Rejoinder: Affirming Limits and Defending Alternatives to Multiple Regression

Abstract

At first sight the reader may find it odd that I have grouped the commentaries by Esping-Andersen and Rubinson/Ragin together, given that while the former proposes revamping the use of MR in comparative research, the latter offers a radical alternative. Nevertheless, while suggesting different solutions, both largely agree with my diagnosis of the problems. Also, my principal response to both is that their practical proposals look promising, yet are difficult to judge. That would require, (a) a user-friendly guide to implementing the advocated techniques; and (b) side-by-side comparison of the results obtained by their favored methods, the conventional MR method, and my own suggestions. Let me hasten to add that given (a), I would be ready to undertake the work involved in generating (b).

Citation

Shalev, M. (2007), "Rejoinder: Affirming Limits and Defending Alternatives to Multiple Regression", Mjøset, L. and Clausen, T.H. (Ed.) Capitalisms Compared (Comparative Social Research, Vol. 24), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 391-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6310(06)24014-6