Meta-analytic reply reveals substantial publication bias inflation in estimated returns to schooling, confirming that reported economic benefits are systematically overstated.
In this response to Lee Crawfurd's comment on The Returns to Education: A Meta‐Study , we address his three main criticisms. We contend that estimates based on compulsory schooling laws constitute the most reliable evidence on causal returns to education. We show that our parsimonious approach to correcting for publication bias is preferable to more complex approaches that have biases of their own. Finally, we argue that the observed skewed distribution is most plausibly explained by selective omission of negative estimates. We therefore conclude that the comment does not undermine our central finding that reported returns to education are substantially inflated because of publication bias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Clark et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: