Raymond Fisman, Florian Schulz and Vikrant Vig have a fascinating new working paper: Private returns to public office, which gives us new insights into Indian politics.
We know that elections in India are typically rather close. There is something almost capricious about who wins and who doesn't. The random outcome of an election can, then, be interpreted as randomised allocation into control and treatment. One candidate gets elected, another candidate is very much like him but doesn't get elected.
We can then ask the question: what happened to the wealth of the bloke who got elected? The authors say that the rate of growth of the assets of the person who won grows by 300 to 600 bps per year when compared with the person who lost.
The strongest effects are observed for a person who makes it to being a minister: his asset returns are 1300 to 2900 bps higher than the person who did not win the election.
The paper reminds us of the conditions under which the most fruitful economic research happens today. It's got to be a live and interesting question. A high quality dataset has to be the engine; without good quality data, research is just garbage-in-garbage-out. It's got to persuade us that that the claimed answer is correct. Too often, we in the research profession are failing on these three tests.
0 comments:
Post a Comment