IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dse/indecr/v36y2001i1p269-300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining the Results of rationality Studies: What Did We know and When Did We know It?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert S. Goldfarb

    (George Washington University)

  • H. O. Stekler

    (George Washington University)

Abstract

Numerous empirical literatures display conflicting results. This paper examines the conflicting results concerning the rationality of forecasts and expectations. Meta-analysis techniques are used to examine the empirical studies that tested the rationality hypothesis. What did we know, and when did we know it, about the rationality of forecasts? Our purpose is to systematically document how conclusions change over time and to investigate whether meta-analysis techniques might have been useful in shedding light on those findings. The results differ depending on which meta null is used, but there still is no definitive finding about the rationality of these forecasts.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert S. Goldfarb & H. O. Stekler, 2001. "Combining the Results of rationality Studies: What Did We know and When Did We know It?," Indian Economic Review, Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, vol. 36(1), pages 269-300, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:dse:indecr:v:36:y:2001:i:1:p:269-300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fildes, Robert & Stekler, Herman, 2002. "The state of macroeconomic forecasting," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 435-468, December.
    2. Stekler, H.O., 2007. "Significance tests harm progress in forecasting: Comment," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 329-330.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • E37 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Prices, Business Fluctuations, and Cycles - - - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
    • B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General

    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:dse:indecr:v:36:y:2001:i:1:p:269-300. 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: Pami Dua (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deudein.html .

    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.