I don't know if DiNardo is watching this or
not, but another issue that should be dealt with
in the JEP piece regards the "panel data revolution"
that has swept a lot of the policy-oriented micro
econometric research in recent years. This combines
both cross-section and time-series approaches.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 1:22 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:6630] Re: In response to Peter
>Two quick responses to the issue about stability raised by Michael:
>
>1. I'm a cross-section rather than time series person -- that's what I
>know and feel comfortable defending. In fact, on exactly Michael's
>grounds I feel less persuaded by time series work in general. But, as
>the next point will hopefully make clear, we are talking about a
>continuum, not a dichotomy.
>
>2. The issue is not utter faith and belief in econometric evidence
>versus corruscating doubt. I agree that there is a wide range of
>problems that should cause us to question a statistical result.
>Stability is one, data quality another, measurement and omitted
>variables, etc. etc. Each case is different. Careful assessment of
>econometrics requires two things: a case-specific analysis of the
>robustness of the results and comparison with other sorts of evidence.
>(Actually, my comment in response to Eban Goodstein's cross-section
>study of environmental costs and trade, included in GLOBALIZATION AND
>PROGRESSIVE ECONOMIC POLICY, makes exactly these points in context.)
>
>Incidentally, the central role of the hypothesis testing paradigm in the
>pen-l discussion is also problematic. I like what Dierdre McCloskey has
>to say about this. We need to get away from the holy alter of
>Significance.
>
>Peter
>
>Michael Perelman wrote:
>>
>> Peter took exception to my dismissal of econometrics. I guess that I
>> side with Keynes in this regard. People on PKT are familiar with the
>> problems of statistical analysis. In particular, you have to assume
>> that the underlying system is stable. In addition, even if it is
>> stable, we still have to contend with the problem of brittleness.
>>
>> Jim Devine mentioned Robert Gordon. I think of Gordon, as well as a lot
>> of MIT economists, as being back of the envelope theorists. Although
>> they generally do not rely on super-sophisticated models or
>> econometrics, I tend to trust their results more than I would more than
>> those of most mainstream economists.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Perelman
>> Economics Department
>> California State University
>> Chico, CA 95929
>>
>> Tel. 530-898-5321
>> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
