对《检验古德温:十个经合组织国家的增长周期》的评论

arXiv: Econometrics Pub Date : 2017-11-07 DOI:10.1093/cje/bex018

M. Grasselli, Aditya Maheshwari

{"title":"对《检验古德温:十个经合组织国家的增长周期》的评论","authors":"M. Grasselli, Aditya Maheshwari","doi":"10.1093/cje/bex018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We revisit the results of Harvie (2000) and show how correcting for a reporting mistake in some of the estimated parameter values leads to significantly different conclusions, including realistic parameter values for the Philips curve and estimated equilibrium employment rates exhibiting on average one tenth of the relative error of those obtained in Harvie (2000).","PeriodicalId":8448,"journal":{"name":"arXiv: Econometrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comment on 'Testing Goodwin: growth cycles in ten OECD countries'\",\"authors\":\"M. Grasselli, Aditya Maheshwari\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cje/bex018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We revisit the results of Harvie (2000) and show how correcting for a reporting mistake in some of the estimated parameter values leads to significantly different conclusions, including realistic parameter values for the Philips curve and estimated equilibrium employment rates exhibiting on average one tenth of the relative error of those obtained in Harvie (2000).\",\"PeriodicalId\":8448,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv: Econometrics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv: Econometrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv: Econometrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 27

摘要

我们重新审视了Harvie(2000)的结果，并展示了纠正一些估计参数值中的报告错误如何导致显著不同的结论，包括飞利浦曲线的实际参数值和估计的均衡就业率，平均显示出Harvie(2000)中获得的相对误差的十分之一。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A comment on 'Testing Goodwin: growth cycles in ten OECD countries'

We revisit the results of Harvie (2000) and show how correcting for a reporting mistake in some of the estimated parameter values leads to significantly different conclusions, including realistic parameter values for the Philips curve and estimated equilibrium employment rates exhibiting on average one tenth of the relative error of those obtained in Harvie (2000).

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

arXiv: Econometrics

自引率

0.00%

发文量