Concluding comments

Luke Keele, Suzanna Linn, Clayton Mc Laughlin Webb

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

This issue began as an exchange between Grant and Lebo (2016) and ourselves (Keele, Linn, and Webb 2016) about the utility of the general error correction model (GECM) in political science. The exchange evolved into a debate about Grant and Lebo's proposed alternative to the GECM and the utility of fractional integration methods (FIM). Esarey (2016) and Helgason (2016) weigh in on this part of the debate. Freeman (2016) offers his views on the exchange as well. In the end, the issue leaves readers with a lot to consider. In his comment, Freeman (2016) argues that the exchange has produced little significant progress because of the contributors' failures to consider a wide array of topics not directly related to the GECM or FIM. We are less pessimistic. In what follows, we distill what we believe are the most important elements of the exchange-the importance of balance, the costs and benefits of FIM, and the vagaries of pre-testing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)83-86
Number of pages4
JournalPolitical Analysis
Volume24
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2016

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Concluding comments'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Keele, L., Linn, S., & Webb, C. M. L. (2016). Concluding comments. Political Analysis, 24(1), 83-86. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpv030