IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v23y2024i1p63-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Agricultural Policy Decisions through Replications

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Finger
  • Carola Grebitus
  • Arne Henningsen

Abstract

Currently, policy decisions are often made based on untested scientific results. Replication studies repeat previously published research and, thus, are an effective way to test the validity and reliability of research studies, as well as to test the potential for generalisations of such studies. Replications can contribute to improved policy decisions and thus more efficient use of resources. To date, very few replications of research in agricultural economics are available and the incentives to engage in replications are low. Moreover, the conditions for replicating studies are poor. For example, published articles often lack full transparency in terms of documentation, data and computer code. This Point de Vue highlights the advantages of striving for conditions that facilitate replication studies and foster such a culture in agricultural economics. Policymakers could explicitly invite and support replications of studies that are key for good policymaking. To this end, they can address both demand‐side and supply‐side problems of replications, for example, by inviting, valuing and supporting replications of policy‐relevant analyses and by providing institutional and legal infrastructure facilitating open science and replications. With this, policy can support the agricultural economics profession, while agricultural economists can support sound policymaking, both reaping the benefits of a more transparent research culture. Actuellement, les décisions en matière de politique sont souvent prises sur la base de résultats scientifiques non testés. Les études de réplication reprennent des recherches déjà publiées et constituent donc un moyen efficace de tester la validité et la fiabilité des études de recherche, ainsi que leur potentiel de généralisation. Les réplications peuvent contribuer à de meilleures décisions en matière de politique et, par conséquent, à une utilisation plus efficace des ressources. À ce jour, il n'existe que très peu de réplications de recherches en économie agricole et les incitations à s'engager dans des réplications sont faibles. De plus, les conditions de réplication des études sont médiocres. Par exemple, les articles publiés manquent souvent de transparence totale en termes de documentation, de données et de code informatique. Ce Point de Vue met en évidence les avantages de rechercher des conditions qui facilitent les études de réplication et favorisent une telle culture en économie agricole. Les décideurs de l'action publique pourraient explicitement inviter et soutenir la réplication d’études qui sont essentielles à une bonne élaboration des politiques. À cette fin, ils peuvent résoudre les problèmes de réplication à la fois du côté de la demande et de l'offre, par exemple en invitant, en valorisant et en soutenant la réplication d'analyses pertinentes pour les politiques et en fournissant une infrastructure institutionnelle et juridique facilitant la science ouverte et les réplications. Ainsi, les politiques peuvent soutenir la profession d’économiste agricole, tandis que les économistes agricoles peuvent soutenir l’élaboration de politiques judicieuses, tous deux récoltant les bénéfices d'une culture de recherche plus transparente. Derzeit werden politische Entscheidungen häufig auf der Grundlage nicht überprüfter wissenschaftlicher Ergebnisse getroffen. Replikationsstudien wiederholen bereits veröffentlichte Forschungsergebnisse und sind daher ein wirksames Mittel, um die Gültigkeit und Zuverlässigkeit von Forschungsstudien zu testen und das Potenzial für Verallgemeinerungen solcher Studien zu bewerten. Replikationsstudien können zu besseren politischen Entscheidungen und somit zu einer effizienteren Nutzung von Ressourcen beitragen. Bislang gibt es nur sehr wenige Replikationen von agrarökonomischen Forschungsergebnissen, und die Anreize für diese Arte von Studien sind gering. Außerdem sind die Bedingungen für die Wiederholung von Studien schwierig: Es fehlt den veröffentlichten Beiträgen oft an vollständiger Transparenz in Bezug auf Dokumentation, Daten und Programmcode. Dieser Point de Vue zeigt die Vorteile auf, die sich aus verbesserten Rahmenbedingungen für die Durchführung von Replikationsstudien ergeben und eine solche Praxis in der Agrarökonomie fördern. Politische Entscheidungsträgerinnen und ‐träger könnten gezielt zu Replikationsstudien ‐ die für eine gute Politikgestaltung entscheidend wären ‐ auffordern und diese unterstützen. Zu diesem Zweck können sie sowohl nachfrage‐ als auch angebotsseitige Probleme mit Replikationsstudien angehen, indem sie diese beispielsweise nachfragen, wertschätzen und unterstützen. Zudem können sie eine institutionelle und rechtliche Infrastruktur bereitstellen, die offene Wissenschaft und Replikationen erleichtert. Auf diese Weise kann die Politik den Berufsstand der Agrarökonominnen und Agrarökonomen stärken, während sie eine solide politische Entscheidungsfindung begleiten können. Beide Seiten würden von einer transparenteren Forschungskultur profitieren.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Finger & Carola Grebitus & Arne Henningsen, 2024. "Improving Agricultural Policy Decisions through Replications," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 23(1), pages 63-66, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:23:y:2024:i:1:p:63-66
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12413
