Embedded Files
(γ) ``Internal Conflicts and Shocks: A Narrative Meta-Analysis,'' (2025) with Camille Laville. Journal of Peace Research, 62 (4), p. 1159–1175, first published online in 2024 (SJR: Q1 in Political Science and International Relations, Safety Research, and Sociology & Political Science)
[Direct link] [Online appendix][Earlier APSA WP version][Earlier WBG WP version] [Data and replication files][Data and replication files, alternative link] [Global dev blog post] [IGPSA blog post] [World Bank LTD blog post]
Abstract:
Do variations in local incomes influence peace and conflict in low- and middle-income countries? The present meta-regression analysis contributes to answering this question by delving into the narratives that researchers use to qualify how various shocks affect conflict risk through channels implicitly linked to income. After examining 2,464 subnational estimates from 64 recent empirical studies, we find that several publication biases related to authors’ methodological choices influence our understanding of this phenomenon. Importantly, studies that fail to uncover empirical effects that conform to researchers’ expectations on the theoretical mechanisms are less likely to be published. After accounting for publication selection bias, the analysis finds that, on average, income-increasing shocks in the agriculture sector are negatively associated with the local risk of conflict. Nonetheless, the analysis finds no average effect of income-decreasing shocks in the agriculture sector or income-increasing shocks in the extractive sector on the local risk of conflict. The article opens avenues for further study on the granular observed heterogeneity in the literature, particularly focusing on the conditional aspects of how shocks and conflicts are measured and the geographical coverage, among others.
(β) ``Has Chinese Aid Benefited Recipient Countries? Evidence from a Meta-Regression Analysis,'' (2023) with Martha Tesfaye Woldemichael. World Development, 166 (June), 106211, lead article (SJR 2023: Q1 in Development, Economics, Geography, and Sociology & Political Science)
[Direct link] [Earlier IMF WP version] [Data and replication files] [Brookings Future Development blog post]
Abstract:
This paper employs a meta-regression analysis of 1,149 estimates from 29 studies to take stock of the empirical literature on Chinese aid effectiveness. After accommodating publication selection bias, we find that, on average, Beijing’s foreign assistance is positively associated with economic outcomes in recipient countries, but correlates with deforestation and negative perceptions of China among citizens, albeit negligible in size. We also show that studies that fail to uncover empirical effects that conform to researchers’ expectations are less likely to be submitted or accepted for publication. Differences in the choice of data, estimation method, and authors’ institutional affiliation explain the heterogeneity among Chinese aid effectiveness estimates reported in the literature.
(α) ``Political Budget Cycles: Manipulation by Leaders versus Manipulation by Researchers? Evidence from a Meta‐Regression Analysis,'' (2019) with Antoine Cazals. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33 (1), p. 274-308 (SJR 2019: Q1 in Economics; A previous version won the Vincent & Elinor Ostrom Prize of the best paper, 2016)
[Direct link] [Supplementary material] [Data and replication files]
Abstract:
Despite a long history of research on political budget cycles, their existence and magnitude are still in question. By conducting a systematic analysis of the existing literature, we intend to clarify the debate. Based on data collected from 1037 regressions in 46 studies, our meta‐analysis suggests that little, if any, systematic evidence can be found in the research record that national leaders do manipulate fiscal tools in order to be reelected. However, it is much more clear that researchers selectively report that national leaders do manipulate fiscal tools in order to be reelected. The publication selection bias highlighted has nonetheless been reduced during the past 25 years of research. We also show that the incumbents' strategies differ depending on which tools they use. Finally, the nature and quality of political institutions appear to be the factors which most affect the political budget cycles.
Google Sites
Report abuse