Abstract:
The publication of contradictory replications often sparks persistent disputes between replicators and original authors. We investigate whether experts converge toward consensus in the prominent debate between Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (AJR, 2001) and Albouy (2012). We recruited 352 experts, including many senior and highly cited economists, primarily from the pool of scholars citing one of the debate articles. We find no consensus on whether the AJR results hold after Albouy's replication, indicating no prevailing interpretation of the debate more than a decade later. Our study demonstrates a potential approach to assessing scientific consensus formation in replication debates and contested literatures.
