Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Sound and Fury: McCloskey and Significance Testing in Economics

Contents:

Author Info

  • Kevin D. Hoover

    (University of California, Davis)

  • Mark V. Siegler

    (California State University, Sacramento)

Abstract

For about twenty years, Deidre McCloskey has campaigned to convince the economics profession that it is hopelessly confused about statistical significance. She argues that many practices associated with significance testing are bad science and that most economists routinely employ these bad practices: “Though to a child they look like science, with all that really hard math, no science is being done in these and 96 percent of the best empirical economics. . .” (McCloskey 1999). McCloskey’s charges are analyzed and rejected. That statistical significance is not economic significance is a jejune and uncontroversial claim, and there is no convincing evidence that economists systematically mistake the two. Other elements of McCloskey’s analysis of statistical significance are shown to be ill-founded, and her criticisms of practices of economists are found to be based in inaccurate readings and tendentious interpretations of their work. Properly used, significance tests are a valuable tool for assessing signal strength, for assisting in model specification, and for determining causal structure.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://128.118.178.162/eps/em/papers/0511/0511018.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Econometrics with number 0511018.

as in new window
Length: 53 pages
Date of creation: 29 Nov 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpem:0511018

Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 53
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://128.118.178.162

Related research

Keywords: statistical significance; economic significance; significance testing; regression analysis; econometric methodology; Deirdre McCloskey; Neyman-Pearson testing;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Kevin Hoover & Stephen J. Perez, 2003. "Data Mining Reconsidered: Encompassing And The General-To-Specific Approach To Specification Search," Working Papers 9727, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
  2. Kevin Hoover & Harris Dellas, 2003. "Truth and Robustness in Cross-country Growth Regressions," Working Papers 11, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
  3. Summers, Lawrence H, 1991. " The Scientific Illusion in Empirical Macroeconomics," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(2), pages 129-48.
  4. Deirdre N. McCloskey, 1999. "Other Things Equal: Cassandra's Open Letter to Her Economist Colleagues," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 357-363, Summer.
  5. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-67, December.
  6. McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
  7. McAleer, Michael & Pagan, Adrian, 1985. "What Will Take the Con Out of Econometrics?," CEPR Discussion Papers 39, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  8. Bernanke, Ben S & Blinder, Alan S, 1992. "The Federal Funds Rate and the Channels of Monetary Transmission," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 901-21, September.
  9. Hendry, David F, 1980. "Econometrics-Alchemy or Science?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 47(188), pages 387-406, November.
  10. Ziliak, Stephen T. & McCloskey, Deirdre N., 2004. "Size matters: the standard error of regressions in the American Economic Review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 527-546, November.
  11. Hoover,Kevin D., 2001. "Causality in Macroeconomics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521452175, October.
  12. Krolzig, Hans-Martin & Hendry, David F., 2001. "Computer automation of general-to-specific model selection procedures," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(6-7), pages 831-866, June.
  13. Lovell, Michael C, 1983. "Data Mining," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 65(1), pages 1-12, February.
  14. Kahn, J.A. & Landsburg, S.E. & Stockman, A.C., 1989. "The Positive Economics Of Methodology," RCER Working Papers 165, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  15. Deirdre N. McCloskey, 1997. "Other Things Equal: Aunt Deirdre's Letter to a Graduate Student," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 23(2), pages 241-244, Spring.
  16. Gary S. Becker & Michael Grossman & Kevin M. Murphy, 1990. "An Empirical Analysis of Cigarette Addiction," University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State 61, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
  17. David F. Hendry & Hans-Martin Krolzig, 1999. "Improving on 'Data mining reconsidered' by K.D. Hoover and S.J. Perez," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 2(2), pages 202-219.
  18. James Wible, 1994. "Charles Sanders Peirce's economy of research," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 135-160.
  19. Cooley, Thomas F & LeRoy, Stephen F, 1981. "Identification and Estimation of Money Demand," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 825-44, December.
  20. Hoover, Kevin D., 2004. "Lost Causes," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(02), pages 149-164, June.
  21. Woodbury, Stephen A & Spiegelman, Robert G, 1987. "Bonuses to Workers and Employers to Reduce Unemployment: Randomized Trials in Illinois," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 513-30, September.
  22. Stephen T. Ziliak & Deirdre N. McCloskey, 2004. "Size Matters: The Standard Error of Regressions in the American Economic Review," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 1(2), pages 331-358, August.
  23. Solon, Gary, 1992. "Intergenerational Income Mobility in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 393-408, June.
  24. B. Douglas Bernheim & Adam Wantz, 1992. "A Tax-Based Test of the Dividend Signaling Hypothesis," NBER Working Papers 4244, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  25. Levine, Ross & Renelt, David, 1992. "A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross-Country Growth Regressions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 942-63, September.
  26. McCloskey, Donald N, 1985. "The Loss Function Has Been Mislaid: The Rhetoric of Significance Tests," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 201-05, May.
  27. Elliott, Graham & Granger, Clive W.J., 2004. "Evaluating significance: comments on "size matters"," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 547-550, November.
  28. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2004. "Statistical significance is okay, too: comment on "Size Matters"," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 577-579, November.
  29. Kevin Hoover, 1994. "Econometrics as observation: the Lucas critique and the nature of econometric inference," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 65-80.
  30. Spanos, Aris, 1995. "On theory testing in econometrics : Modeling with nonexperimental data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 189-226, May.
  31. Kevin Hoover & Stephen Perez, 2001. "Three attitudes towards data mining," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 195-210.
  32. Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 1996. "The Standard Error of Regressions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 97-114, March.
  33. Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2004. "Mindless statistics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 587-606, November.
  34. Keuzenkamp, Hugo A. & Magnus, Jan R., 1995. "On tests and significance in econometrics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 5-24, May.
  35. Ziliak, Stephen T. & McCloskey, Deirdre N., 2004. "Significance redux," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 665-675, November.
  36. Keuzenkamp, H.A. & Magnus, J.R., 1995. "On tests and significance in econometrics," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-153236, Tilburg University.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Blog mentions

