Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T20:45:31.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Adam Przeworski  and
Michael Wallerstein
Adam Przeworski
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Michael Wallerstein
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communications
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , December 1983 , pp. 787 - 790
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 There is a technical confusion in our text. With 1/[(1+a)(1+b)] = 0.7, b > 0.23 when a < 0.16, whereas we assume throughout that 1/c = 0.25. This discrepancy is due to the difference between our analytic results, which assume an infinite horizon, and our simulated results in which the horizon was taken to be 30. Formally and correctly, the proper threshold, call it T, should have been written T = 1/c – ϵ(h), where ϵ(h) > 0, ϵ′(h) < 0, and ϵ(h) → 0 as h →∞.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.