<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#' 
         xmlns:rdfs='http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#' 
         xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/' 
         xmlns:dcterms='http://purl.org/dc/terms/'>

<rdf:Description>

<!-- static entries -->

    <dc:publisher>Economics: The Open-Access, Open Assessment E-Journal</dc:publisher>
    <dc:publisher>http://www.economics-ejournal.org</dc:publisher>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>

<!-- generated entries --> 

<dc:creator>David Colander</dc:creator>
<dc:title>Economists, Incentives, Judgment, and Empirical Work</dc:title>
<dc:date>2008-04-07</dc:date>
<dc:description>This paper asks the question: Why has the " general-to-specific " cointegrated VAR approach
as developed in Europe had only limited success in the US as a tool for doing empirical
macroeconomics, where what might be called a " theory comes first " approach dominates? The
reason this paper highlights is the incompatibility of the European approach with the US
focus on the journal publication metric for advancement. Specifically, the European "
general-to specific " cointegrated VAR approach requires researcher judgment to be part of
the analysis, and the US focus on a journal publication metric discourages such research
methods. The US " theory comes first " approach fits much better with the journal publication
metric. Paper submitted to the special issue " Using Econometrics for Assessing Economic
Models " edited by Katarina Juselius.</dc:description>
<dc:identifier>http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2008-12</dc:identifier>
<dc:subject>JEL B4</dc:subject>


</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

