IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp9988.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Big Data Is a Big Deal But How Much Data Do We Need?

Author

Listed:
  • Askitas, Nikos

    (IZA)

Abstract

The more conservative among us believe that "Big Data is a fad that will soon fade out" and they may in fact be partially right. By contrast, others – especially those who dispassionately note that digitization is only now beginning to deliver its payload – may beg to differ. We argue that all things considered, Big Data will likely cease to exist, although this will happen less because it is a fad and more because all data will eventually be Big Data. In this essay, I pose and discuss the question of "how much data do we really need" since everything in life and hence the returns from data increments ought to obey some kind of law of diminishing returns: the more the better, but at some point the gains are not worth the effort or become negative. Accordingly, I discuss small and large, specific and general examples to shed light on this question. I do not exhaustively explore the answers, rather aiming more towards provoking thought among the reader. The main conclusions, nonetheless, are that depending on the use case both a deficit and an abundance of data may be counterproductive, that individuals, data experts, firms or society have different optimization problems whereby nothing will free us from having to reach decisions concerning how much data is enough data and that the greatest challenges that data-intensive societies will face are positive reinforcement, feedback mechanisms and data endogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Askitas, Nikos, 2016. "Big Data Is a Big Deal But How Much Data Do We Need?," IZA Discussion Papers 9988, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp9988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp9988.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nikolaos Askitas & Klaus F. Zimmermann, 2015. "The internet as a data source for advancement in social sciences," International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 36(1), pages 2-12, April.
    2. Ron S. Kenett & Galit Shmueli, 2014. "On information quality," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 177(1), pages 3-38, January.
    3. Robert J. Shiller, 2015. "Irrational Exuberance," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 3, number 10421.
    4. Jon Kleinberg & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan & Ziad Obermeyer, 2015. "Prediction Policy Problems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 491-495, May.
    5. Natalie Shlomo & Harvey Goldstein, 2015. "Editorial: Big data in social research," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 178(4), pages 787-790, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Engels, Barbara, 2016. "Big-Data-Analyse: Ein Einstieg für Ökonomen," IW-Kurzberichte 78.2016, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.
    2. Ralf Thomas Münnich & Markus Zwick, 2016. "Big Data und was nun? Neue Datenbestände und ihre Auswirkungen," AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, Springer;Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft - German Statistical Society, vol. 10(2), pages 73-77, October.

    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. Sophie-Charlotte Klose & Johannes Lederer, 2020. "A Pipeline for Variable Selection and False Discovery Rate Control With an Application in Labor Economics," Papers 2006.12296, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2020.
    2. Daisuke Ikeda & Toan Phan & Timothy Sablik, 2020. "Asset Bubbles and Global Imbalances," Richmond Fed Economic Brief, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, vol. 20, pages 1-4, January.
    3. Nicolaj N. Mühlbach, 2020. "Tree-based Synthetic Control Methods: Consequences of moving the US Embassy," CREATES Research Papers 2020-04, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    4. Joshua Schwartzstein & Adi Sunderam, 2021. "Using Models to Persuade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(1), pages 276-323, January.
    5. Aiello, Francesco & Albanese, Giuseppe & Piselli, Paolo, 2019. "Good value for public money? The case of R&D policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1057-1076.
    6. Pierpaolo D’Urso & Vincenzina Vitale, 2020. "Bayesian Networks Model Averaging for Bes Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 897-919, October.
    7. Arısoy, Yakup Eser & Altay-Salih, Aslıhan & Akdeniz, Levent, 2015. "Aggregate volatility expectations and threshold CAPM," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 231-253.
    8. Naguib, Costanza, 2019. "Estimating the Heterogeneous Impact of the Free Movement of Persons on Relative Wage Mobility," Economics Working Paper Series 1903, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    9. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    10. Lepinteur, Anthony & Waltl, Sofie R., 2020. "Tracking Owners' Sentiments: Subjective Home Values, Expectations and House Price Dynamics," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 299, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    11. Niklas Gohl & Peter Haan & Claus Michelsen & Felix Weinhardt, 2022. "House Price Expectations," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1162, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    12. Nwaobi, Godwin, 2019. "University Postgraduate Research Programmes: Digitization(ICT),Innovations and Applications," MPRA Paper 96730, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Antunes, António & Bonfim, Diana & Monteiro, Nuno & Rodrigues, Paulo M.M., 2018. "Forecasting banking crises with dynamic panel probit models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 249-275.
    14. David Vidal-Tomás & Simone Alfarano, 2020. "An agent-based early warning indicator for financial market instability," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 15(1), pages 49-87, January.
    15. Sarah Mignot & Fabio Tramontana & Frank Westerhoff, 2021. "Speculative asset price dynamics and wealth taxes," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 44(2), pages 641-667, December.
    16. Erik Heilmann & Janosch Henze & Heike Wetzel, 2021. "Machine learning in energy forecasts with an application to high frequency electricity consumption data," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202135, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    17. Resce, Giuliano & Vaquero-Piñeiro, Cristina, 2022. "Predicting agri-food quality across space: A Machine Learning model for the acknowledgment of Geographical Indications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    18. Maysam Khodayari Gharanchaei & Reza Babazadeh, 2024. "Crisis Alpha: A High-Performance Trading Algorithm Tested in Market Downturns," Papers 2409.14510, arXiv.org.
    19. Edward L. Glaeser & Scott Duke Kominers & Michael Luca & Nikhil Naik, 2018. "Big Data And Big Cities: The Promises And Limitations Of Improved Measures Of Urban Life," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 114-137, January.
    20. Garbero, Alessandra & Sakos, Grayson & Cerulli, Giovanni, 2023. "Towards data-driven project design: Providing optimal treatment rules for development projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    causality; social science; endogeneity; Big Data; prediction;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C55 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Large Data Sets: Modeling and Analysis

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iza:izadps:dp9988. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.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.