IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ginixx/v23y1997i3-4p367-386.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A post‐mortem on the predictions: Criteria, complaints, and compliments

Author

Listed:
  • James Lee Ray

Abstract

Rational choice, or expected utility models have garnered considerable skepticism in many quarters in recent years. Much of that skepticism is deserved. However, the model on which the forecasts in this collection are based is different from many of its competitors in ways which address quite directly the shortcomings that have generated most of the skepticism. Attempts to apply this model can be evaluated according to several criteria, such as the information provided about the experts that generate the data, whether or not the actual data on which the forecasts are based are provided to readers, whether those numbers or data conform with fairly straightforward logic, or intuitive ideas about the political events being analyzed, whether the issue being analyzed is truly one dimensional, and how specific, as well as how controversial, or counterintuitive the forecasts are. The forecasts here are intriguing, intelligent, and conscientious attempts to demonstrate the virtues of a forecasting model that has produced a rather lengthy record of success in both public policy‐oriented arenas, as well as the private sector. It is to be hoped that in the not‐too‐distant future, these attempts will appear rather crude and preliminary. Even if this occurs, the pioneering nature of these efforts should not be overlooked.

Suggested Citation

  • James Lee Ray, 1997. "A post‐mortem on the predictions: Criteria, complaints, and compliments," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3-4), pages 367-386, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ginixx:v:23:y:1997:i:3-4:p:367-386
    DOI: 10.1080/03050629708434916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03050629708434916
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03050629708434916?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:ginixx:v:23:y:1997:i:3-4:p:367-386. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GINI20 .

    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.