics article that has haunted his memories and he said “BLP”, which is affectionate shorthand that “Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium” by Berry, Levinsohn and Pakes 1995 Econometrica goes by. I really enjoyed this interview, and despite the less than ideal sound quality at times, I hope you will too.But before I conclude, I wanted to share some more of my thoughts. This series I’ve been doing on “economists in tech”, which has included interviews with John List, Susan Athey, Michael Schwarz and Steve Tadelis, comes from a complex place inside me. First there is the sheer curiosity I have about it as a part of the labor market for PhD economists. As I have said before on here, the tech sector has exploded in the last decade and the demand for PhD economists has grown steadily year over year. Tech demand selects on PhD economists with promising academic style research inclinations. There is substantial positive selection in this market as firms seek out strong candidates can be produce value for them. This is reflected in both junior market salaries, but also senior. Job market candidates are economists with technical skills in econometrics and economic theory, not to mention possess competent computer programming skills in at least one but often several popular coding languages. They are also candidates who were often entertaining careers within academia at the time they entered tech, and in those academic careers, they envisioned themselves writing academic articles about research they found personally and scientifically important and meaningful. Going into tech, therefore, would at least seem to involve choice that may go far beyond merely that of taking one job over another. It may involve a choice between a career in academia and a career outside it, which for many of us can feel permanent, as though we are leaving academia. And for many economists, it may be the first time they have ever contemplated such a thing. If they do internalize the story that way, if they do see taking a job in tech as “leaving academia”, then I can imagine that for at least some economists, that may be complicated, at least. But there’s another reason I have been wanting to talk to economists in tech and that is I am very concerned about the welfare of our PhD students. In a recent article published in the Journal of Economic Literature, economists interviewed graduate students in top economics programs. They found there incredibly high rates of depression, anxiety, loneliness and even suicidality. This is a common feature of graduate studies, but it is interesting that PhD economists have incredibly good employment opportunities and yet the depression and anxiety plague there too. One of the things that struck me in that study was the disconnect between what graduate students felt about their work and what their advisors felt about their own work. Many students, for instance, do not feel they are properly supported by advisers, do not believe their advisers care about their research success and do not even care about them as a person. Whereas most Americans (and faculty) feel that their work has a positive impact on society, only 20% of PhD students in economics feel that way. (I discussed the article as well as my own research on the mental health of PhD students here.) I suppose part of me feels a great sigh of relief to see the labor market for PhD economists expanding in light of those troubling statistics. If students know that life is full of infinite possibilities, then perhaps they can begin to process earlier what they want to do in the short years they have on this small spinning ball of rock we call Earth. If students do not in the end want to become professors, if they do not have the opportunities to become one, they should know that there is no “failure” involved there. Careers are just that — careers. They do not tell us who we are. The sooner a student can detach from the unhelpful story that our value is linked to a vita listing our accomplishments, the sooner they can begin their own life work of choosing their meaning. Can having more labor market opportunities with more employers competing for them help do that? Well no, not really. At least, not exactly. It can disrupt certain equilibrium, but then the new equilibrium can

I first met Peter Arcidiacano, professor of economics at Duke University, while I was a PhD student at the University of Georgia and I have followed his work since from a distance. I originally followed Peters work because he’d written several articles about sex from a two-sided matching perspective. I was struck by the fact that we both saw thinking about sexual relationships in terms of a matching problem. Two sided matching perspectives focus on the assignment mechanisms that bring people together, and when it comes to sexual relationships, the relative supply of possible partners and competition for those partners will in equilibrium result in pairings, some of which may become the most life sustaining and defining partnerships of those peoples lives. Peter’s work was gratifying to read, and I have often looked up to him for his successful merging of theory and econometrics to study topics I cared about. The economic way of thinking is not about topics, nor is it is not about data, even though economists tend to have particular topics they study intensely and use data usually to do so. The economic way of thinking does though typically involve careful study of allocation mechanisms, such as prices and markets, that bring the productive capacity of communities into existence. These things are important as they animate humans to work together, produce output that manages the production itself, and