IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v24y2016i1p83-86_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Concluding Comments

Author

Listed:
  • Keele, Luke
  • Linn, Suzanna
  • Webb, Clayton McLaughlin

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Keele, Luke & Linn, Suzanna & Webb, Clayton McLaughlin, 2016. "Concluding Comments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 83-86, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:24:y:2016:i:1:p:83-86_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700012043/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:24:y:2016:i:1:p:83-86_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.