The second edition of this acclaimed graduate text provides a unified treatment of two methods used in contemporary econometric research, cross section and data panel methods. By focusing on assumptions that can be given behavioral content, the book maintains an appropriate level of rigor while emphasizing intuitive thinking. The analysis covers both linear and nonlinear models, including models with dynamics and/or individual heterogeneity. In addition to general estimation frameworks (particular methods of moments and maximum likelihood), specific linear and nonlinear methods are covered in detail, including probit and logit models and their multivariate, Tobit models, models for count data, censored and missing data schemes, causal (or treatment) effects, and duration analysis. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data was the first graduate econometrics text to focus on microeconomic data structures, allowing assumptions to be separated into population and sampling assumptions. This second edition has been substantially updated and revised. Improvements include a broader class of models for missing data problems; more detailed treatment of cluster problems, an important topic for empirical researchers; expanded discussion of "generalized instrumental variables" (GIV) estimation; new coverage (based on the author's own recent research) of inverse probability weighting; a more complete framework for estimating treatment effects with panel data, and a firmly established link between econometric approaches to nonlinear panel data and the "generalized estimating equation" literature popular in statistics and other fields. New attention is given to explaining when particular econometric methods can be applied; the goal is not only to tell readers what does work, but why certain "obvious" procedures do not. The numerous included exercises, both theoretical and computer-based, allow the reader to extend methods covered in the text and discover new insights.

/pdf/econometric-analysis-of-cross-section-and-panel-data-3jzr8emmtf.pdf

Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data

http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~ntuperc/docs/publication/2002_25_Lin.pdf

Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties

Preface.1. Introduction.1.1 Panel Data: Some Examples.1.2 Why Should We Use Panel Data? Their Benefits and Limitations.Note.2. The One-way Error Component Regression Model.2.1 Introduction.2.2 The Fixed Effects Model.2.3 The Random Effects Model.2.4 Maximum Likelihood Estimation.2.5 Prediction.2.6 Examples.2.7 Selected Applications.2.8 Computational Note.Notes.Problems.3. The Two-way Error Component Regression Model.3.1 Introduction.3.2 The Fixed Effects Model.3.3 The Random Effects Model.3.4 Maximum Likelihood Estimation.3.5 Prediction.3.6 Examples.3.7 Selected Applications.Notes.Problems.4. Test of Hypotheses with Panel Data.4.1 Tests for Poolability of the Data.4.2 Tests for Individual and Time Effects.4.3 Hausman's Specification Test.4.4 Further Reading.Notes.Problems.5. Heteroskedasticity and Serial Correlation in the Error Component Model.5.1 Heteroskedasticity.5.2 Serial Correlation.Notes.Problems.6. Seemingly Unrelated Regressions with Error Components.6.1 The One-way Model.6.2 The Two-way Model.6.3 Applications and Extensions.Problems.7. Simultaneous Equations with Error Components.7.1 Single Equation Estimation.7.2 Empirical Example: Crime in North Carolina.7.3 System Estimation.7.4 The Hausman and Taylor Estimator.7.5 Empirical Example: Earnings Equation Using PSID Data.7.6 Extensions.Notes.Problems.8. Dynamic Panel Data Models.8.1 Introduction.8.2 The Arellano and Bond Estimator.8.3 The Arellano and Bover Estimator.8.4 The Ahn and Schmidt Moment Conditions.8.5 The Blundell and Bond System GMM Estimator.8.6 The Keane and Runkle Estimator.8.7 Further Developments.8.8 Empirical Example: Dynamic Demand for Cigarettes.8.9 Further Reading.Notes.Problems.9. Unbalanced Panel Data Models.9.1 Introduction.9.2 The Unbalanced One-way Error Component Model.9.3 Empirical Example: Hedonic Housing.9.4 The Unbalanced Two-way Error Component Model.9.5 Testing for Individual and Time Effects Using Unbalanced Panel Data.9.6 The Unbalanced Nested Error Component Model.Notes.Problems.10. Special Topics.10.1 Measurement Error and Panel Data.10.2 Rotating Panels.10.3 Pseudo-panels.10.4 Alternative Methods of Pooling Time Series of Cross-section Data.10.5 Spatial Panels.10.6 Short-run vs Long-run Estimates in Pooled Models.10.7 Heterogeneous Panels.Notes.Problems.11. Limited Dependent Variables and Panel Data.11.1 Fixed and Random Logit and Probit Models.11.2 Simulation Estimation of Limited Dependent Variable Models with Panel Data.11.3 Dynamic Panel Data Limited Dependent Variable Models.11.4 Selection Bias in Panel Data.11.5 Censored and Truncated Panel Data Models.11.6 Empirical Applications.11.7 Empirical Example: Nurses' Labor Supply.11.8 Further Reading.Notes.Problems.12. Nonstationary Panels.12.1 Introduction.12.2 Panel Unit Roots Tests Assuming Cross-sectional Independence.12.3 Panel Unit Roots Tests Allowing for Cross-sectional Dependence.12.4 Spurious Regression in Panel Data.12.5 Panel Cointegration Tests.12.6 Estimation and Inference in Panel Cointegration Models.12.7 Empirical Example: Purchasing Power Parity.12.8 Further Reading.Notes.Problems.References.Index.

