Concluding Comments

Luke Keele, Suzanna Linn and Clayton McLaughlin Webb

Political Analysis, 2016, vol. 24, issue 1, 83-86

Abstract: This issue began as an exchange between Grant and Lebo (2016) and ourselves (Keele, Linn, and Webb 2016) about the utility of the general error correction model (GECM) in political science. The exchange evolved into a debate about Grant and Lebo's proposed alternative to the GECM and the utility of fractional integration methods (FIM). Esarey (2016) and Helgason (2016) weigh in on this part of the debate. Freeman (2016) offers his views on the exchange as well. In the end, the issue leaves readers with a lot to consider. In his comment, Freeman (2016) argues that the exchange has produced little significant progress because of the contributors' failures to consider a wide array of topics not directly related to the GECM or FIM. We are less pessimistic. In what follows, we distill what we believe are the most important elements of the exchange–the importance of balance, the costs and benefits of FIM, and the vagaries of pre-testing.

Date: 2016
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:polals:v:24:y:2016:i:1:p:83-86_8

Access Statistics for this article

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