[OPE-L:3820] Re: Re: Re: On the Unimportance of the Transformation Problem

From: Paul Cockshott (clyder@gn.apc.org)
Date: Thu Sep 14 2000 - 15:39:13 EDT

[ show plain text ]

At 09:57 07/09/00 -0400,Kliman wrote:
>Paul Cockshott replied, in OPE-L 3776, "I would side with you here. All
>the empirical studies that I know of apart from Steedmans back this up,
>many even more strongly."
>Well, Paul surely knows about my own empirical study, which is
>forthcoming in the CJE. It finds that, once one resolves the problem of
>spurious correlation by controlling for the variations in industry size
>that produce spurious correlation, there is *no* reliable evidence that
>sectoral values have any influence upon sectoral prices. The
>cross-sectional correlations, which are often much larger than 0.93 (in
>the case of my study, about 0.99) when researchers fail to control for
>industry size, become very small, insignificiantly different from zero,
>and quite often negative once the spurious correlation is eliminated.

I must confess that I am surprised that Andrews paper has passed peer
review for a journal as serious as the CJE. I was unaware that it was
to be published. Since there was already a discussion about his
methodology on OPE last year I dont see the point in wasting my
and other list members time discussing it here. When Andrew's paper
appears in the CJE I will submit a technical note to the Editor
on the methodological issues raised.

Perhaps Andrew could notify me when his paper actually appears in print.

Paul Cockshott (clyder@gn.apc.org)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT