A Comparison of Alternative Econometric Models of Quarterly Investment Behavior
季度投资行为的替代计量模型比较AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确比较季度投资动态模型,并纳入预期调查与机械预测方案。
季度投资行为的替代计量模型比较AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
In this paper four alternative quarterly econometric models of investment behavior are fitted to a common set of data for individual manufacturing industries in the United States. Goodness of fit and absence of autocorrelation of errors are used as a basis for comparison of the performance of the alternative models. The econometric models are compared with each other and with alternative explanations of data on investment based on surveys of anticipated investment and on mechanical forecasting schemes. The four econometric models included in our study are those of Anderson [2], Eisner [15], Jorgenson and Stephenson [38], and Meyer and Glauber [46]. On the basis of our comparison, the ranking of the alternative models is as follows: (1) Jorgenson-Stephenson, (2) Eisner, (3) Meyer-Glauber, (4) Anderson. Anticipatory data give a better fit to data on investment expenditures than that provided by any of the econometric models. Mechanical forecasting schemes provide a fit that is superior to the Anderson and Meyer-Glauber models. These schemes are slightly inferior to the Eisner model and clearly inferior to the Jorgenson-Stephenson model. The alternative econometric models included in our comparison differ in specification of the time structure of the investment process and in the role ascribed to specific determinants of investment behavior. Both aspects of an econometric model affect its performance so that it is difficult to discriminate among alternative determinants of investment behavior on the basis of our results.