♪ [music] ♪
- [Narrator] Welcome to Nobel conversations.
In this episode, Josh Angrist and Guido Imbens,
sit down with Isaiah Andrews
to discuss how the research was initially received
and how they responded to criticism.
At the time, did you feel like you are on to something,
you felt like this was the beginning of a whole line of work
that you felt like was going to be important or...?
Not so much that it was a whole line of work,
but certainly I felt like, "Wow, this--"
We proved something that people didn't know before,
that it was worth knowing.
Yeah, going back compared to my job market papers having--
I felt this was actually a very clear crisp result.
But there were definitely was mixed reception
and I don't think anybody said that,
"Oh, wow, this is already, something."
No, which is the nightmare scenario for a researcher
where you think you've discovered something
and then somebody else says, "Oh, I knew that."
But there were definitely was a need to convince people
that this was worth knowing, that instrumental variables
estimates a causal effect for compliers.
Yeah, but even though it took a long time
to convince a bigger audience,
sometimes even fairly quickly, the reception was pretty good
among a small group of people.
Gary, clearly liked it a lot from the beginning
and I remember, because at that point Josh had left for Israel,
but I remember explaining it to Don Ruben
and he was like, "Yeah, this really is something here."
Not right away though, Don took some convincing.
By the time you got to Don,
there have been some back and forth with him
and in correspondence actually.
But I remember at some point getting a call or email from him
saying that he was sitting at the airport in Rome
and looking at the paper and thinking,
"Yeah, no actually, you guys are onto something."
We were happy about
but that took longer than I think you remember.
Yeah, it wasn't right away
[laughter]
because I know that I was back in Israel by the time that happened.
I'd left for Israel in the summer--
I was only at Harvard for two years. We had that one year.
It is remarkable, I mean, that one year was so fateful for us.
- [Guido] Yes.
I think we understood there was something good happening,
but maybe we didn't think it was life-changing, only in retrospect.
♪ [music] ♪
- [Isaiah] As you said, it sounds like a small group of people
were initially quite receptive,
perhaps took some time for a broader group of people
to come around to seeing the LATE framework
as a valuable way to look at the world.
I guess, in over the course of that,
were their periods where you thought,
maybe the people saying this wasn't a useful way
to look at the world were right?
Did you get discouraged? How did you think about?
I don't think I was discouraged but the people who were saying
that we're smart people, well informed metricians,
sophisticated readers
and I think the substance of the comment was,
this is not what econometrics is about.
Econometrics was being transmitted at that time was about structure.
There was this idea that there's structure in the economy
and it's our job to discover it
and what makes it structure is it's essentially invariant
and so we're saying, in the LATE theorem,
that every instrument produces its own causal effect,
which is in contradiction to that to some extent
and so that was where the tension was.
People didn't want to give up that idea.
Yeah, I remember once people were started
arguing more more vocally against that,
that never really bothered me that much.
It seems clear that we had a result there
and it was somewhat controversial,
but controversial in a good way.
It was clear that people felt
they had to come out against it because--
Well, I think what we think it's good now
we might not have loved it at the time.
I remember being somewhat, the more upset--
there was some dinner where someone said,
"No, no, that paper with Josh,
that was doing a disservice to the profession."
We definitely had reactions like that.
At some level, that may be indicative of the culture
in general in economics at the time.
I thought back later, what if that'd happened now,
if I was a senior person sitting in that conversation,
I would call that out because it really was not appropriate--
- [Josh] But it wasn't so bad.
I think the criticism is--
It wasn't completely misguided, it was maybe wrong.
No, no, but you can say the paper is wrong
but it's saying that
it's a disservice to the profession,
that's not really--
Personal.
Yes, and doing that, not to me,
but in front of my senior colleagues.
But nobody was saying the result was wrong
and I remember also,
some of the comments were thought-provoking
so we had some negative reviews,
I think on the average causal response paper.
