Handling Economic Freedom in Growth Regressions: A Reply to Cole and Lawson

Jakob de Haan and Jan-Egbert Sturm

Econ Journal Watch, 2007, vol. 4, issue 1, 79-82

Abstract: COLE AND LAWSON (2007) STATE THAT “EQUATION (1) IS Lawson’s preferred specification, while de Haan et al. favor Equation (4).†That is not an appropriate summary of our position, however. We do not have a preference for Equation (4). In our papers on the relationship between economic freedom and economic performance we have always estimated Equations (3) and (4), using the Extreme Bounds Analysis to test whether (the level or the change in) the Fraser index is robustly related to economic growth. Our results are that the level of economic freedom is not robustly related to growth, in contrast to the change of the economic freedom. In our reply (De Haan and Sturm 2006) to Lawson (2006), we explain that the main reason that we do not consider Equation (1) a proper specification is that Equation (1) is equivalent to Equation (2). All sides in the debate seem to agree that Equation (2) is definitely not a good model as there is a serious problem of endogeneity of one of the right-hand side variables (i.e. EF1).

Date: 2007
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://econjwatch.org/File+download/138/2007-01-haansturm-com.pdf?mimetype=pdf (application/pdf)
https://econjwatch.org/233 (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:ejw:journl:v:4:y:2007:i:1:p:79-82

Access Statistics for this article

Econ Journal Watch is currently edited by Daniel Klein

More articles in Econ Journal Watch from Econ Journal Watch Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Jason Briggeman ().