Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:34:42.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rejoinder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Andre Daniere
Andre Daniere
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I am not aware of having “censored and manipulated” the data, unless rejection from the sample of the revolutionary year 1789 and of the two years following the 1815 collapse is to be viewed as unreasonable.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 1958 , pp. 339 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1958

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 Were it not for the fact that Landes' regression of revenue (or quantity) on price is of questionable relevance, I would relieve my own conscience by pointing to his transferring a wheat observation from the (23-O5) to the (25 and over) price range so as to transform a seesaw series into a better-behaved one.

2 Italics mine.

3 Cf. p. 326.

4 Cf. pp. 326-27.

5 Cf. p. 322 and again pp. 324-25.

6 Cf. p. 324 and again p. 326.

7 Thanks to Professor Landes' meritorious effort in computing log regressions, we know in addition that, except for a slight overlap in the rye series, the whole range of acceptable hypotheses at 95 per cent confidence is in the elastic band.