Somebody said, "These compliers you can't figure out who they are."
Right.
It's one thing to say
you're estimating the effect of treatment
on the treated or something like that.
You can tell me who's treated,
people in the CPS, you can't tell me who's a complier.
So that was a legitimate challenge.
That's certainly fair and I can see why
that part made people a little uneasy and uncomfortable.
Yeah.
But it's a at the same time
because it showed that you couldn't really go beyond that,
it was very useful thing to realize.
I remember on the day,
we got to the key result that I was thinking,
"Wow, this is as good as it gets.
Here we actually have an insight but clearly--"
And we had to sell it.
For quite a few years, we had to sell
and it's proven to be quite useful.
I don't think we understood that it would be so useful at the time.
No, I did feel early on this was a substantial insight.
- [Josh] Yeah we [learned] something.
But I did not think goals were there.
I don't think we were aiming for the Nobel.
[laughter]
We were very happy to get that note in Econometrica.
♪ [music] ♪
- [Isaiah] Are there factors or are ways of approaching problems
that lead people to be better at recognizing the good stuff
and taking the time to do it as opposed to dismissing it?
- [Josh] Sometimes I think it's helpful.
If you're trying to convince somebody
that you have something useful to say
and maybe they don't speak your language,
you might need to learn their language.
Yes, yes, exactly.
That's what we did with Don, we figured out how to--
I remember we had a very hard time
explaining the exclusion restriction to Don,
maybe rightfully so,
I think Guido and I eventually figured out
that it wasn't formulated very clearly,
and we came up with a way to do that
in the potential outcomes framework
that I think worked for the three of us.
Yeah, well, it worked for the bigger literature
but I think what you're saying there is exactly right,
you need to figure out how not just say,
"Okay well, I've got this language and this this works great
and I've got to convince someone else to use the language.
You could first figure out what language they're using
and then only then, can you try to say,
"Wow, but here you thinking of it this way,"
but that's actually a pretty hard thing to do,
get someone from a different discipline,
convincing them, two junior faculty in a different department
actually have something to say to you,
that's that takes a fair amount of effort.
Yeah, I wrote on a number of times, in fairly long letters.
I remember thinking this is worth doing,
that if I could convince Don
that would validate the framework to some extent.
I think both you and Don were
a little bit more confident that you were right.
Well, we used to argue a lot
and you would sometimes referee those.
[laughter]
That was fun.
It wasn't hurtful.
I remember getting a little testy once,
we had lunch in The Faculty Club
and we're talking about the draft lottery paper.
We were talking about never takes
as people wounded serve in the military irrespective of
whether they were getting drafted
and you and Don said something about shooting yourself in the foot,
as a way of getting out of the military
and that may be the exclusion restriction
for never takes wasn't working
and then the other one would say,
"Well, yes you could do that
but why would you want to shoot yourself in the foot?"
[laughter]
It got a little [out of hand] there.
I usually go for moving to Canada, for my example,
when I'm teaching that.
But he thinks it's tricky,
I get students coming from computer science
and they want to do things on causal inference
and it takes a huge amount of effort to figure out
how they actually thinking about problem
and whether there's something there
and so, now over the years,
I've got a little more appreciation for the fact
that Don was actually willing to--
It took him a while, but he did engage first with Josh
and then with both of us
and rather than dismissing and say,
"Well, okay I can't figure out what these guys are doing
and it's probably just not really interesting."
Everybody always wants to figure out quickly,
you want to save time
and you want to save your brain cells for other things.
The fastest route to that is to figure out
why you should dismiss something.
Yes.
I don't need to spend time on this.
♪ [music] ♪
- [Narrator] If you'd like to watch more
Nobel conversations, click here,
or if you'd like to learn more about econometrics,
check out Josh's "Mastering Econometrics" series.
If you'd like to learn more about Guido, Josh, and Isaiah
check out the links in the description.
♪ [music] ♪