> the evidence on spillovers and productivity effects of incentives appears mixed.
Without digging through their methodology, it seems that an interpretation of "no evidence" is unwarranted as there is a likelyhood of confounding factors that were not taken into account.
"No evidence" is a positive assertion and a misreading of what the paper indicates. This is not a critique of reporting a null result, but what appears to be a misinterpretation to make a catchier headline which is equally as bad as what we have now- uncritical acceptance of whatever gets published.
> the evidence on spillovers and productivity effects of incentives appears mixed.
Without digging through their methodology, it seems that an interpretation of "no evidence" is unwarranted as there is a likelyhood of confounding factors that were not taken into account.
"No evidence" is a positive assertion and a misreading of what the paper indicates. This is not a critique of reporting a null result, but what appears to be a misinterpretation to make a catchier headline which is equally as bad as what we have now- uncritical acceptance of whatever gets published.