Causal claims in interconnected economies are ambiguous: estimating a network helps but does not by itself identify what 'an effect' means—researchers must state how outcomes would adjust to shocks, because partial, local and equilibrium counterfactuals yield different causal answers and equilibrium effects need much stronger assumptions.

Main Finding

Under economic interdependence there is no single, uniquely defined causal effect of a firm-level treatment. Even when the interaction structure (network or spatial weights) is correctly specified or consistently learned from predetermined characteristics, causal conclusions require an explicit choice of counterfactual regime describing how other firms’ outcomes are allowed to adjust. Maté formalizes three economically meaningful counterfactual regimes—partial equilibrium, local interaction, and network-consistent (equilibrium)—shows that common spatial autoregressive (SAR) estimands map to different causal objects depending on the chosen regime, derives identification conditions for each regime, and demonstrates (via Monte Carlo) that equilibrium feedback can mechanically change estimates and amplify bias when identifying assumptions fail.

Key Points

• Interdependence breaks the standard potential-outcomes logic: Y_i(D) is not well-defined without specifying how other units’ outcomes respond to changes in D.
• Two orthogonal problems exist in spatial/network causal work:
• Specification/learning of the interaction structure W (who interacts with whom and how strongly).
• Specification of the counterfactual adjustment regime (what other firms do when treatment changes).
• Learning W from predetermined firm characteristics (W = W(θ; X)) is necessary to avoid misspecification but not sufficient for causal interpretation.
• Three counterfactual regimes:
  • Partial-equilibrium: change unit i’s treatment while holding all other firms’ outcomes fixed (isolates direct effect; weak identifying assumptions).
  • Local-interaction: allow immediate neighbors (first-order links) to adjust while holding the rest fixed (captures localized spillovers; requires assumption that effects dissipate beyond the neighborhood).
  • Network-consistent (equilibrium): allow shock to propagate through the entire network until a new equilibrium; captures total direct + indirect + feedback effects but needs much stronger assumptions (e.g., no correlation between assignment and unobservables across the whole system).
• Standard SAR model (Y = ρ W Y + β D + Xγ + ε) can be interpreted as targeting different causal parameters depending on which counterfactual regime is implied; applied researchers rarely make that mapping explicit.
• Identification strength varies widely: partial-equilibrium effects require relatively weak conditions, whereas equilibrium effects require ruling out correlated shocks across the network and stronger exclusion/assignment assumptions.
• Monte Carlo results: equilibrium vs partial-equilibrium effects differ mechanically before estimation; network feedback can substantially amplify bias when assumptions fail.

Data & Methods

• Conceptual framework: potential outcomes allow arbitrary dependence on the full treatment vector D. To reduce dimensionality, interactions are summarized by an interaction matrix W (with W treated as a function of predetermined covariates X and parameters θ).
• Structural/estimand definitions: formal definitions of causal objects under each counterfactual regime are derived, mapping them to functions of W, β, ρ, and primitives of the model.
• Econometric mapping: analysis of how commonly estimated SAR parameters correspond to the different causal objects depending on the chosen counterfactual.
• Identification analysis: conditions required to identify each causal object are derived — including assumptions on treatment assignment (exogeneity, instruments), on the formation/pre-determination of W, and on absence of correlated unobservables (strongest for equilibrium effects).
• Estimation & simulation: the paper describes an estimation strategy for settings where W is learned from X (building on recent methods that estimate network weights from observables) and implements Monte Carlo simulations. Simulations illustrate:
  • Mechanical divergence between equilibrium and partial-equilibrium causal objects even prior to estimation.
  • How mis-specification or failed identifying assumptions lead to amplified bias via network feedback.
• Assumptions highlighted: W predetermined relative to treatment; mapping W(θ; X) identifies interaction topology; regime-specific assumptions on allowable adjustments and unconfoundedness.

Implications for AI Economics

• Context relevance: evaluations of firm-level AI interventions (subsidies for AI adoption, firm AI pilots, technology grants), diffusion of AI-driven productivity through supply chains, labor-market impacts of AI, and place-based AI policies are all interdependent settings. The paper’s message applies directly: spillovers from AI adoption are not a single object.
• Practical guidance for AI economics research and policy evaluation:
  • Explicitly state the counterfactual regime that matches the policy question. Example: do you want the direct impact on treated firms holding markets fixed (partial-equilibrium), the immediate peer/supplier responses (local interaction), or the full market reallocation and feedback (network-consistent equilibrium)?
  • Learn interaction structure (W) from meaningful, predetermined features (supply-chain links, input–output ties, geographic proximity, worker flows, technological similarity), but recognize learning W does not resolve counterfactual ambiguity.
  • Map empirical estimators (e.g., SAR ρ, spatial multipliers) to the causal object implied by your counterfactual; do not interpret spatial coefficients as “total spillovers” unless the equilibrium regime and its assumptions are justified.
  • For equilibrium/total effects (often most policy-relevant for aggregate welfare): prepare for stronger identification demands—exogenous assignment or valid instruments that address potential correlation between treatment and network shocks across the entire system, or credible quasi-experiments that isolate system-wide shocks.
  • Use sensitivity analyses: estimate effects under multiple counterfactual regimes and show how conclusions change; simulate plausible propagation mechanisms for AI diffusion to assess robustness.
  • When possible, design (or exploit) experimental/randomized interventions that clarify exposure mappings or use staggered rollouts and network-based instruments to help identify spillovers.
• Policy cautions: policy conclusions about market-wide benefits or harms of AI interventions require particularly strong evidence; failing to account for the chosen counterfactual may lead to over- or under-estimating spillovers and misguiding AI policy.
• Research agenda: combine methods that learn networks from rich firm/worker/transaction data with explicit modelling of counterfactual adjustment processes; develop diagnostics and partial-identification methods that quantify uncertainty stemming from different plausible counterfactual regimes.