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12413?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Wimmer & Robert Finger, 2023. "A note on synthetic data for replication purposes in agricultural economics," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(1), pages 316-323, February.
    2. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    3. Robert Finger & Carola Grebitus & Arne Henningsen, 2023. "Replications in agricultural economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1258-1274, September.
    4. Paul J. Ferraro & Pallavi Shukla, 2023. "Credibility crisis in agricultural economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1275-1291, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ölkers, Tim & Kirchner, Ella & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2023. "Terrorism and land use in agriculture: The case of Boko Haram in Nigeria - a replication attempt of the paper by Adelaja & George (2019)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    2. Robert Finger & Carola Grebitus & Arne Henningsen, 2023. "Replications in agricultural economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1258-1274, September.
    3. Tobias Dalhaus & Linda Steinhübel & Bernhard Dalheimer & Liesbeth Colen, 2024. "The future of research on sustainable food systems: Building an early‐career network of agricultural economists in Europe," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(2), pages 319-324, April.
    4. Nick Huntington‐Klein & Andreu Arenas & Emily Beam & Marco Bertoni & Jeffrey R. Bloem & Pralhad Burli & Naibin Chen & Paul Grieco & Godwin Ekpe & Todd Pugatch & Martin Saavedra & Yaniv Stopnitzky, 2021. "The influence of hidden researcher decisions in applied microeconomics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 944-960, July.
    5. Dreber, Anna & Johannesson, Magnus, 2023. "A framework for evaluating reproducibility and replicability in economics," Ruhr Economic Papers 1055, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    6. Mark J. McCabe & Frank Mueller-Langer, 2019. "Does Data Disclosure Increase Citations? Empirical Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Leading Economics Journals," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2019-02, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Martin Paldam, 2023. "Meta‐mining: The political economy of meta‐analysis," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(1), pages 125-140, February.
    8. Alecos Papadopoulos, 2022. "Trade liberalization and growth: a quantile moderator for Hoyos’ (2021) replication study of Estevadeordal and Taylor (2013)," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 549-563, July.
    9. G. Christopher Crawford & Vitaliy Skorodziyevskiy & Casey J. Frid & Thomas E. Nelson & Zahra Booyavi & Diana M. Hechavarria & Xuanye Li & Paul D. Reynolds & Ehsan Teymourian, 2022. "Advancing Entrepreneurship Theory Through Replication: A Case Study on Contemporary Methodological Challenges, Future Best Practices, and an Entreaty for Communality," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 46(3), pages 779-799, May.
    10. Hasanov, Akram Shavkatovich & Shaiban, Mohammed Sharaf & Al-Freedi, Ajab, 2020. "Forecasting volatility in the petroleum futures markets: A re-examination and extension," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    11. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Neisser, Carina, 2022. "P-Hacking, Data Type and Data-Sharing Policy," IZA Discussion Papers 15586, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Asatryan, Zareh & Havlik, Annika & Heinemann, Friedrich & Nover, Justus, 2020. "Biases in fiscal multiplier estimates," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    13. Herby, Jonas & Jonung, Lars & Hanke, Steve, 2022. "A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality - II," MPRA Paper 113732, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Cristina Blanco-Perez & Abel Brodeur, 2019. "Transparency in empirical economic research," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 467-467, November.
    15. Ankel-Peters, Jörg & Fiala, Nathan & Neubauer, Florian, 2023. "Do economists replicate?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 219-232.
    16. Fernando-Ignacio Sánchez-Martínez & Jorge-Eduardo Martínez-Pérez & José-María Abellán-Perpiñán & José-Luis Pinto-Prades, 2021. "The value of statistical life in the context of road safety: new evidence on the contingent valuation/standard gamble chained approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 203-228, October.
    17. Guillaume Coqueret, 2023. "Forking paths in financial economics," Papers 2401.08606, arXiv.org.
    18. Scherp, Guido & Siegfried, Doreen & Biesenbender, Kristin & Breuer, Christian, 2020. "The role of Open Science in economics. Results report from an online survey among researchers in economics at German higher education institutions in 2019," EconStor Research Reports 222882, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    19. Isager, Peder Mortvedt & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & Bahník, Štěpán & Brandt, Mark John & DeSoto, Kurt Andrew & Giner-Sorolla, Roger & Krueger, Joachim & Perugini, Marco & Ropovik, Ivan & van 't, 2020. "Deciding what to replicate: A formal definition of “replication value” and a decision model for replication study selection," MetaArXiv 2gurz, Center for Open Science.
    20. Hüttel, Silke & Hess, Sebastian, 2023. "Lessons from the p-value debate and the replication crisis for "open Q science" – the editor's perspective or: will the revolution devour its children?," DARE Discussion Papers 2302, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:23:y:2024:i:1:p:63-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.