This paper examines the econometric causal model and the interpretation of empirical evidence based on thought experiments that was developed by Ragnar Frisch and Trygve Haavelmo. We compare the econometric causal model with two currently popular causal frameworks: the Neyman-Rubin causal model and the Do-Calculus. The Neyman-Rubin causal model is based on the language of potential outcomes and was largely developed by statisticians. Instead of being based on thought experiments, it takes statistical experiments as its foundation. The Do-Calculus, developed by Judea Pearl and co-authors, relies on Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) and is a popular causal framework in computer science and applied mathematics. We make the case that economists who uncritically use these frameworks often discard the substantial benefits of the econometric causal model to the detriment of more informative analyses. We illustrate the versatility and capabilities of the econometric framework using causal models developed in economics.

More on this topic

BFI Working Paper·Sep 18, 2025

The Impact of Language on Decision-Making: Auction Winners are Less Cursed in a Foreign Language

Fang Fu, Leigh H. Grant, Ali Hortaçsu, Boaz Keysar, Jidong Yang, and Karen J. Ye
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Aug 20, 2025

Partial Language Acquisition: The Impact of Conformity

William A. Brock, Bo Chen, Steven Durlauf, and Shlomo Weber
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Aug 12, 2025

Seemingly Virtuous Complexity in Return Prediction

Stefan Nagel
Topics: Uncategorized