While most economic debates are about as spicy as boiled potatoes, others generate a bit more heat. A recent stir fell into the second category, in response to a new study of junior academics angling for jobs in economics. Participants knew they were part of an experiment, but not that some would get more social media promotion from “influencers” than others. (Economics influencers that is — Kylie Jenner does not care about your robustness checks.)
Cue outrage, sprinkled with some snark. One observer commented on the cruelty of letting “a coin toss determine who wins, and who is doomed to a career in academia”. More seriously, how do economists weigh up the ethics of human experiments?
There are formal processes to stop research investigating whether punching people in the face causes pain. American academics have to submit studies involving human subjects to ethical review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and often local boards when their work is on people in other countries. Europeans have been slower to implement their own processes, but they are catching up.
Researchers are generally supposed to avoid knowingly doing harm. They should also ask participants for informed consent, though not if the risks are minimal and telling people would muck up the results. (“Please take part in our study of sexism . . . now would you hire this woman?”)
When it comes to work in developing countries, it might seem unfair to allocate poverty-busting interventions randomly, rather than doling them out to everyone who might benefit. The justification eco