As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
  1. Interview with Bill Starbuck
    by Peter Klein in Organizations and Markets on 2007-04-16 14:54:51
  2. Ritual and rationality
    by chris dillow in Stumbling and Mumbling on 2006-02-24 13:09:08
  3. Hoover & Siegler: McCloskey is Oh So Wrong About Statistical Significance (UPDATED)
    by Kevin in truck and barter on 2006-01-19 21:06:45
Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Tom Engsted, 2009. "Statistical vs. Economic Significance in Economics and Econometrics: Further comments on McCloskey & Ziliak," CREATES Research Papers 2009-17, School of Economics and Management, University of Aarhus.
  2. Wicks, Rick, 2008. "Stylebook:Tips on Organization, Writing, and Formatting," Working Papers in Economics 295, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised 11 Jun 2008.
  3. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McClosky’s Criticisms of Significance Tests: A Damage Assessment," Working Papers 126, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
  4. Thomas Mayer, 2012. "Ziliak and McCloskey's Criticisms of Significance Tests: An Assessment," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 9(3), pages 256-297, September.
  5. Kozo Mayumi & Mario Giampietro & Jesus Ramos-Martin, 2012. "Reconsideration of Dimensions and Curve Fitting Practice in View of Georgescu-Roegen’s Epistemology in Economics," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 0(4), pages 17-35, December.
  6. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Paul McNamee & Mandy Ryan & Matthew Sutton, 2012. "Valuing Informal Care Experience: Does Choice of Measure Matter?," Social Indicators Research, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 169-184, August.
  7. Tatom, John, 2010. "Financial wellbeing and some problems in assessing its link to financial education," MPRA Paper 26411, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  8. Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 2012. "Statistical Significance in the New Tom and the Old Tom: A Reply to Thomas Mayer," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 9(3), pages 298-308, September.
  9. Thomas Mayer, 2013. "Reply to Deirdre McCloskey and Stephen Ziliak on Statistical Significance," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 10(1), pages 87-96, January.
  10. Thomas Mayer, 2006. "The Empirical Significance of Econometric Models," Working Papers 620, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
  11. Meszaros, Sandor, 2008. "Theory testing (hypothesis testing) in agricultural economics," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, issue 107, March.
  12. Stephen T. Ziliak & Deirdre N. McCloskey, 2013. "We Agree That Statistical Significance Proves Essentially Nothing: A Rejoinder to Thomas Mayer," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 10(1), pages 97-107, January.

Lists

This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:
  1. Economics in Wikipedia (English)
  2. User:Thomasmeeks/Rough drafts in Wikipedia (English)
  3. Talk:Economics/Archive 3 in Wikipedia (English)
  4. Kullanıcı:Emrahertr/delta in Wikipedia (Turkish)

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpem:0511018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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