<p>This is an opinion question, but I'll give my opinion.</p>
<p>In terms of methods, I like <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20190159" rel="noreferrer">Arkhangelsky et al.'s</a> synthetic diff-in-diff.</p>
<p>In terms of applied economics, I liked <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20181607" rel="noreferrer">Goncalves and Mello's</a> study of racial bias in the U.S. police force.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-27T13:02:17.900Z
Yes, it can be considered an opinion question, but I think in this context, guidelines, whose objective is to preserve forum quality, are better used with a soft approach. This type of question adds value to the forum, I think.  If the user base knows how to behave, and allows it, I think we'll be better off.
An old man in the sea.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-27T10:59:07.297Z
2021-12-27T10:59:07.297Z
Michael Gmeiner
<p>I think the randomized trial of mask effectiveness is one of the most notable economic papers in 2021. This is not a pure economics paper and it is published in science that does not specialize in economics, but public health is part of the economics of healthcare and the leading authors are economists.</p>
<p>I think the paper is notable because it was the first randomized trial of whether mask-wearing helps improve health outcomes, which is an important topic during the pandemic.</p>
<p>Interestingly the paper shows that while wearing surgical masks helps somewhat, wearing cloth masks offers almost no protection at all. I think this is an interesting result because pundits or politicians argue about mask-wearing but they never even stop to ask themselves the question of what mask to wear.</p>
<p>Full reference is: Abaluck, Jason, et al. &quot;Impact of community masking on COVID-19: A cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh.&quot; Science (2021): eabi9069.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-28T01:06:19.753Z
This leaves the obvious question: Why not N95/FFP2 masks? And politicians in much of the world discuss this.
Michael Greinecker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-29T10:48:59.010Z
"pundits or politicians argue about mask-wearing but they never even stop to ask themselves the question of what mask to wear" - well, the main issue is with people refusing to wear masks altogether, so telling them to wear a particular mask doesn't really do much. As for the people willing to wear masks, many pay attention to which masks are recommended and at least some countries reject cloth masks on an official policy level.
NotThatGuy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T16:52:00.450Z
@MichaelGreinecker but that is exactly what I am talking about! We need to do cluster randomized trials for these things! If you ask any health economist its criminal that we did not do that yet!
WilliamT
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T16:54:13.447Z
@WilliamT If you ask any aerosol scientist, they will tell you that waiting for the outcome of a randomized trial is criminal,
Michael Greinecker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T16:56:04.203Z
@MichaelGreinecker are aerosol scientists *against* science based medicine? Just because something works on a plastic dummy does not mean it works in real life. For example, cloth mask work in laboratory experiments but not IRL. Don't get me wrong it was not bad idea to mandate them in emergency situation but after 2 years EU or US did no cluster RCTs? Thats literally insane
WilliamT
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T16:57:08.293Z
@WilliamT Physics is science too.
Michael Greinecker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T16:58:55.787Z
@MichaelGreinecker I edited bit my previous comment. Also, yes physics is science too but in medicine often things that work in vitro do not work in vivo. 101 of health economics is that you really need RCT to really know if something actually works. What you are saying would be equivalent of saying we should take medicine never tested in humans just because it works in guinea pigs or on some cell cultures
WilliamT
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T17:03:42.017Z
@WilliamT I'm not against randomized control trials in medicine, obviously. But in some situations, it is ethically dubious to run such studies when there is such a clear presumption that the treatment is effective, has no negative side effects, and speed matters.
Michael Greinecker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-05T17:10:46.660Z
@MichaelGreinecker what you talk about is the parachute principle, but that does not really apply here. Even very good masks reduce community spread only about 20-30% maybe 40% when you go to n95, also catching covid is not instant death like falling from the plane, we are talking about absolute reduction of prob. of dying by 0.6% there were RCT done for things that are far more likely to save someone. Also you can get away with doing anything in emergency but 2 years after? We really need RCT now. Yes at the start there was shortage of masks but now anyone can get 3ply instead of cloth
WilliamT
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-27T12:08:35.963Z
2021-12-27T12:08:35.963Z
WilliamT
<p>Some papers that interested me this year (in game theory):</p>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20211221/32378/917" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Subgame-perfect equilibrium in games with almost perfect
information: Dispensing with public randomization</a></li>
</ol>
<p>They show the seminal result of Harris, Reny, Robson that a correlation device is required for existence of subgame perfect equilibria in continuous games can be weakened when nature is atomless. (He and Sun 2020 has a similar result).</p>
<ol start="2">
<li><a href="https://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20211055/31459/909" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Strict pure strategy Nash equilibria in large finite-player games</a></li>
</ol>
<p>I've thought of a few ideas that involve the relationship between finite and continuum games, and this paper establishes one such relationship <strike>(and is coauthored by one of our expert contributors here)</strike>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-27T16:47:33.000Z
I think there might be some confusion behind the last sentence.
Michael Greinecker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-27T20:19:59.497Z
@MichaelGreinecker my mistake, I somehow though this was a paper by you and Podczeck!
Walrasian Auctioneer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-27T21:33:12.110Z
No problem; I take the implied compliment.
Michael Greinecker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-27T15:51:07.220Z
2021-12-27T20:20:54.163Z
2021-12-27T20:20:54.163Z
Walrasian Auctioneer
<p>Despite the fact that I am tired of reading paper's on natural experiments, there is one contribution in this field that captured my attention. Not only the topic is fascinating (Switzerland offered up to two years of income tax exemptions to its inhabitants), but also because the results are quite surprising: almost no behavioral change occurred. Here is the reference:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180746" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Martínez, Isabel Z., Emmanuel Saez, and Michael Siegenthaler</a>. 2021. &quot;Intertemporal Labor Supply Substitution? Evidence from the Swiss Income Tax Holidays.&quot; American Economic Review, 111, 506-46.</p>
<p>In a fully different style, I appreciate Laurent Linnemer's paper on Jean-Jacques Laffont very much. I have read several papers by Jean-Jacques Laffont, but knew not much about him.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.15609/annaeconstat2009.143.0001.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A7236aa54dcee4ac1fa7cde1a6582dc78" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Linnemer, Laurent (2021)</a>. Le Magnifique Jean-Jacques Laffont (13 April 1947 - 1 May 2004). Annals of Economics and Statistics, 143, 1–69.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-31T14:15:57.507Z
2021-12-31T15:42:05.533Z
2021-12-31T15:42:05.533Z
Bertrand
<p>This question is based on this one in <a href="https://mathoverflow.net/questions/412437/breakthroughs-in-mathematics-in-2021">Math Overflow</a></p>
<p>I understand that I can't simply 'translate' the question into the area of economics. Thus, I'm open to improvements on the question framework.</p>
<p>Here's the question.</p>
<p>What were the most notable research papers published in Economics during 2021?</p>

