"At one point they set cell L51 equal to AVERAGE(L30:L44) when the correct procuedure was AVERAGE(L30:L49). By typing wrong, they accidentally left Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Austria, and Australia out of the average. When you run the math correctly "the average real GDP growth rate for countries carrying a public debt-to-GDP ratio of over 90 percent is actually 2.2 percent, not -0.1 percent."
http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/31e2ff374b6377b2ddec04deaa6388b1/publication/566/
The selective exclusion of available data is arguably worse. With the coding error, perhaps they did just make a mistake -- this only implies that they both are hideously careless researchers. Big deal -- Harvard has lots of them. Selectively excluding counterexamples and not recognizing the issue of reverse causality do seem a bit more fraudulent...
So, is Rogoff going to issue a correction?
The selective exclusion of available data is arguably worse. With the coding error, perhaps they did just make a mistake -- this only implies that they both are hideously careless researchers. Big deal -- Harvard has lots of them. Selectively excluding counterexamples and not recognizing the issue of reverse causality do seem a bit more fraudulent...
So, is Rogoff going to issue a correction?
We are talking about two BIG names, who can not only affect the "academic" debate about certain issues, but also the policy debate. If Paul Ryan quote them to support his proposal/agenda, then those errors and selection bias are very significant.
Regardless, how can two such important figures publish a key finding in their work without double checking its accuracy? How can both miss it? How can their research assistants miss the same mistake? This raises questions about the error itself being "just an error".
This topic has been closed to new replies.