# What this package reproduces

Generated when the package was published, from its own targets and its own output, so
it cannot claim something the code does not do.

**33 of the 39 numbers this paper prints for these tables are reproduced.**

## Not produced by this code (6)

| cell | paper | this code |
|---|---|---|
| HEADLINE_ivmethod_FE_implied_elasticity | 4 | not computed |
| HEADLINE_ivmethod_IV_implied_elasticity | 4 | not computed |
| HEADLINE_developing_FE_implied_elasticity | 2.5 | not computed |
| HEADLINE_developing_IV_implied_elasticity | 2.5 | not computed |
| HEADLINE_developed_FE_implied_elasticity | 4 | not computed |
| HEADLINE_developed_IV_implied_elasticity | 4 | not computed |

This number is not produced here. The paper's '4' and '2.5' are rounded verbal summaries of Bayesian model averaging results (Table 5's 3.7, 95% CI 2 to 20), which the wrappers in stata_compat.R cannot fit. The numbers shown are the FE and IV implied elasticities on the same subsample, which bracket the paper's figure but are a different estimator. Abstract/Sec.I: 'the elasticity of substitution around 4' (Panel B, IV-method primary studies). FE and IV are the only two of Table 1's five estimators with a stata_compat.R wrapper; their implied elasticities (-1/effect_coef) bracket the stated 4 from above.

This number is not produced here. The paper's '4' and '2.5' are rounded verbal summaries of Bayesian model averaging results (Table 5's 3.7, 95% CI 2 to 20), which the wrappers in stata_compat.R cannot fit. The numbers shown are the FE and IV implied elasticities on the same subsample, which bracket the paper's figure but are a different estimator. Same claim as above; brackets 4 from below. The paper's precise '4' (and Table 5's 3.7, 95% CI 2-20) is a Bayesian-model-averaging combination over 24 moderators with no stata_compat.R wrapper, not independently reproducible; these two bracketing numbers are the closest evidence obtainable from the allowed toolkit.

This number is not produced here. The paper's '4' and '2.5' are rounded verbal summaries of Bayesian model averaging results (Table 5's 3.7, 95% CI 2 to 20), which the wrappers in stata_compat.R cannot fit. The numbers shown are the FE and IV implied elasticities on the same subsample, which bracket the paper's figure but are a different estimator. Sec.III: 'developing countries (around 2.5)' (online appendix table C3-C5, developing_country==1 & inverted_estimate==1 subsample). Matches closely: 2.87.

This number is not produced here. The paper's '4' and '2.5' are rounded verbal summaries of Bayesian model averaging results (Table 5's 3.7, 95% CI 2 to 20), which the wrappers in stata_compat.R cannot fit. The numbers shown are the FE and IV implied elasticities on the same subsample, which bracket the paper's figure but are a different estimator. Same claim; IV column gives 2.19, also close to the stated 'around 2.5'.

This number is not produced here. The paper's '4' and '2.5' are rounded verbal summaries of Bayesian model averaging results (Table 5's 3.7, 95% CI 2 to 20), which the wrappers in stata_compat.R cannot fit. The numbers shown are the FE and IV implied elasticities on the same subsample, which bracket the paper's figure but are a different estimator. Sec.III: 'developed countries (above 4)'. The FE corrected inverse elasticity for this subsample is statistically indistinguishable from zero (t=0.22), so -1/coefficient is large in magnitude but its sign is not meaningful, reported as an honest miss on the point value, though a near-zero corrected inverse elasticity is qualitatively consistent with 'a large elasticity'.

This number is not produced here. The paper's '4' and '2.5' are rounded verbal summaries of Bayesian model averaging results (Table 5's 3.7, 95% CI 2 to 20), which the wrappers in stata_compat.R cannot fit. The numbers shown are the FE and IV implied elasticities on the same subsample, which bracket the paper's figure but are a different estimator. Same claim, IV column; also not statistically distinguishable from zero (t=1.00) and first-stage F=8.7 signals a weak instrument for this subsample, reported as an honest miss on the point value, same qualitative caveat as the FE column.

## Reproduced (33)

| cell | paper | this code |
|---|---|---|
| A_FE_pubbias_coef | -5.804 | -5.804008 |
| A_FE_pubbias_se | 1.999 | 1.999206 |
| A_FE_effect_coef | -0.0207 | -0.020657 |
| A_FE_effect_se | 0.103 | 0.103498 |
| A_FE_N | 347 | 347 |
| A_IV_pubbias_coef | -6.962 | -6.961687 |
| A_IV_pubbias_se | 1.694 | 1.69429 |
| A_IV_effect_coef | 0.0103 | 0.010272 |
| A_IV_effect_se | 0.104 | 0.104236 |
| A_IV_firstF | 46.17 | 46.174972 |
| A_IV_N | 251 | 251 |
| B_FE_pubbias_coef | -2.287 | -2.287243 |
| B_FE_pubbias_se | 0.843 | 0.842717 |
| B_FE_effect_coef | -0.149 | -0.149427 |
| B_FE_effect_se | 0.109 | 0.108786 |
| B_FE_N | 264 | 264 |
| B_IV_pubbias_coef | -0.553 | -0.553337 |
| B_IV_pubbias_se | 0.681 | 0.681457 |
| B_IV_effect_coef | -0.4 | -0.399673 |
| B_IV_effect_se | 0.114 | 0.113518 |
| B_IV_firstF | 69.98 | 69.982395 |
| B_IV_N | 212 | 212 |
| C_FE_pubbias_coef | -3.557 | -3.557342 |
| C_FE_pubbias_se | 0.0178 | 0.017772 |
| C_FE_effect_coef | 0.0496 | 0.04962 |
| C_FE_effect_se | 0.00246 | 0.002458 |
| C_FE_N | 40 | 40 |
| C_IV_pubbias_coef | -3.176 | -3.176358 |
| C_IV_pubbias_se | 0.853 | 0.853213 |
| C_IV_effect_coef | -0.00307 | -0.003072 |
| C_IV_effect_se | 0.0297 | 0.029706 |
| C_IV_firstF | 260.41 | 260.411431 |
| C_IV_N | 40 | 40 |