<macroeconomics><microeconomics><financial-economics><history-economic-thought><development-economics>
Most notable papers in Economics in 2021
An old man in the sea.
# Most notable papers in Economics in 2021

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-12-26)

This question is based on this one in [Math Overflow](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/412437/breakthroughs-in-mathematics-in-2021)

I understand that I can't simply 'translate' the question into the area of economics. Thus, I'm open to improvements on the question framework.

Here's the question.

What were the most notable research papers published in Economics during 2021?

**Tags:** macroeconomics, microeconomics, financial-economics, history-economic-thought, development-economics


---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-12-27. Score: 6

This is an opinion question, but I'll give my opinion.

In terms of methods, I like [Arkhangelsky et al.'s](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20190159) synthetic diff-in-diff.

In terms of applied economics, I liked [Goncalves and Mello's](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20181607) study of racial bias in the U.S. police force.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Yes, it can be considered an opinion question, but I think in this context, guidelines, whose objective is to preserve forum quality, are better used with a soft approach. This type of question adds value to the forum, I think.  If the user base knows how to behave, and allows it, I think we'll be better off.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-12-27. Score: 6

I think the randomized trial of mask effectiveness is one of the most notable economic papers in 2021. This is not a pure economics paper and it is published in science that does not specialize in economics, but public health is part of the economics of healthcare and the leading authors are economists.

I think the paper is notable because it was the first randomized trial of whether mask-wearing helps improve health outcomes, which is an important topic during the pandemic.

Interestingly the paper shows that while wearing surgical masks helps somewhat, wearing cloth masks offers almost no protection at all. I think this is an interesting result because pundits or politicians argue about mask-wearing but they never even stop to ask themselves the question of what mask to wear.

Full reference is: Abaluck, Jason, et al. "Impact of community masking on COVID-19: A cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh." Science (2021): eabi9069.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: This leaves the obvious question: Why not N95/FFP2 masks? And politicians in much of the world discuss this.  
> **username_4**: "pundits or politicians argue about mask-wearing but they never even stop to ask themselves the question of what mask to wear" - well, the main issue is with people refusing to wear masks altogether, so telling them to wear a particular mask doesn't really do much. As for the people willing to wear masks, many pay attention to which masks are recommended and at least some countries reject cloth masks on an official policy level.  
> **username_2**: @MichaelGreinecker but that is exactly what I am talking about! We need to do cluster randomized trials for these things! If you ask any health economist its criminal that we did not do that yet!  
> **username_3**: @username_2 If you ask any aerosol scientist, they will tell you that waiting for the outcome of a randomized trial is criminal,  
> **username_2**: @MichaelGreinecker are aerosol scientists *against* science based medicine? Just because something works on a plastic dummy does not mean it works in real life. For example, cloth mask work in laboratory experiments but not IRL. Don't get me wrong it was not bad idea to mandate them in emergency situation but after 2 years EU or US did no cluster RCTs? Thats literally insane  
> **username_3**: @username_2 Physics is science too.  
> **username_2**: @MichaelGreinecker I edited bit my previous comment. Also, yes physics is science too but in medicine often things that work in vitro do not work in vivo. 101 of health economics is that you really need RCT to really know if something actually works. What you are saying would be equivalent of saying we should take medicine never tested in humans just because it works in guinea pigs or on some cell cultures  
> **username_3**: @username_2 I'm not against randomized control trials in medicine, obviously. But in some situations, it is ethically dubious to run such studies when there is such a clear presumption that the treatment is effective, has no negative side effects, and speed matters.  
> **username_2**: @MichaelGreinecker what you talk about is the parachute principle, but that does not really apply here. Even very good masks reduce community spread only about 20-30% maybe 40% when you go to n95, also catching covid is not instant death like falling from the plane, we are talking about absolute reduction of prob. of dying by 0.6% there were RCT done for things that are far more likely to save someone. Also you can get away with doing anything in emergency but 2 years after? We really need RCT now. Yes at the start there was shortage of masks but now anyone can get 3ply instead of cloth  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2021-12-27. Score: 6

Some papers that interested me this year (in game theory):

1. [Subgame-perfect equilibrium in games with almost perfect
   information: Dispensing with public randomization](https://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20211221/32378/917)

They show the seminal result of Harris, Reny, Robson that a correlation device is required for existence of subgame perfect equilibria in continuous games can be weakened when nature is atomless. (He and Sun 2020 has a similar result).

2. [Strict pure strategy Nash equilibria in large finite-player games](https://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20211055/31459/909)

I've thought of a few ideas that involve the relationship between finite and continuum games, and this paper establishes one such relationship (and is coauthored by one of our expert contributors here).

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: I think there might be some confusion behind the last sentence.  
> **username_5**: @MichaelGreinecker my mistake, I somehow though this was a paper by you and Podczeck!  
> **username_3**: No problem; I take the implied compliment.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2021-12-31. Score: 5

Despite the fact that I am tired of reading paper's on natural experiments, there is one contribution in this field that captured my attention. Not only the topic is fascinating (Switzerland offered up to two years of income tax exemptions to its inhabitants), but also because the results are quite surprising: almost no behavioral change occurred. Here is the reference:

[Martínez, Isabel Z., Emmanuel Saez, and Michael Siegenthaler](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180746). 2021. "Intertemporal Labor Supply Substitution? Evidence from the Swiss Income Tax Holidays." American Economic Review, 111, 506-46.

In a fully different style, I appreciate Laurent Linnemer's paper on Jean-Jacques Laffont very much. I have read several papers by Jean-Jacques Laffont, but knew not much about him.

[Linnemer, Laurent (2021)](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.15609/annaeconstat2009.143.0001.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A7236aa54dcee4ac1fa7cde1a6582dc78). Le Magnifique Jean-Jacques Laffont (13 April 1947 - 1 May 2004). Annals of Economics and Statistics, 143, 1–69.


---

