跳过至主要内容
翻译进行中 — 您的语言版本正在准备中，目前内容以英语显示。
返回讨论

A natural experiment in economics

Society
全球
开始于 July 25, 2026

To study whether and how academics respond to political pressure, we exploit a natural experiment: the publication in early 2025 of a “blacklist” of words flagged by the U.S. government. We find that the release of this list led to a sharp reduction in the use of these flagged words among economists at universities that […] The post A natural experiment in economics appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION. Related StoriesDemocrats are more politically segregated than are RepublicansWhat should ...

来源文章

添加陈述 分析 0/5
Need to find a specific claim? Search all statements.
🗳️ Join the conversation
10 条陈述待投票 • Your perspective shapes the analysis
📊 Progress to Consensus Analysis Need: 7+ participants, 20+ votes, 3+ votes per statement
Participants 0/7
Statements (10+ recommended) 10/10
Total Votes 0/20
💡 Progress updates live here. Final readiness is confirmed when all three requirements are met.

Your votes count

No account needed — your votes are saved and included in the consensus analysis. Create an account to track your voting history and add statements.

CLAIM 发布者 admin • Jul 25, 2026
Public deliberation about how institutions respond to government signals requires transparency from universities about their internal policies.

翻译待处理

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 查看讨论
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 发布者 admin • Jul 25, 2026
Universities that showed larger word-use reductions than others likely experienced stronger internal pressure on faculty speech.

翻译待处理

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 查看讨论
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 发布者 admin • Jul 25, 2026
Natural experiments like word-use changes reveal how institutions and individuals respond to external pressure in measurable ways.

翻译待处理

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 查看讨论
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 发布者 admin • Jul 25, 2026
Government communication about language use is a legitimate policy tool that economists, like all citizens, are free to follow or reject.

翻译待处理

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 查看讨论
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 发布者 admin • Jul 25, 2026
Economists may avoid flagged words for reasons unrelated to pressure, such as evolving scholarly consensus on terminology.

翻译待处理

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 查看讨论
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 发布者 admin • Jul 25, 2026
Government lists identifying problematic language help focus academic discourse on clarity and prevent misuse of terms.

翻译待处理

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 查看讨论
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 发布者 admin • Jul 25, 2026
The reduction in flagged word usage among economists proves that government pressure successfully shapes academic speech.

翻译待处理

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 查看讨论
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 发布者 admin • Jul 25, 2026
If researchers document causal effects of government lists on academic speech, policymakers should reconsider whether such lists serve their stated purpose.

翻译待处理

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 查看讨论
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 发布者 admin • Jul 25, 2026
Word-use changes cannot distinguish between voluntary adoption of preferred language and coercive avoidance.

翻译待处理

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 查看讨论
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 发布者 admin • Jul 25, 2026
Studies showing differential responses across universities indicate that institutional leadership and culture shape how pressure translates into practice.

翻译待处理

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 查看讨论
Be first to respond
Vote to see results

💡 How This Works

  • • Add Statements: Post claims or questions (10-500 characters)
  • • Vote: Agree, Disagree, or Unsure on each statement
  • • Respond: Add detailed pro/con responses with evidence
  • • Consensus: After enough participation, analysis reveals opinion groups and areas of agreement

Society Speaks is open and independent. Your support keeps civic discussion free from advertising and commercial influence.

Support us