/pdf/econometric-analysis-of-panel-data-46ld72a5p1.pdf

Econometric Analysis of Panel Data

Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?

In both corporate finance and asset pricing empirical work, researchers are often confronted with panel data. In these data sets, the residuals may be correlated across firms and across time, and OLS standard errors can be biased. Historically, the two literatures have used different solutions to this problem. Corporate finance has relied on clustered standard errors, while asset pricing has used the Fama-MacBeth procedure to estimate standard errors. This paper examines the different methods used in the literature and explains when the different methods yield the same (and correct) standard errors and when they diverge. The intent is to provide intuition as to why the different approaches sometimes give different answers and give researchers guidance for their use.

/pdf/estimating-standard-errors-in-finance-panel-data-sets-1rry6mh9tl.pdf

Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches

Recently, Perron has carried out tests of the unit-root hypothesis against the alternative hypothesis of trend stationarity with a break in the trend occurring at the Great Crash of 1929 or at the 1973 oil-price shock. His analysis covers the Nelson–Plosser macroeconomic data series as well as a postwar quarterly real gross national product (GNP) series. His tests reject the unit-root null hypothesis for most of the series. This article takes issue with the assumption used by Perron that the Great Crash and the oil-price shock can be treated as exogenous events. A variation of Perron's test is considered in which the breakpoint is estimated rather than fixed. We argue that this test is more appropriate than Perron's because it circumvents the problem of data-mining. The asymptotic distribution of the estimated breakpoint test statistic is determined. The data series considered by Perron are reanalyzed using this test statistic. The empirical results make use of the asymptotics developed for the test stati...

/pdf/further-evidence-on-the-great-crash-the-oil-price-shock-and-vr6imyhnq5.pdf

Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis

This paper considers tests for parameter instability and structural change with unknown change point. The results apply to a wide class of parametric models that are suitable for estimation by generalized method of moments procedures. The asymptotic distributions of the test statistics considered here are nonstandard because the change point parameter only appears under the alternative hypothesis and not under the null. The tests considered here are shown to have nontrivial asymptotic local power against all alternatives for which the parameters are nonconstant. The tests are found to perform quite well in a Monte Carlo experiment reported elsewhere. Copyright 1993 by The Econometric Society.

/pdf/tests-for-parameter-instability-and-structural-change-with-26amgrdoht.pdf

Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point.

This paper is concerned with the estimation of covariance matrices in the presence of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation of unknown forms. Currently available estimators that are designed for this context depend upon the choice of a lag truncation parameter and a weighting scheme. Results in the literature provide a condition on the growth rate of the lag truncation parameter as T \rightarrow \infty that is sufficient for consistency. No results are available, however, regarding the choice of lag truncation parameter for a fixed sample size, regarding data-dependent automatic lag truncation parameters, or regarding the choice of weighting scheme. In consequence, available estimators are not entirely operational and the relative merits of the estimators are unknown. This paper addresses these problems. The asymptotic truncated mean squared errors of estimators in a given class are determined and compared. Asymptotically optimal kernel/weighting scheme and bandwidth/lag truncation parameters are obtained using an asymptotic truncated mean squared error criterion. Using these results, data-dependent automatic bandwidth/lag truncation parameters are introduced. The finite sample properties of the estimators are analyzed via Monte Carlo simulation.

/pdf/heteroskedasticity-and-autocorrelation-consistent-covariance-3tz1r06ty1.pdf

Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation

This paper derives asymptotically optimal tests for testing problems in which a nuisance parameter exists under the alternative hypothesis but not under the null. For example, the results apply to tests of structural change with unknown changepoint. The testing problem considered is nonstandard and the classical asymptotic optimality results for the Lagrange multiplier, Wald, and likelihood ratio do not apply. A weighted average power criterion is used here to generate optimal tests. This criterion is similar to that used by A. Wald (1943) to obtain the classical asymptotic optimality properties of Wald tests in 'regular' testing problems. Copyright 1994 by The Econometric Society.

/pdf/optimal-tests-when-a-nuisance-parameter-is-present-only-37rnv63kyd.pdf

Optimal Tests When a Nuisance Parameter is Present Only under the Alternative

This paper considers a new class of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (HAC) covariance matrix estimators. The estimators considered are prewhitened kernel estimators with vector autoregressions employed in the prewhitening stage. The paper establishes consistency, rate of convergence, and asymptotic truncated mean squared error (MSE) results for the estimators when a fixed or automatic bandwidth procedure is employed. Conditions are obtained under which prewhitening improves asymptotic truncated MSE. Monte Carlo results show that prewhitening is very effective in reducing bias, improving confidence interval coverage probabilities, and rescuing over-rejection of t-statistics constructed using kernel-HAC estimators. On the other hand, prewhitening is found to inflate variance and MSE of the kernel estimators. Since confidence interval coverage probabilities and over-rejection of t-statistics are usually of primary concern, prewhitened kernel estimators provide a significant improvement over the standard non-prewhitened kernel estimators.

/pdf/an-improved-heteroskedasticity-and-autocorrelation-4vqnzatu8s.pdf

Donald W.K. Andrews

Papers

Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis

Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point.

Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation

Optimal Tests When a Nuisance Parameter is Present Only under the Alternative

An Improved Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator