According to Nathan Nunn, persistence studies usually take the following form,[Scholars] begin by collecting new data, often from archival sources, that measure aspects of the historical episode of interest.
Statistical analysis is undertaken, studying variation across individuals, ethnicities, or countries and using empirical techniques (such as instrumental variables, regression discontinuity, difference-in-difference, or natural experiments) that are aimed at distinguishing causal relationships from mere correlation.
Having established the importance of a historical factor or episode for outcomes today, an attempt is then made to understand the exact causal mechanisms that account for the observed relationship.
[1] Critics of persistence studies argue the pitfalls of the approach lie in a failure to recognize institutional change ("anti-persistence"), vague mechanisms, the insufficient use (or misuse) of historical sources and narratives, the compression of history, and a failure to account for the effects of geography.
"[10][3][11] A 2024 review of 30 prominent persistence studies articles in leading journals found that after correcting the standard errors, few of the results approach statistical significance at conventional levels.