<p>What is the 'gold standard methodology' in applied macroeconomics research?</p>
<p>In drug discovery research, for example, there are many methodologies, but RCTs are the gold standard, right??...like the ideal methodology with a more trusted result.</p>
<p>Anything like that in macroeconomics??</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-15T10:54:08.630Z
Of course, you could conceivably (!) test, say, monetary theory using randomized controls. It's just organizationally, politically, and ethically impossible,
Michael Greinecker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T11:22:28.883Z
So how do macroeconomists judge the results of some research.?? When the results make sense to you, then the research is good, otherwise not good?? If someone asked, how do oil price affects the economy? The answer will be sort of, 'we don't actually know, researcher A say this, researcher B says that, you have to decide for yourself which one makes sense to you'?
Emmanuel Ameyaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-16T12:22:20.017Z
There is of course a lot of macroeconomic data around, just not from randomized trials.
Michael Greinecker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T20:37:39.150Z
Sorry, I didn't get what you want to imply with the statement, 'there is of course a lot of macroeconomic data around, just not from randomized trials'. Will be nice if you can link that to the question I asked in my earlier reply. Thanks.
Emmanuel Ameyaw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-17T20:44:40.823Z
My point is that there is still a lot of data that can be used to test theories. Your previous comment implied that without randomized controls, there is no real discipline in research. A theory can be tested with observational data alone. If my medical theory is that people instantly die after drinking a glass of beer, you do not need to conduct experiments to refute it. It is enough that you can observe people drinking beer and surviving it. There are of course also a lot of observational studies in medicine. There is no experiments that randomly selects people to smoke for decades.
Michael Greinecker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-22T00:28:08.600Z
Sorry for the confusion....I rather meant which methodology in macroeconomics is the best?? like in drug discovery...RCTs are the gold standard (best) if you have the resources. If you want to study how a rise in interest rate affect inflation for some country, and you have all resources, which macro methodology is best?? Dsge? vars?gmm? Smm? etc? Or it doesn't matter? Which methodology is the gold standard here (i.e., best)?
Emmanuel Ameyaw
<macroeconomics>
What is the 'gold standard methodology' in macroeconomics research?
Emmanuel Ameyaw
# What is the 'gold standard methodology' in macroeconomics research?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-02-13)

What is the 'gold standard methodology' in applied macroeconomics research?

In drug discovery research, for example, there are many methodologies, but RCTs are the gold standard, right??...like the ideal methodology with a more trusted result.

Anything like that in macroeconomics??

**Tags:** macroeconomics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Of course, you could conceivably (!) test, say, monetary theory using randomized controls. It's just organizationally, politically, and ethically impossible,  
> **username_0**: So how do macroeconomists judge the results of some research.?? When the results make sense to you, then the research is good, otherwise not good?? If someone asked, how do oil price affects the economy? The answer will be sort of, 'we don't actually know, researcher A say this, researcher B says that, you have to decide for yourself which one makes sense to you'?  
> **username_1**: There is of course a lot of macroeconomic data around, just not from randomized trials.  
> **username_0**: Sorry, I didn't get what you want to imply with the statement, 'there is of course a lot of macroeconomic data around, just not from randomized trials'. Will be nice if you can link that to the question I asked in my earlier reply. Thanks.  
> **username_1**: My point is that there is still a lot of data that can be used to test theories. Your previous comment implied that without randomized controls, there is no real discipline in research. A theory can be tested with observational data alone. If my medical theory is that people instantly die after drinking a glass of beer, you do not need to conduct experiments to refute it. It is enough that you can observe people drinking beer and surviving it. There are of course also a lot of observational studies in medicine. There is no experiments that randomly selects people to smoke for decades.  
> **username_0**: Sorry for the confusion....I rather meant which methodology in macroeconomics is the best?? like in drug discovery...RCTs are the gold standard (best) if you have the resources. If you want to study how a rise in interest rate affect inflation for some country, and you have all resources, which macro methodology is best?? Dsge? vars?gmm? Smm? etc? Or it doesn't matter? Which methodology is the gold standard here (i.e., best)?  

---

## 0 answers

