The system will be going down for regular maintenance at 8:30 AM EST September 24, 2014. Expected downtime is less than 5 minutes.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Hoover, KD
dc.contributor.author Perez, SJ
dc.date.accessioned 2010-03-09T15:43:36Z
dc.date.issued 2004
dc.identifier.citation Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 2004, 66 (5), pp. 767 - 798
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10161/2079
dc.description.abstract We re-examine studies of cross-country growth regressions by Levine and Renelt (American Economic Review, Vol. 82, 1992, pp. 942-963) and Sala-i-Martin (American Economic Review, Vol. 87, 1997a, pp. 178-183; Economics Department, Columbia, University, 1997b). In a realistic Monte Carlo experiment, their variants of Edward Leamer's extreme-bounds analysis are compared with a cross-sectional version of the general-to-specific search methodology associated with the LSE approach to econometrics. Levine and Renelt's method has low size and low power, while Sala-i-Martin's method has high size and high power. The general-to-specific methodology is shown to have a near nominal size and high power. Sala-i-Martin's method and the general-to-specific method are then applied to the actual data from Sala-i-Martin's original study.
dc.format.extent 767 - 798
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.language.iso en_US
dc.relation.ispartof Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics
dc.title Truth and robustness in cross-country growth regressions
dc.type Journal Article
dc.department Economics
pubs.issue 5
pubs.organisational-group /Duke
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/Trinity College of Arts & Sciences
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/Trinity College of Arts & Sciences/Economics
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/Trinity College of Arts & Sciences/Philosophy
pubs.volume 66

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record