Retrospectives: The Phillips Curve: A Rushed Job?

Sleeman, A. G.

doi:10.1257/jep.25.1.223

Cited by 19 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With Meade’s support, Phillips became an assistant lecturer at LSE in 1950, being promoted to Reader in 1954 and to the Tooke Professorship in 1958. The birth of the Phillips Curve, discussed in more detail below, was an untidy event variously described as “a rushed job” (Sleeman 2011, p. 227), “quick and dirty” (Schwier 2000, p. 25), and “done in a weekend” (Gregory to Leeson, in Leeson 2000, p. 11), and possibly stimulated the enhancement of Phillips’s vitae prior to his seeking the Tooke Professorship. Following his publication (1958), Phillips did little else directly on the subject and, partly for personal reasons but also because of disenchantment with the situation in UK universities of the time, moved to a chair in economics at the Australian National University, where he spent most of his time studying the Chinese economy.…”

Section: Those Involvedmentioning

confidence: 99%

A. J. Brown, “Phillips’s Curve,” and Economic Networks in the 1950s

Button

2018

J Hist Econ Thought

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the role of the English economist Arthur (A. J.) Brown in the 1950s debate surrounding the wage-rate change/unemployment relationship. While the publication of William (Bill) Phillips’s 1958 paper and the subsequent moniker of the “Phillips Curve” attracted a wealth of attention, Brown’s book on the subject, The Great Inflation, and his later work on inflation have received much less. Here, the focus is on redressing this situation somewhat by looking at Brown’s work to see how much it predates Phillips’s paper, and what differences there are to it. We also consider this within the changing institutional structure of English economic networks in the 1950s that led to a relatively rapid acceptance of Phillips’s analysis and, in many cases, to a strong, ordinal interpretation of the Phillips Curve that overshadowed Brown’s work.

show abstract

Section: Those Involvedmentioning

confidence: 99%

A. J. Brown, “Phillips’s Curve,” and Economic Networks in the 1950s

Button

2018

J Hist Econ Thought

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Boyce and Ravallion (1991) Khan (1984) New specifications, full data Mack and Wulwick (1991) Phillips (1958) Nonparametric estimator (Sleeman, 2011) Harrison (1998) Munnell et al (1996 New specification, additional variables Dai (2002Dai ( , 2006 Mansfield et al (2000,2002) Alters assumptions of original model Joyce ( , 2006Joyce ( , 2009 Donohue and Levitt (2001Levitt ( , 2004Levitt ( , 2008 New ident. strategy, serial corr.…”

Section: Robustness Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Meaning of Failed Replications: A Review and Proposal

Clemens

2015

Journal of Economic Surveys

185

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The welcome rise of replication tests in economics has not been accompanied by a consensus standard for determining what constitutes a replication. A discrepant replication, in current usage of the term, can signal anything from an unremarkable disagreement over methods to scientific incompetence or misconduct. This paper proposes a standard for classifying one study as a replication of some other study. It is a standard that places the burden of proof on a study to demonstrate that it should have obtained identical results to the original, a conservative standard that is already used implicitly by many researchers. It contrasts this standard with decades of unsuccessful attempts to harmonize terminology, and argues that many prominent results described as replication tests should not be described as such. Adopting a conservative standard like this one can improve incentives for researchers, encouraging more and better replication tests.

show abstract

“…Boyce and Ravallion (1991) Khan (1984) O New specifications, full data Mack andWulwick (1991) Phillips (1958) F Nonparametric estimator (Sleeman 2011) Harrison (1998) Munnell et al (1996) F New specification, additional variables Dai (2002) Mansfield et al (2000, 2002 F Alters assumptions of original model Joyce (2004Joyce ( , 2006Joyce ( , 2009 Donohue and Levitt (2001Levitt ( , 2004Levitt ( , 2008 F New ident. strategy, serial corr.…”

Section: Robustness Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Meaning of Failed Replications: A Review and Proposal

Clemens

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.

show abstract

Retrospectives: The Phillips Curve: A Rushed Job?

Cited by 19 publications

References 28 publications

A. J. Brown, “Phillips’s Curve,” and Economic Networks in the 1950s

A. J. Brown, “Phillips’s Curve,” and Economic Networks in the 1950s

The Meaning of Failed Replications: A Review and Proposal

The Meaning of Failed Replications: A Review and Proposal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About