Premium
6. Response to Comments
Author(s) -
Glied Sherry,
Remler Dahlia K.,
Zivin Joshua Graff
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
the milbank quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1468-0009
pISSN - 0887-378X
DOI - 10.1111/1468-0009.t01-2-00047
Subject(s) - legislature , transparency (behavior) , work (physics) , political science , computer science , public relations , law , engineering , mechanical engineering
We appreciate the interest and criticisms of our commentators. Our effort to encourage modelers to engage with one another and with the consumers of modeling results appears to have had an immediate benefit, and we hope this is the beginning of a continuing dialogue. We recognize, as Crippen, Fishman, and Nexon noted, that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) operates under different constraints than do private modelers. While we do not specifically address how forthcoming the CBO should be about its model, we believe that greater transparency in the private modeling community regarding assumptions would help the CBO refine its model and respond to legislative requests. It would also, as Fishman and Nexon suggested, help the legislative staffers who work with the CBO. Pauly points out a problem, the choice of an appropriate price variable, that we did not include in our sample of issues. Undoubtedly others—as well as new issues—will surface as policies evolve. As Fishman observed, there is ample room for improving models.