Causal Claims in Economics

AI-generated keywords: Economics research Scholarly communication Claim graphs Evidence synthesis Credibility revolution

AI-generated Key Points

  • The volume of scholarly work in economics is continuously expanding due to working-paper repositories and advancements in machine-learning tools.
  • Challenges now involve organizing and interpreting vast bodies of literature, deciphering claims, identifying innovations, and understanding how incentives influence evidence production.
  • A novel solution proposed is paper-level claim graphs that map papers into a directed network of standardized economic concepts linked by relationships with evidentiary support annotations.
  • Claim graphs enable scalable comparison, aggregation, and analysis across documents by distilling core arguments in a consistent format.
  • They have the potential to enhance organization, comparison, and analysis of literature in economics and other fields like evidence synthesis and structured search.
  • Claim graphs bridge three strands of literature by complementing the "credibility revolution," tracking methodological evolution, and understanding diffusion of quasi-experimental styles within economics.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Prashant Garg, Thiemo Fetzer

Data, code, prompts, and workflow documentation are publicly available at our GitHub repository: https://github.com/prashgarg/CausalClaimsInEconomics
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: As economics scales, a key bottleneck is representing what papers claim in a comparable, aggregable form. We introduce evidence-annotated claim graphs that map each paper into a directed network of standardized economic concepts (nodes) and stated relationships (edges), with each edge labeled by evidentiary basis, including whether it is supported by causal inference designs or by non-causal evidence. Using a structured multi-stage AI workflow, we construct claim graphs for 44,852 economics papers from 1980-2023. The share of causal edges rises from 7.7% in 1990 to 31.7% in 2020. Measures of causal narrative structure and causal novelty are positively associated with top-five publication and long-run citations, whereas non-causal counterparts are weakly related or negative.

Submitted to arXiv on 12 Jan. 2025

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2501.06873v2

In the realm of economics research, the volume of scholarly work being produced and consumed is continuously expanding. With the proliferation of working-paper repositories and advancements in machine-learning tools such as large language models (LLMs), the process of drafting and revising manuscripts has become more efficient [Ludwig et al., 2025, Humlum and Vestergaard, 2025, Feyzollahi and Rafizadeh, 2025]. However, as the output of economic research grows, the challenge shifts from generating papers to organizing and interpreting vast bodies of literature. This involves deciphering what each paper claims and how these claims interconnect to form mechanisms. It also requires identifying genuine innovations and understanding how incentives influence the production and dissemination of evidence. While there have been advancements in technology that aid in this process, such as LLMs for drafting and revising manuscripts, the primary mode of scholarly communication still relies on narrative prose. Claims are articulated in diverse languages and spread across various sections within papers. This makes it challenging to systematically compare them when manual synthesis is impractical. To address this issue, a novel solution is proposed in the form of paper-level claim graphs. These structured representations map each paper into a directed network comprising standardized economic concepts linked by stated relationships. Nodes correspond to economic concepts aligned with a common ontology (JEL codes), while edges represent connections between source and sink concepts as articulated by authors. Importantly, these edges are annotated with information regarding evidentiary support – whether a relationship is backed by credible causal inference designs or relies on theoretical reasoning, descriptive evidence or correlational analysis. By distilling papers down to their core arguments in a consistent format that can be compared across documents, claim graphs enable scalable comparison, aggregation and analysis. The introduction of this standardized representation holds promise for facilitating various applications beyond those explored in this study. For instance, it could support evidence synthesis at the claim level across different literatures; facilitate structured search and discovery by linking questions, concepts and evidentiary support; as well as provide foundational elements for tracing how research claims are summarized and reframed in policy discussions or media discourse. This innovative approach bridges three distinct strands of literature that are typically studied independently: it complements existing work on the "credibility revolution" within economics by documenting the increasing use of quasi-experimental and experimental designs for empirical identification; it aligns with accounts tracking methodological evolution over time; and it contributes to understanding how quasi-experimental styles have diffused across subfields within economics. In summary, the use of claim graphs in economics research has the potential to greatly enhance our ability to organize, compare, and analyze vast bodies of literature. It also has implications for other fields beyond economics, such as evidence synthesis and structured search. By focusing on measuring causality at the level of relationships rather than broad methodological tags or topic classifications commonly used in previous approaches, claim graphs offer a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of economic research.
Created on 26 Mar. 2026

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.