{"title":"货币主义的向量自回归证据:对稳健性辩论的另一个看法","authors":"R. Todd","doi":"10.21034/QR.1422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a case study of the use of vector autoregression (VAR) models to test economic theories. It focuses on the work of Christopher A. Sims, who in 1980 found that relationships in economic data generated by a small VAR model were inconsistent with those implied by a simple form of monetarist theory. The paper describes the work of researchers who criticized Sims' results as not robust and Sims' response to these critics. The paper reexamines all of this work by estimating hundreds of variations of Sims' model. The paper concludes that both Sims and his critics are right: Sims' conclusion about monetarism is robust, but some of his other statistical results are not. In general, the paper concludes that VAR models can be used to test theories, but that any relationships they uncover in the data must be carefully checked for robustness.","PeriodicalId":78784,"journal":{"name":"The Quarterly review","volume":"29 1","pages":"19-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"84","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vector autoregression evidence on monetarism: another look at the robustness debate\",\"authors\":\"R. Todd\",\"doi\":\"10.21034/QR.1422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper is a case study of the use of vector autoregression (VAR) models to test economic theories. It focuses on the work of Christopher A. Sims, who in 1980 found that relationships in economic data generated by a small VAR model were inconsistent with those implied by a simple form of monetarist theory. The paper describes the work of researchers who criticized Sims' results as not robust and Sims' response to these critics. The paper reexamines all of this work by estimating hundreds of variations of Sims' model. The paper concludes that both Sims and his critics are right: Sims' conclusion about monetarism is robust, but some of his other statistical results are not. In general, the paper concludes that VAR models can be used to test theories, but that any relationships they uncover in the data must be carefully checked for robustness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":78784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Quarterly review\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"19-37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1990-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"84\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Quarterly review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21034/QR.1422\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Quarterly review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21034/QR.1422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 84
摘要
本文是一个使用向量自回归(VAR)模型来检验经济理论的案例研究。这本书的重点是克里斯托弗·a·西姆斯(Christopher a . Sims)的工作,他在1980年发现,由一个小型VAR模型生成的经济数据中的关系,与一种简单形式的货币主义理论所隐含的关系不一致。这篇论文描述了那些批评西姆斯的结果不可靠的研究人员的工作,以及西姆斯对这些批评的回应。这篇论文通过估计西姆斯模型的数百种变化,重新审视了所有这些工作。这篇论文的结论是,西姆斯和他的批评者都是对的:西姆斯关于货币主义的结论是有力的,但他的其他一些统计结果却不是。总的来说,本文的结论是,VAR模型可以用来检验理论,但它们在数据中发现的任何关系都必须仔细检查其稳健性。
Vector autoregression evidence on monetarism: another look at the robustness debate
This paper is a case study of the use of vector autoregression (VAR) models to test economic theories. It focuses on the work of Christopher A. Sims, who in 1980 found that relationships in economic data generated by a small VAR model were inconsistent with those implied by a simple form of monetarist theory. The paper describes the work of researchers who criticized Sims' results as not robust and Sims' response to these critics. The paper reexamines all of this work by estimating hundreds of variations of Sims' model. The paper concludes that both Sims and his critics are right: Sims' conclusion about monetarism is robust, but some of his other statistical results are not. In general, the paper concludes that VAR models can be used to test theories, but that any relationships they uncover in the data must be carefully checked for robustness.