Jeez, the lack of scientific rigour in study of economics astounds me. They published in a (questionably) prestigious peer-reviewed journal, without peer review and without including the raw data. Heck, it didn’t even pass the, “review by grad-student” test.
You’d get better scientific rigour from a homeopath and more accurate representation from the ingredients of a Findus Lasagne.
Yet the authors will go on record defending an erroneous paper, as opposed to revisit it, rewrite it, republish it without writing the conclusions first. The zealotry is redolent of a pamphleteer.
Also distrubing is the frequency with which this paper is cited and, ergo, accepted by other scholars. It smacks of an unquestioning orthodoxy.
I submit that the argument that the study of economics has not reached the level where it can be considered a science. The hallucinations of mystics as guidance for rulers have been replaced by the prognostications of these astrologer propagandists.