Dean Baker on 16th April, 2013 How much unemployment did Reinhart and Rogoff's arthmetic mistake cause?
Dean Baker on July 4, 2010 It would be helpful if Rogoff and Reinhart made their data available
Krugman's response to Reinhart-Rogoff response Reinhart-Rogoff continued
More discussion at Economist's View
P.S. Now, there is a flood of comments and it may take some time before the dust settles down, if ever. So, I will stop with a few more links. Here is the original Reinhart-Rogoff paper and the paper which pointed the errors is here. From a summary of the later paper by Mike Konczal: "They find that three main issues stand out. First, Reinhart and Rogoff selectively exclude years of high debt and average growth. Second, they use a debatable method to weight the countries. Third, there also appears to be a coding error that excludes high-debt and average-growth countries. All three bias in favor of their result, and without them you don't get their controversial result."
It seems as Dean Baker complained earlier, the data was not available to others for a long time. Reinhart-Rogoff response mentions a 2012 paper with Vincent Reihart, an economist at Morgan Stanley.
Tyler Cowen wonders about Reinheart-Rogoff paper:
"The most interesting question to me is a rather squirrelly and subjective one: how should this episode change the relative ratios of what I read? Should I in fact read fewer quantitative economics papers, instead (at the margin, of course) preferring more narrative history? This is not the first time that an extremely influential major empirical result has been overturned or at least thrown into serious doubt."
A few weeks earlier, he talked of smell test The smell test for an Academic paper.
Probably, lot of the updates will be at http://delong.typepad.com/
Dean Baker on July 4, 2010 It would be helpful if Rogoff and Reinhart made their data available
Krugman's response to Reinhart-Rogoff response Reinhart-Rogoff continued
More discussion at Economist's View
P.S. Now, there is a flood of comments and it may take some time before the dust settles down, if ever. So, I will stop with a few more links. Here is the original Reinhart-Rogoff paper and the paper which pointed the errors is here. From a summary of the later paper by Mike Konczal: "They find that three main issues stand out. First, Reinhart and Rogoff selectively exclude years of high debt and average growth. Second, they use a debatable method to weight the countries. Third, there also appears to be a coding error that excludes high-debt and average-growth countries. All three bias in favor of their result, and without them you don't get their controversial result."
It seems as Dean Baker complained earlier, the data was not available to others for a long time. Reinhart-Rogoff response mentions a 2012 paper with Vincent Reihart, an economist at Morgan Stanley.
Tyler Cowen wonders about Reinheart-Rogoff paper:
"The most interesting question to me is a rather squirrelly and subjective one: how should this episode change the relative ratios of what I read? Should I in fact read fewer quantitative economics papers, instead (at the margin, of course) preferring more narrative history? This is not the first time that an extremely influential major empirical result has been overturned or at least thrown into serious doubt."
A few weeks earlier, he talked of smell test The smell test for an Academic paper.
Probably, lot of the updates will be at http://delong.typepad.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment