Causal Claims in Economics

Abstract

We analyze over 44,000 NBER and CEPR working papers from 1980 to 2023 using a custom language model to construct knowledge graphs that map economic concepts and their relationships. We distinguish between general claims and those documented via causal inference methods (e.g., DiD, IV, RDD, RCTs). We document a substantial rise in the share of causal claims-from roughly 4% in 1990 to nearly 28% in 2020-reflecting the growing influence of the "credibility revolution." We find that causal narrative complexity (e.g., the depth of causal chains) strongly predicts both publication in top-5 journals and higher citation counts, whereas non-causal complexity tends to be uncorrelated or negatively associated with these outcomes. Novelty is also pivotal for top-5 publication, but only when grounded in credible causal methods: introducing genuinely new causal edges or paths markedly increases both the likelihood of acceptance at leading outlets and long-run citations, while non-causal novelty exhibits weak or even negative effects. Papers engaging with central, widely recognized concepts tend to attract more citations, highlighting a divergence between factors driving publication success and long-term academic impact. Finally, bridging underexplored concept pairs is rewarded primarily when grounded in causal methods, yet such gap filling exhibits no consistent link with future citations. Overall, our findings suggest that methodological rigor and causal innovation are key drivers of academic recognition, but sustained impact may require balancing novel contributions with conceptual integration into established economic discourse.