Economic Complexity: "Buttarla in caciara" vs a constructive approach
Andrea Tacchella and
Papers from arXiv.org
This note is a contribution to the debate about the optimal algorithm for Economic Complexity that recently appeared on ArXiv [1, 2] . The authors of  eventually agree that the ECI+ algorithm  consists just in a renaming of the Fitness algorithm we introduced in 2012, as we explicitly showed in . However, they omit any comment on the fact that their extensive numerical tests claimed to demonstrate that the same algorithm works well if they name it ECI+, but not if its name is Fitness. They should realize that this eliminates any credibility to their numerical methods and therefore also to their new analysis, in which they consider many algorithms . Since by their own admission the best algorithm is the Fitness one, their new claim became that the search for the best algorithm is pointless and all algorithms are alike. This is exactly the opposite of what they claimed a few days ago and it does not deserve much comments. After these clarifications we also present a constructive analysis of the status of Economic Complexity, its algorithms, its successes and its perspectives. For us the discussion closes here, we will not reply to further comments.
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cmp and nep-hme
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.05272 Latest version (application/pdf)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:1709.05272
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Series data maintained by arXiv administrators ().