I think it’s really cool that you did this. It’s been on my to do list to look into some persistence studies but I’ve not got round to it and this seems like a really helpful analysis.
How did you select the papers that you selected to review? E.g. was it due to their focus, their methodology, how well cited they were, something else, or nothing in particular?
(For context I have no sense of how many papers using roughly similar methodology there are, so for all I know this could be all of them! I skimmed the preprint and didn’t see a mention of this, but could have just missed it.)
I think it’s really cool that you did this. It’s been on my to do list to look into some persistence studies but I’ve not got round to it and this seems like a really helpful analysis.
How did you select the papers that you selected to review? E.g. was it due to their focus, their methodology, how well cited they were, something else, or nothing in particular? (For context I have no sense of how many papers using roughly similar methodology there are, so for all I know this could be all of them! I skimmed the preprint and didn’t see a mention of this, but could have just missed it.)
Thank you!
These papers were ones that William MacAskill was considering citing in his forthcoming book. FF hired me to thoroughly check them.
There is definitely many other persistence papers I didn’t cover!
Eg:
Acemoglu et al, Colonial Origins
Acemoglu et al, Reversal of Fortune
Woodberry (2012). The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy
All the papers cited in Kelly’s Understanding Persistence
And many others.