increasingly towards the end of history, left surplus for humans to enjoy. Who ends up in what activities doing what types of specialized work ultimately shapes that which is made, how much and how it is distributed. The allocations end up not only shaping our lives, but our children’s lives. Starting conditions can cast a long shadow lasting centuries even causing certain groups to creep ahead as more and more of the surplus mounts and accrues to them, while others watch as a shrinking part of the growing pie flows to them.In the United States, in the 21st century, one of the key institutions in all of this assignment of love and commerce has been the university. And within the university system, there are gradations of institutional pedigree and at the top of the pack sits elite institutions whose students seem practically destined to shape and receive the surplus. Given the path dependence in wealth, and how it has interacted with race, it is therefore no wonder that policymakers and economists have for decades sought to refine the rules by which schools can select high school applicants for admission. In many ways, our country’s fight over the use of race in selecting students into college is the old debates about capitalism and the self adjusting market system writ large. So it’s in this broader context about work, schools, matching and allocation mechanisms that I think of Peter and his scholarship. When I review the range of topics on Peters vita, I see the signature marks of the modern 21st century labor economist. Someone interested in markets and how they work to connect people into productive cooperation. Someone interested in institutions, someone concerned about inequality and discrimination, someone versed both in economic theory and econometrics, someone at home with a bewildering array of numbers in a spreadsheet. To me, it is natural that Peter has pivoted so fluidly between topics like sex, work, discrimination and higher education because in my mind these are all interconnected topics concerning the assignment mechanisms we use in America to organize society and maintain our collective standard of living.I invited Peter on the Mixtape with Scott as part of an ongoing series I call “economists and public policy”. The series focuses on how economics and economists think about and attempt to shape public policy. It includes people with a variety of perspectives, and even some who are critics of economics itself. Previous guests on the podcast in the “economists and public policy” series have been Sandy Darity, Elizabeth Popp Berman, Anna Stansbury, Mark Anderson, Alan Manning, Larry Katz, Jeremy West and Jonathan Meer. Peter has not only produced academic articles in some of economics’ most impactful outlets — he has recently served as expert witness in two major discrimination cases, one of which put him on the opposite side of the stand as David Card, winner of 2021 Nobel Prize in economics. You can read about the cases here. They involve the broader topic of race and affirmative action at universities. The cases more specifically involve whether Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill admissions criteria show signs of discrimination. One of the things about Peter’s involvement as expert witness that I want to highlight, though, is that his expert testimony was, at its core, an example of the role that econometrics can play in the shaping of public policy. It is more and more the case that economics’ role in the shaping of public policy in the 21st century will involve not merely economic theory, but also

This week I have the pleasure of introducing Dr. Anna Aizer, professor of economics at Brown University and editor-in-chief at the Journal of Human Resources. I am a long time admirer of Dr. Aizer’s work and have followed her career with curiosity for a long time. Some of her papers imprinted pretty strongly on me. I’ll just briefly mention one.Her 2015 article in the prestigious Quarterly Journal of Economics with Joe Doyle on juvenile incarceration, for instance, has haunted me for many many years. It was the first or second paper I had seen at the time that had used the now popular “leniency design” to examine the causal effect of being incarcerated as a youth on high school completion and other outcomes as well as adult incarceration. Simply comparing those outcomes for those incarcerated and those not incarcerated as a kid will not reveal the causal effect of juvenile incarceration if juvenile incarceration suffers from selection bias on unobservable confounders. So Dr. Aizer with Joe Doyle used a clever approach to overcome that problem in which they found quasi-random variation, disconnected from the unobserved confounder, in juvenile incarceration caused by the random assignment of juvenile judges. As these judges varied in the propensity to sentence kids, they effectively utilized the judges’ own decisions as life changing lotteries which they then used to study the effect of juvenile incarceration on high school and adult incarceration. And the findings were bleak, depressing, enraging, upsetting, sad, all the emotions. They found that indeed being assigned to a more strict judge substantially raised one’s chances of being sentenced as a kid. Using linked administrative data connecting each of those kids to their Chicago Public School data as well as Cook County incarceration data, they then found that being incarcerated significantly increased the effect of committing a criminal offense as an adult, and it decreased the probability of finishing high school. The kids, best they could tell, mostly didn’t return after their juvenile incarceration, but if they did return, they were more likely to be given a