SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:53:00 -0700
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8
From:
Robert Leeson <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (78 lines)
Clarification please.

The journal of the American Economic Association published a highly policy-influential - hand-drawn - downward-sloping curve, although the data suggests an upward-sloping relationship. 

The HER referee admits that Samuelson and Solow "made a mistake" and, therefore, ... the issue must not be raised in print? 

In this instance (as in many others) the costs of referee anonymity outweighs the benefits: shouldn't the referee explain this logic?    

----- Original Message -----
From: "William R (Rich) Hart" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 April, 2014 1:05:47 AM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Samuelson and Solow on the Phillips curve

In response to Robert Dimand.

We estimated the Samuelson and Solow Phillips curve (SSPC) over the 25 year 
period 1934 to 1958 because Samuelson and Solow (1960, 192, Figure 2) state 
in the caption to their hand-drawn Phillips curve: “…roughly estimated from 
the last twenty-five years of American data.”  They did not say ‘…roughly 
estimated from the last twenty-five years of American data excluding the war 
years.’ So, in the first instance, we included the war years because 
Samuelson and Solow seemingly included the war years.

Second, Dimand claims we ignored problems with the WWII data in our HER 
paper despite this having been brought to our attention in referee comments 
at another journal. We were well aware of the problems with the WWII data 
(who isn’t?) just as Samuelson and Solow were surely aware. We did not 
ignore this issue (see below) so much as we considered it irrelevant to the 
main purpose of our paper. Our paper was not about data problems or about 
what data Samuelson and Solow should or should not have used in their 
‘estimate’ of the Phillips curve (hence, what data we should or should not 
have used in our estimate). The primary purpose of our paper was much less 
ambitious—-it was to answer a simple question: in 1959-60 could Samuelson 
and Solow, using the data they said they used and employing simple, 
straightforward econometric techniques available at the time, produce the 
Phillips curve they claimed as fitting the data over the twenty-five year 
period 1934 to 1958? Our answer was no, a resounding no. Given that the SSPC 
paper is one of the most widely read and widely cited papers in the 
profession, one would think our results would/should be of interest to 
economic historians.    

More directly to Dimand’s claim that we ignored problems with the WWII data 
in our HER paper, he is correct if by ignore he means we did not re-estimate 
the SSPC over the 1934 to 1958 period excluding the war years. We did not do 
this. However, it is incorrect to claim that we totally ignored the WWII 
data problems.   

One HER referee recommended rejection because:

"The principle problem is this. In their scatter plot of data on page 188, 
Samuelson and Solow have circled 13 points (it is not clear exactly how many 
there are) and said that the circled points are ones from 'recent years'.  
It is visually pretty obvious that the hand drawn Phillips curve on page 
192, although described as based on 25 years, is in fact based on the 
circled points. .... My conclusion is that Samuelson and Solow made a 
mistake in the way they described the hand-drawn curve. They did not in fact 
use 25 years of data, they used 13, and their hand drawn curve is about 
right."

In response to this comment, we re-estimated the SSPC over the period 1947-
1958.  As we discuss in footnote 16 of the HER paper, the re-estimated SSPC 
(that excludes WWII data) still does NOT fit the hand-drawn SSPC. The re-
estimated SSPC, like the Phillips curve estimated over the twenty-five 
period 1934-1958, is also hump-shaped—-the unemployment rate and inflation 
move in the same direction for unemployment rates below 4% and move in 
opposite direction for unemployment rates above 4%.

Finally, Dimand’s comment brings to mind the many obstacles we faced in 
getting this paper published. Samuelson and Solow hand-drew a downward-
sloping Phillips curve based on a 25-year period that includes WWII and nary 
a peep of concern. Using their data, we estimate the Phillips curve over the 
same twenty-five year period in an attempt to replicate their results (using 
a statistical technique that would be exceedingly difficult to manipulate), 
find that their results cannot be replicated, and are subject to a barrage 
of criticism.        
        

ATOM RSS1 RSS2