Reply to Smith

Willem E. Saris and Cees P. Middendorp

British Journal of Political Science, 1981, vol. 11, issue 2, 247-248

Abstract: Although we appreciate the attention the critic has given to our paper, we are somewhat disappointed about the kind of criticism. It is said that the ‘empirical analysis is fundamentally flawed’. But if the analysis is flawed it must be very easy to show it by a reanalysis of the data. However, if one takes the time to look at the data used in this study one can see immediately that when the USSR's level of armaments is very low the USA is producing large amounts of missiles. On the other hand, when the USSR has a large number of missiles the USA's production is nil or very little. Consequently one must conclude that the USA cannot possibly be reacting to the activities of the USSR in the simple ways suggested by Richardson or Hamblin et al. This result was confirmed by our statistical analysis of the data. One can of course try other statistical procedures, as we did, but they all produce the same result: there is no reaction effect in the USA's behaviour.

Date: 1981
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:11:y:1981:i:02:p:247-248_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in British Journal of Political Science from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().