[grumple]

Correlation might not prove causation (is anything in economics proveable?) but it does strongly suggest a relationship. It doesn’t take fanciful thinking to theorize a relationship here. It might be that both greater numbers of lawyers and lower economic activity are caused by something else (like more regulation), or that lower economic activity creates more lawyers.

[rcar]

Fine, but you could just as easily flip the arrow or come up with a common cause to come up with a plausible narrative. In areas with low economic growth, lawyers are a high status, high earning potential field, and so why not go into that field? Maybe areas with autocratic leadership see both more complex laws and lower economic growth, leading to a necessity for more lawyers overall.

Observational studies like this are not sufficient to answer these sorts of questions even if you can use them to come up with cute, cheeky headlines.

[dexterdog]

But what do lawyers actually create that would be part of any economic growth. It seems to me that they are just toll takers for access to justice and bureaucracy.

[dcastm]

You need to take a look at this: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[grumple]

I am well aware that correlations can be spurious, but they can also be related. I’ve noted a very strong correlation between my use of a hammer and the number of nails in my wall...