Concluding Comments. (4th January 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Keele, Luke; Linn, Suzanna; Webb, Clayton McLaughlin
• Is Part Of: Political analysis. Volume 24:Number 1(2016:Spring)
• Page Start: 83
• Page End: 86
• Publication Date: 2017-01-04
• Subjects: Political science -- Methodology -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 320.011
• DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpv030
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1047-1987

Abstract

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.