There is apparently a new study, from the AP, suggesting that the transportation spending of the stimulus has not succeeded in creating jobs. The study now seems to have "legs," as here is lengthy NYT coverage. Through some email forwarded to me, I have the impression (my apologies if I am wrong) that they are not circulating copies of the study for perusal. Instead, the study has been reviewed by some economists, who seem to approve of it. No one else is allowed to judge. Does anyone have a copy of the original study? Will the AP send me a copy? The NYT piece — which seems to be written by the AP by the way — does not link to the study. The AP won't link to their own study, or so at least it seems.
Loyal MR readers will know that I have been critical of most of the stimulus program. Still, phantom studies should not be receiving serious media attention. It's time for the AP to put up or shut up.
Comments are open, as is my email, I would like to see a copy of the study.
Addendum: from Matt Apuzzo, at the AP:
"Matthew/Tyler:
If either of you would like to chat about the AP's analysis, I'm happy
to provide you the sources of our data and walk you through the
statistical tests we conducted. Nothing we did is a secret, but there's
no actual "study" to provide you, like there is in academia. The
professors reviewed some spreadsheets and statistical tests, talked
methodology, made suggestions on other tests to run, and overall made
sure we weren't reading things incorrectly. All of this feedback
ultimately contributed to our final conclusion, but there's no executive
summary.
Give a call, I'm happy to help.
-Matt"
What do you all think?
It wasn’t as study. It was a newspaper persons article. Basic argument was that relatively few construction worksers are hired on road projects. Didn’t discuss cement, multiplier, etc.
If there is a study it really should be made public. The articles are seem to be quotes from various people who think they haven’t gotten their share. The odd thing is that the article repeatedly say that there were people who were paid to work with stimulus money, but no jobs were created or saved because of it. I guess the roads are building themselves.
Also I want to note that in the local paper this morning there were tow articles about new road work starting this week that is funded with stimulus money. It seems we still have a ways to to before the stimulus is “doled” out.
As a stimulus fan I like an invisible study as it is easier to poke holes in than an actual study.
One of the reviewers of the study wrote me and I am getting the impression that they are not releasing a copy.
AP position: El que roba a un ladrón, tiene cien años de perdón.
There really may be just a lack of statistical power here. If the effect is small (but real) in terms of the total number of people employed, it may come up as insignificant which in that case wouldn’t actually mean there is no effect. We just don’t know.
There is no study? Nice play by the MSM, almost totally bypassing the usual dependence on the Academy. I wonder if this will catch on?
I saw the story a couple days ago and the thought I had was that it was odd that AP performed a “study.”
Adam:
How in the world did they hope to control for endogeneity? Or do they assume that stimulus dollars are not going to areas that are in most need or stimulating?
Which is almost certainly the correct assumption to make. But they don’t even need to simply assume, since this has already been demonstrated anyway.
To assume that stimulus dollars would be allocated according to economic distress rather than political expedience would be a leap of faith that flies in the face of the actual evidence.
I too heard the NPR interview and the author conceded that the stimulus did create lots of jobs, in the construction industry in the transportation sector, but not jobs broadly.
So, the study of the data led to the two conclusions:
- it worked to create jobs in transportation construction
- it failed to create jobs broadly
My reaction was “where is your analysis of the equal sized tax cut stimulus in the same bill – did it create any jobs?”
So, here is the challenge to those criticizing the stimulus spending on infrastructure which is only one-third the three-quarter trillion:
Prove the quarter trillion in tax cuts has worked to stimulate job creation. If fact, prove the following tax cuts have succeeded in doing what their stated purpose was:
06/07/2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
03/09/2002 Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
05/28/2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
10/04/2004 Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004
10/22/2004 American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
05/17/2006 Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
02/13/2008 Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
(To argue that tax cuts are good even if the destroy jobs because you want to destroy government is to argue that political fraud is justified to attain political objectives – the bill titles reflect the stated purpose of the bills as sold to the voters.)
In my study of tax law changes, I find zero evidence to support the claims that tax cuts stimulate and tax hikes cause recessions, but rather my stuy shows tax cuts kill jobs and tax hikes create jobs.
And in the face of tax cuts, Keynesian deficit spending struggles to create jobs but can over time offset the job destruction from tax cuts.
The AP should cite “some spreadsheets” rather than “a study”.
“We messed around with excel a bit, and sent some t-tests to a professor who said we hadn’t done them wrong, so hey, the stimulus tanked. End of story.”
I have conducted my own study, consulted with fellow acadmeics, have published it without citing data or my methodology, and am interested in talking to you about this after this weeks news cycle. By the way, who I consulted and what data I used is confidential reporter privileged.
I did check the astrology section of the newspaper, and consulted Dilbert, however, to fact check.
We are AP. We don’t report the news. We make the news.
If you are a newspaper and publish the AP story, how likely is it that you will publish a story critical of its methodology or absence thereof?
Pew should do a piece on this.
It doesn’t have to be an “academic” style paper, but until AP can simply put down in writing what they did and why, nobody should take it remotely seriously. Certainly nobody should be using the term “study.”
Honest, complete reporting would include walking readers through the sources of data and statistical tests performed.
You asked what we think. I think you should give Matt at AP a call. Afterall, he is happy to help.
Y’all do realize that this is how a lot of government planning and evaluation is done, right? Sometimes you contract with researchers for a formal study, but most of the time you can pull the numbers, make a few tables and correlations, and notice which way the sign goes. “That one probably worked, that one had a huge effect, those three are pretty close to zero, and that one might have made things worse.” And then you proceed with the next planning cycle with that in mind.
I’d want something bigger to evaluate a trillion-dollar effort, but “hmm, looks like about zero effect” really does get you about 90% of the benefit for about $20 of staff time.
Comments on this entry are closed.