emotional and behavioral disorder label in the data. My interpretation was always severe — incarceration had scarred the kids, traumatizing them, and they weren’t the same. The paper would haunt me for various personal reasons as I saw a loved one arrested and spent time in jail on numerous occasions. I would see kids in my local community who had grown up with our kids arrested and think of Dr. Aizer' and Joe Doyle’s study, concluding the most important thing I could do was bail them out. The paper was one of many events in my own life that led me to transition my research to mental illness within corrections and self harm attempts by inmates even. But there’s other personal reasons I wanted to interview Dr. Aizer. Dr. Aizer went to UCLA where she studied with Janet Currie, Adriana Lleras-Muney and Guido Imbens. Recall that when Imbens was denied tenure at Harvard, he went to UCLA. Currie, who had attended Princeton at the same time as Angrist, Imbens’ coauthor on many papers on instrumental variables in the 1990s, was an original economist focused on the family, but unlike Becker and others, brought with her that focused attention to finding variation in data that could plausibly recover causal effects. The story, in other words, of Princeton’s Industrial Relations Section and design based causal inference, going back to Orley Ashenfelter, was spreading through the profession through the placements of scholars at places like UCLA, which is where Dr. Aizer was a student. In this storyline in my head, Dr. Aizer was a type of first generation member of the credibility revolution, and I wanted to talk to her not only for her scholarly work’s influence on me, but also because I wanted to continue tracing Imbens and Angrist’s influence on the profession through UCLA. The interview, though, was warm and interesting throughout. Dr. Aizer is a bright light in the profession working on important questions in the family, poverty and public policy. For anyone interested in the hardships of our communities and neighborhoods, I highly recommend to you her work. Now let me beg for your support. Scott’s Substack and the podcast, Mixtape with Scott, are user supported. If your willingness to pay for the episodes and the explainers (I’m going to write some more I promise!), please consider becoming a subscriber! Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.TranscriptScott Cunningham:In this week's episode of the Mix Tape podcast, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Anna Aizer, professor of economics at Brown University in Rhode Island and editor in chief of the Journal of Human Resources. I have had a keen interest in Anna Aizer and her career and her work for a couple of reasons. Actually a lot, but here's two. First,

Ronny Kohavi, PhD“Economists in tech” is a podcast series of mine trying to tell the story of the movement predominantly Economics PhD talent into and throughout the emerging tech sector. Previously interviews have been with Michael Schwarz (Microsoft), Susan Athey (Stanford, now DOJ, formerly Microsoft), and John List (Chicago, Wal-mart). But this week I chose to share an interview I did a month ago with a prominent computer scientist named Ronny Kohavi. Economists may not know about Ronny. Ronny did his PhD at Stanford in 1995, and was at ground zero to watch major advances happen in tech. His early work was in machine learning, and many of his most cited papers remain in that area too. But something that he has also been instrumentally involved in is from day one in tech being an aggressive evangelist, promoter and guide for the adoption and design of randomized controlled trials now used extensively within tech (called there A/B test not RCT). His recent book with Tang and Hu, "Trustworthy Online Controlled Experiments” discusses in detail his thoughts on this topic.In a lot of ways, Ronny could just as easily fit in the “causal inference” series, but I chose to pin him in this because I think he is more broadly familiar to the tech sector for pushing for the randomized experimental design, and I thought that might be interesting for those of us who stand outside with curiosity tech. If you want to study with Ronny, he teaches a regular workshop at Sphere on RCTs. Scott's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Anna Stansbury is a professor at MIT's Work and Organization Studies department. I interviewed her as part of my "economics and public policy" mixtape series. We discussed her growing up in England, and what drew her to economics, as well as her thoughts about labor market trends and other stylized facts and what she thinks they mean. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did! Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Robert Michael, professor emeritus at University of Chicago, was a student of Nobel laureate Gary Becker from a productive period when Becker was at Columbia up through the late 1960s and in this interview shares a bit of why that time was so special. As you may recall, I have been doing my only little “mixtape” about Becker’s students and previously interviewed Bob’s old classmate and longtime friend, Mike Grossman. Bob describes a lot about the secret sauce that made Columbia such a special time for people like him, Mike, Bill and Elizabeth Landes, Isaac Ehrlich and many others. It wasn’t merely the chance to be mentored by Becker according to Bob; it was also Jacob Mincer and how complementary those two were — yin and yang, theory and empirical rigor. Bob would go on to helping shape the profession, not merely through his wonderful scholarship, but also through his overseeing of numerous important panel and cross-sectional datasets. The two with which I am