Advertisement

The Future of KK Systems

  • D. W. Challen
  • A. J. Hagger
Chapter

Abstract

A modern KK system is a living thing in two distinct senses — one obvious and one not so obvious. It ‘lives’ in the obvious sense that it is never really finished. Respecification and re-estimation are continuous as is revalidation and the search for fresh applications. Moreover, this continuous maintainance and rebuilding is typically carried out within the framework of an established tradition — often largely oral. The membership of the research team changes from year to year but the broad thrust of the work and its methodological foundations remain relatively fixed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and further reading

  1. Amano, A., Kurihara, E. and Samuelson, L (1980) Trade Linkage Sub-Model in the EPA World Econometric Model, Economic Bulletin No. 19, Economic Research Institute, Economic Planning Agency, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  2. Amano, A., Sadahiro, A., Anai, F. and Yoshizoe, Y. (1980) The United States of America, EPA World Econometrie Model, Discussion Paper No. 2, Economie Research Institute, Economie Planning Agency, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, R. J. (1973) The International Linkage of National Economie Models, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Breusch, T. S. and Pagan, A. R. (1980) ‘The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics’, Review of Economie Studies, vol. 47, pp. 239–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calzolari, G. (1979) ‘Antithetic Variables to Estimate the Simulation Bias in Nonlinear Models’, Economics Letters, vol. 3, pp. 323–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper, J. P. and Fischer, S. (1972) ‘Stochastic Simulation of Monetary Rules in Two Macroeconometric Models’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 67, pp. 750–60.Google Scholar
  7. Hickman, B. G. (ed.)(1972) Econometric Models of Cyclical Behavior, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Hirsch, A., Hymans, H. and Shapiro, H. T. (1978) ‘Econometric Review of Alternative Fiscal and Monetary Policies, 1971–75’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 60, pp. 334–45.Google Scholar
  9. Klein, L. R. (1947) ‘The Use of Econometric Models as a Guide to Economic Policy’, Econometrica, vol. 15, pp. 111–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Muench, T., Rolnick, A., Wallace, N. and Weiler, W. (1974) ‘Tests for Structural Change and Prediction Intervals for the Reduced Forms of Two Structural Models of the US: The FRB-MIT and Michigan Quarterly Models’, Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, vol. 3, pp. 491–520.Google Scholar
  11. Salmon, M. H. and Eaton, J. R. (1975) ‘Estimation Problems in Large Econometric Models: An Application of Various Estimation Techniques to the London Business School Model’, in G. A. Renton (ed.), Modelling the Economy, Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
  12. Sawa, T. (1978) ‘Information Criteria for Discriminating Among Alternative Regression Models’, Econometrica, vol. 46, pp. 1273–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sawyer, J. A. (1979) Modelling the International Transmission Mechanism, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Waelbroeck, J. L. (1976) The Models of Project LINK, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. White, H. (1980) ‘Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models: I and II’, mimeo, University of Rochester.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D.W. Challen and A.J. Hagger 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. W. Challen
  • A. J. Hagger

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations