Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:13:02.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Treating Time with All Due Seriousness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Luke Keele ,
Suzanna Linn  and
Clayton McLaughlin Webb
Luke Keele
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16802, e-mail: ljk20.psu.edu
Suzanna Linn
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16802, e-mail: [email protected]
Clayton McLaughlin Webb
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045, e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we highlight three points. First, we counter Grant and Lebo's claim that the error correction model (ECM) cannot be applied to stationary data. We maintain that when data are properly stationary, the ECM is an entirely appropriate model. We clarify that for a model to be properly stationary, it must be balanced. Second, we contend that while fractional integration techniques can be useful, they also have important weaknesses, especially when applied to many time series typical in political science. We also highlight two related but often ignored complications in time series: low power and overfitting. We argue that the statistical tests used in time-series analyses have little power to detect differences in many of the sample sizes typical in political science. Moreover, given the small sample sizes, many analysts overfit their time-series models. Overfitting occurs when a statical model describes random error or noise instead of the underlying relationship. We argue that the results in the Grant and Lebo replications could easily be a function of overfitting.

Type
Time Series Symposium
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , Winter 2016 , pp. 31 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

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

An, S., and Bloomfield, P. 1993. Cox and Reid's modification in regression models with correlated errors. Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.Google Scholar
Babyak, Michael A. 2004. What you see may not be what you get: A brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine 66(3): 411–21.Google Scholar
Baillie, Richard T. 1996. Long memory processes and fractional integration in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics 73(1): 5–59.Google Scholar
Bannerjee, Anindya, Dolado, Juan, Galbraith, John W., and Hendry, David F. 1993. Integration, error correction, and the econometric analysis of non-stationary data. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 1991. Comparing dynamic specifications: The case of presidential approval. Political Analysis 3:27–50.Google Scholar
Bhardwaj, Geetesh, and Swanson, Norman R. 2006. An empirical investigation of the usefulness of ARFIMA models for predicting macroeconomic and financial time series. Journal of Econometrics 131(1): 539–78.Google Scholar
Davidson, Russell, and MacKinnon, James G. 1993. Estimation and inference in econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Boef, Suzanna, and Keele, Luke. 2008. Taking time seriously. American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diebold, Francis X., and Inoue, Atsushi. 2001. Long memory and regime switching. Journal of Econometrics 105(1): 131–59.Google Scholar
Engle, Robert F., and Smith, Aaron D. 1999. Stochastic permanent breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics 81(4): 553–74.Google Scholar
Granger, Clive W. J. 1999. Aspects of research strategies for time series analysis. Presentation to the Conference on New Developments in Time Series Economics, Yale University.Google Scholar
Granger, Clive W.J., and Hyung, Namwon. 1999. Occasional structural breaks and long memory. Department of Economics, UCSD.Google Scholar
Hauser, Michael A. 1999. Maximum likelihood estimators for ARMA and ARFIMA models: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 80(1): 229–55.Google Scholar
Hendry, David F. 1995. Dynamic econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keele, Luke J., and Kelly, Nathan J. 2006. Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis 14:186–205.Google Scholar
Keele, Luke J., Linn, Suzanna, and Clayton, . 2016. Replication data for: Treating time With all due seriousness. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KD4MXV, Havard Dataverse, V1.Google Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J., Walker, Robert W., and Clarke, Harold D. 2000. You must remember this: Dealing with long memory in political analyses. Electoral Studies 19(1): 31–48.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. M. 1995. Gaussian semiparametric estimator of long range dependence. Annals of Statistics 23:1630–61.Google Scholar
Sowell, Fallaw. 1992. Modeling long-run behavior with the fractional ARIMA model. Journal of Monetary Economics 29(2): 277–302.Google Scholar
StataCorp. 2013. Stata 13 base reference manual. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Veenstra, Justin. 2013. Persistence and anti-persistence: Theory and software (Thesis format: Monograph), PhD thesis, Western University London.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Keele et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Keele et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 186 KB