Sunday, November 15, 2015

Wrapping up ARC DP12 Project

I just submitted the final report for this funded project which has been running since 2012 to the research office. We achieved most of the project goals despite receiving much less funding than requested. I also had to take on the role of research director for the Crawford School for 2 years of the project, which took up quite a lot of my time.

On the other hand, one of the main papers is still not quite complete and another is in the revise and resubmit stage. We haven't yet put out working papers for either of those papers either. So, the reduced funding and added admin work did slow things down. So far we have published the following papers that credit the ARC for funding:

Lu Y. and D. I. Stern (in press) Substitutability and the cost of climate mitigation policy, Environmental and Resource Economics. Working Paper Version | Blogpost

Csereklyei Z., M. d. M. Rubio Varas, and D. I. Stern (2016) Energy and economic growth: The stylized facts, Energy Journal 37(2), 223-255. Blogpost

Kander A. and D. I. Stern (2014) Economic growth and the transition from traditional to modern energy in Sweden, Energy Economics 46, 56-65. Working Paper Version | Audioslides | Blogpost

Bruns S. B., C. Gross, and D. I. Stern (2014) Is there really Granger causality between energy use and output? Energy Journal 35(4), 101-134. Working Paper Version | Blogpost

Stern D. I. and K. Enflo (2013) Causality between energy and output in the long-run, Energy Economics 39, 135-146. Working Paper Version | Blogpost

As we are still completing what I think is the most important paper of the project, on the industrial revolution in Britain, this story is definitely not complete yet. In retrospect, I probably should have asked for an extension of the project at the end of last year, so that we could put in a more complete final report to the ARC next year, rather than this year.


  1. Thanks, David

    It is good to see someone talking about the end of a the process. Not many people do that.

    Your note that you hadn't yet published the working paper version of two of the articles caught my eye. I'm interested in how you are using working papers. Are they the 'last version before publication'? I've had a look at the published version and the working paper version of one of your papers. There are minor differences - an extra sentance or two.

    I'm used to the idea of working papers being 'ideas in progress' - a way to kick around an idea that has some rigour behind it, but isn't quite there yet. This seems to be a little bit different.

    Maybe the idea of a working paper has changed over time - I haven't looked at them for years. Or maybe the term varies across disciplines.

    Anyway, thanks for a great post.

  2. In economics it's expected that most published papers will have a working paper version. These working papers are probably read more by researchers on the research frontier than recent journal articles. This is why there are few open access journals in economics. We don't need them. These working papers vary from early ideas or what would be called "postprints" or "green open access" in other fields. I used to put out a working paper when I first submitted a paper for review. Nowadays, I sometimes wait to get referee comments first and on the first resubmission also post a working paper. This depends on how confident I am about the paper etc. Some colleagues like to post only final papers on the web and so some of my coauthored papers might be postprints or close to postprints.