most familiar are the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, which I wrote my dissertation on, and the National Health and Social Life Survey, a 1992 survey which was the first representative survey of adult American sexual behavior. He co-authored two books about sex in fact — one entitled The Social Organization of Sexuality and Sex in America. Both of these books document the sexual practices of adult Americans from that early 1992 period, riding on the crest of the AIDS epidemic and helping us better understand the basic facts about sex in America. I think you will be deeply moved, though, listening to Bob describe the lengths to which they at NORC went to talk to respondents and learn about their sexual behavior was stunning and not surprising. He notes that some respondents wept during the survey because, as they said, they had literally never talked to anyone about some of these important parts of their lives, some not even their own spouses, therapists or doctors. And yet Bob had with his team at NORC created such a safe, compassionate and respectful environment that not only could he ask intimate questions to strangers, but in fact have a nearly 90% response rate of people willing to share. A true model of science — curious, careful and compassionate. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, I introduce listeners to Michael Grossman, an early pioneer in the field of health economics. His dissertation work under at Columbia University on "health capital and demand" became a cornerstone of the modern field of health economics. We discuss his time growing up in New York, his time with Gary Becker at Columbia as his student, how he got into health in the first place, and much more. Mike is a much beloved economist and I hope you will enjoy this interview as much I did. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this week's episode of Mixtape the Podcast, I interview Mark Anderson, a health economist at Montana State University. We discuss his time growing up in Montana, his brief stint at Stanford playing football, how he got into economics, cannabis reform, public health at the turn of the 20th century, and the joys of hand collecting data. We also discuss a new course he is teaching for young faculty and students on doing applied research. Enjoy! Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this week's episode of the Mixtape podcast, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Katy Graddy. Dr. Graddy is a professor of economics and dean of the international business school at Brandeis. She also did her PhD in economics at Princeton in the mid-1990s where as I see it design-based causal inference has its start and is gaining influence. We discussed the joys of collecting data and using it with economic theory to study markets. We discussed fish, art and bereavement, and some of the ways in which creativity manifests as an economist. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this week's episode of Mixtape: the Podcast, I have the pleasure of interviewing one of my truly favorite people I've met and learned from, Alvin Roth. Alvin Roth is the 2012 winner of the Nobel Prize in economics and professor of economics at Stanford University. He is a widely regarded and extremely innovative game theorist who uses game theory not only to understand the world but to improve it. Those improvements broadly are grouped under a field we now call "market design", but it has included helping design kidney exchange policies that can help address kidney shortages, helping redesign the allocation of physicians to hospitals and residencies, and much more. A humble man who is as I say in the interview kinder than he is smart, which given he won the Nobel Prize says a lot about both. Always a joy to talk with this man. I hope you feel so too. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this interview, I had the opportunity to talk with a wonderful man, Alan Manning. Dr. Manning is a professor of economics at London School of Economics. He is a labor economist's labor economist. He has beat the steady drum of careful empirical work thinking hard about the welfare of workers and to evaluate the presence that market composition has on their overall well being. We discussed a new paper of his in the Journal of Human Resources trying to explain the source of a wage premium in Germany for workers in urban areas, and whether and to what degree that premium is due to local competition of firms. We talked about his whole career and I hope you enjoy it. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this interview, I talk with the esteemed economist, Susan Athey, a professor of economics at Stanford University and a recently elected President of the American Economics Association. She was one of a handful of micro theorist pioneers, like Hal Varian to Google and Preston McAfee to Yahoo, who in the early 2000s traveled from academia to work for large technology firms to work on market design elements, such as the design of auctions, that would enhance the productivity of the firms themselves. Dr. Athey did this first as a consultant at Microsoft, then as its first chief economist, then later on the board of more than a half dozen firms. She has since returned to her alma mater, Stanford University, where among her many activities she established a lab on social impact, and has written countless influential articles drawing on the strengths of machine learning methods and approaches at the service of causal inference. Just as Dixit predicted that she would win the John Bates Clark award, I’ll state the obvious that it will not be the last major Prize she wins. I hope you enjoy! Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this week’s podcast, I had a great time talking with Gary King, the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, the Director of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science and founder of several firms specializing in data analytics and education. As a scientist, he has made major contributions to the fields of statistics and political science, but more than that, he is also just one of the most creative, curious and passionate thinkers I’ve had the chance to meet. There is too much to summarize so let me just say I think, like I found him, you will likely be inspired as he shares his thoughts about science, the social order, inference and data. This is Mixtape: the Podcast and I am your host, Scott Cunningham! Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Mixtape: the Podcast, I interviewed Petra Todd, professor of economics at University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Todd is a widely regarded and highly influential applied and theoretical econometrician who has written across many topics ranging from developing tests for evaluating racial discrimination in motor vehicle searches, to analysis of large conditional cash transfers (PROGRESA), to making seminal contributions to our understanding of program evaluation methodologies such as regression discontinuity design and matching. She is unique among many who write in the area of program evaluation for merging design based approaches to causal inference with approaches built on economic models, or "structural" methods. In this interview, we discussed her love of economics, her work with and mentorship from Jim Heckman, the early work she did studying the PROGRESA conditional cash transfer program and the value of structural econometrics more generally for applied researchers interested in causal inference and understanding programs. To learn more about the topics we discussed, see this new forthcoming article in the Journal of Economic Literature, coauthored with her former colleague Kenneth Wolpin, entitled “The Best of Both Worlds: Combining RCTs with Structural Modeling.” http://athena.sas.upenn.edu/petra/papers/surveywkenlatest.pdf Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Michael Schwarz leads economics at Microsoft as Corporate Vice President and Chief Economist. A former professor at Harvard, Michael became an early pioneer in tech as part of a larger trend of top PhD economists moving into industry to work on a variety of real world topics related to market design and causal inference. In this interview, we discuss some of his ground breaking work in micro theory and application and the ongoing relevance and power of economic theory for understanding our social and corporate world. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this interview, I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Elizabeth Popp Berman, Associate Professor of Organizational Studies at University of Michigan. We spoke about her new book, "Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. Public Policy" recently published by Princeton University Press, and her career as a sociologist. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this week’s episode of Mixtape: the Podcast, I had the pleasure of interviewing longterm editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Larry Katz. Dr. Katz is a distinguished labor economist and a pillar in the profession as editor of the more impactful and influential journal in our science. He has written a number of classic studies in labor economics ranging from topics like skill based changes in relative wages with Kevin Murphy to the importance of neighborhoods on life outcomes based on the Moving to Opportunity experiment. As with many of the people I have the chance to interview, Dr. Katz has forgotten more economics than I will ever know. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Peter Hull is young econometrician at Brown University who writes about a variety of applied topics such as education, labor and criminal justice. Most of his work manages to simultaneously reveal something new about a phenomena while also extending our methodological understanding of causal inference. In this episode of Mixtape: the Podcast, Peter and I talk about growing up in Maine as a child spending time near the water and outdoors as well as in mathematics. We talk about the unexpected journey he made into economics as a college student when he saw its potential to meaningfully inform public policy, as well as econometrics' ability to answer causal questions. We talk about his love of instrumental variables in particular, the potential outcomes model, causal inference and a new paper of his with Michal Kolesar and Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham on interpreting regressions with multiple treatment variables. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Guido Imbens is the Applied Econometrics Professor at Stanford University's economics department and business school, as well as a co-recipient of the 2021 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on the local average treatment effect and instrumental variables in his 1990s era work with Josh Angrist. In this interview we discuss that time in his life, his influences, his career and collaborations over the last several decades. Dr. Imbens is one of the more enjoyable people I've had the pleasure of meeting in all of economics. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

In this 8th episode of Mixtape: the Podcast, I interviewed Sandy Darity, the Samuel DuBois Professor of Public Policy at Duke’s Sanford School and pioneer in a framework within economics called "stratification economics". Stratification economics focuses on the determinants of group-level inequality rooted in group identity, relative position within society, and historic inequalities that compound over time. But we also discuss his love Tarheels basketball, growing up in the Middle East and the degree to which scarcity should be the foundation of economics or not. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Episode 7 of Mixtape: the Podcast. I interview Josh Angrist, winner of the 2021 Nobel Prize in economics, Ford professor of economics at MIT, and director of the MIT Blueprint Labs. In this interview, we discuss a range of topics such as being bored and aimless as a young man, his time in the Israeli army as a paratrooper, his time at the 1980s Princeton Industrial Labor Relations group, his collaborations with fellow Nobel laureate Guido Imbens and the late Alan Krueger, as well as the econometric contributions he made to our understanding of causal inference and instrumental variables for which the Nobel Committee awarded him the prize. A pioneer in many ways who through his scholarship, mentoring, and proselytizing of causal inference and applied methodology, Josh Angrist is arguably one of the most important figures in empirical microeconomics of the last 50 years and a delightful person to interview. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Orley Ashenfelter is arguably the founding father of one of the most influential empirical movements in the modern era -- the so-called credibility revolution. He was the adviser to two Nobel laureates (Josh Angrist and David Card), and guided the Princeton Industrial Relations group for years. Arguably if not one of the most important labor economists of his generation, then at least one of the sharpest. In this interview we talk about his influences, his discovery of the famed Ashenfelter Dip, the popular research design difference-in-differences and more. Check it out! Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

When I think of the economics of the minimum wage, I think of Ted Lasso season 2 when we learn of a pretend new book by Brené Brown, "Enter the Arena, But Bring a Knife". The economics of minimum wage is not for the faint of heart as the question of its effect, both in theory and in reality, has been debated fiercely by extraordinarily competent labor economists for decades, and I don't see it ending any time soon. In this interview, I talk with two economists linked to Texas A&M's economics department -- Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West -- an important paper in the minimum wage literature published in a 2016 issue one of the top labor economics journal, the Journal of Human Resources, about their work on the minimum wage. Check it out and prepared to have your priors confirmed and/or challenged about this important program! Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

A panic attack spread across empirical social science fields like economics from 2008 to 2022 as a result of a half dozen econometrics articles analyzing the most popular non-experimental methods in causal inference -- the difference-in-differences design. The reason? The way researchers had been used it probably wasn't right because they'd been using the wrong tools to do it. One of those econometricians was the brilliant Sophie Sun, a recent graduate of MIT's famous economics department who with Sarah Abraham worked on the problem of analyzing what are called "event studies" using a traditional version of the ordinary least squares model called "twoway fixed effects". This paper both helped expose problems with that approach, but graciously, also proposed solutions. A shot heard around the world! In this interview, we learn more about Sophie's work on the subject, where the ideas came from, and her own interpretation of what she helped create. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Alberto Abadie is the creator of one of the most important innovation in causal inference of the last 20 years -- the synthetic control method. Published in 2003, Abadie's model identifies causal effects of broad social interventions when experimentation is practically impossible. He tells the story about how he became interested in terrorism, which was the impetus of the creation of the method in the first place (and which obviously cannot be randomized), as well as his thoughts about econometrics more generally. A brilliant and interesting man, expect him to one day win the Nobel Prize. Get ahead of that future wave by learning more about him now. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Steve Tadelis is an interesting bird: Harvard PhD applied microeconomics theorist turned experimentalist, he spent some time at eBay as a Distinguished Scientist where he made some interesting discoveries about the effectiveness (or not) of paid search advertising, a key part of search engine giants like Google's underlying business model. In this interview with Steve, we learn about that research, what makes good versus bad ambassadors of economics in tech, and more. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

Scott Cunningham, professor of economics at Baylor University and author of Causal Inference: the Mixtape, interviews John List, professor of economics at University of Chicago, chief economist at Walmart (formerly Lyft and Uber Chief Economist), and author of THE VOLTAGE EFFECT about his life and career as an economist inside and outside academia, as well as the distinction between scientific work focused on narrow empirical questions and the science of scaling programs into their maximum effectiveness. . Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe