Part of the Springer Texts in Business and Economics book series (STBE)


This chapter portrays the economic analysis of data as a sophisticated way of “seeing like a state,” a perspective which highlights the inherent limitations of most economic data. It articulates the data qualities the researcher should be familiar with, and the econometric consequences of failing to understand these qualities. These ideas come to life in applications to patents, informal markets in Peru, school accountability ratings, drug dealing, medical coding, and the employment effects of the minimum wage.


  1. Baker M, Benjamin D, Stanger S (1999) The highs and lows of the minimum wage effect: a time-series cross-section study of the Canadian law. J Labor Econ 17(2):318–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell DT, Ross HL (1968) The Connecticut crackdown on speeding: time-series data in quasi-experimental analysis. Law Soc Rev 3:33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Card D (1996) The effect of unions on the structure of wages: a longitudinal analysis. Econometrica 64(4):957–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Card D, Krueger A (1994) Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Am Econ Rev 84(4):772–793Google Scholar
  5. Card D, Krueger A (2000) Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: reply. Am Econ Rev 90(5):1397–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chamberlain GE (2013) Predictive effects of teachers and schools on test scores, college attendance, and earnings. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(43):17176–17182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeSoto H (1989) The other path: the economic answer to terrorism. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. DuBois WEB (1899) The Philadelphia negro: a social study. The University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehrenberg R (ed) (1995) Review symposium: myth and measurement: the new economics of the minimum wage. Ind Labor Relat Rev 48(4):827–849Google Scholar
  10. Gilovich T, Vallone R, Tversky A (1985) The hot hand in basketball: on the misperception of random sequences. Cogn Psychol 17(3):295–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gladwell M (2005) Blink: the power of thinking without thinking. Little, Brown, and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant D (2017) The ballot order effect is huge: evidence from Texas. Public Choice 172(3):421–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey (No. w3301). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson CK (2016) What do test scores miss? the importance of teacher effects on non-test score outcomes (No. w22226). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Kane TJ (2014) Do value-added estimates identify causal effects of teachers and schools? The Brown Center Chalkboard, Brookings InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  17. Kane TJ, Staiger D (2002) The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. J Econ Perspect 16(4):91–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koretz D, Barron S, Mitchell K, Stecher B (1996) Perceived effects of the Kentucky instructional results information system. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Light A, Ureta M (1995) Early-career work experience and gender wage differentials. J Labor Econ 13(1):121–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linn R, Dunbar S (1990) The nation’s report card goes home: good news and bad about trends in achievement. Phi Delta Kappan 72(2):127–133Google Scholar
  21. Litwin M (1995) How to measure survey reliability and validity. Sage, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marshall J (2016) Trump is no mystery. There’ve been no surprises. Accessed 6 May 2016
  23. Meehl PE (1954) Clinical versus statistical prediction: a theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. University-of-Minnesota-Press, MinneapolisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller JB, Sanjurjo A (2015) Surprised by the gambler’s and hot hand fallacies? A truth in the law of small numbers (No. 2627354). Social Science Research NetworkGoogle Scholar
  25. Moser P (2005) How do patent laws influence innovation? Evidence from nineteenth-century world’s fairs. Am Econ Rev 95(4):1214–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moser P (2016) Patents and innovation in economic history (No. w21964). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  27. Neal DA, Johnson WR (1996) The role of premarket factors in black-white wage differences. J Polit Econ 104(5):869–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott JC (1998) Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  29. Venkatesh SA (2008) Gang leader for a day: a young sociologist crosses the line. Allen Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sam Houston State UniversityHuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations