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

Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models

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

In this paper, we propose a classical approach to model selection. Using the Kullback-Leibler Information measure, we propose simple and directional likelihood-ratio tests for discriminating and choosing between two competing models whether the models are nonnested, overlapping or nested and whether both, one, or neither is misspecified. As a prerequisite, we fully characterize the asymptotic distribution of the likelihood ratio statistic under the most general conditions.

/pdf/likelihood-ratio-tests-for-model-selection-and-non-nested-5asf4hfg3m.pdf

Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses

Ever since Richard Stone (1954) first estimated a system of demand equations derived explicitly from consumer theory, there has been a continuing search for alternative specifications and functional forms. Many models have been proposed, but perhaps the most important in current use, apart from the original linear expenditure system, are the Rotterdam model (see Henri Theil, 1965, 1976; Anton Barten) and the translog model (see Laurits Christensen, Dale Jorgenson, and Lawrence Lau; Jorgenson and Lau). Both of these models have been extensively estimated and have, in addition, been used to test the homogeneity and symmetry restrictions of demand theory. In this paper, we propose and estimate a new model which is of comparable generality to the Rotterdam and translog models but which has considerable advantages over both. Our model, which we call the Almost Ideal Demand System (AIDS), gives an arbitrary first-order approximation to any demand system; it satisfies the axioms of choice exactly; it aggregates perfectly over consumers without invoking parallel linear Engel curves; it has a functional form which is consistent with known household-budget data; it is simple to estimate, largely avoiding the need for non-linear estimation; and it can be used to test the restrictions of homogeneity and symmetry through linear restrictions on fixed parameters. Although many of these desirable properties are possessed by one or other of the Rotterdam or translog models, neither possesses all of them simultaneously. In Section I of the paper, we discuss the theoretical specification of the AIDS and justify the claims in the previous paragraph. In Section II, the model is estimated on postwar British data and we use our results to test the homogeneity and symmetry restrictions. Our results are consistent with earlier findings in that both sets of restrictions are decisively rejected. We also find that imposition of homogeneity generates positive serial correlation in the errors of those equations which reject the restrictions most strongly; this suggests that the now standard rejection of homogeneity in demand analysis may be due to insufficient attention to the dynamic aspects of consumer behavior. Finally, in Section III, we offer a summary and conclusions. We believe that the results of this paper suggest that the AIDS is to be recommended as a vehicle for testing, extending, and improving conventional demand analysis. This does not imply that the system, particularly in its simple static form, is to be regarded as a fully satisfactory explanation of consumers' behavior. Indeed, by proposing a demand system which is superior to its predecessors, we hope to be able to reveal more clearly the problems and potential solutions associated with the usual approach.

/pdf/an-almost-ideal-demand-system-se3smx57kd.pdf

An Almost Ideal Demand System

Serial Correlation as a Convenient Simplification, not a Nuisance: A Comment on a Study of the Demand for Money by the Bank of England.

The encompassing principle is used to develop a testing framework which unifies the literature on non-nested testing, allowing analysis of the relationship between alternative tests and in particular enabling asymptotic and finite sample equivalences and identities to be established easily when they exist, as well as embracing nested hypothesis testing. The concept of the implicit null hypothesis of a test is introduced to show that the effective acceptance region for some tests extends beyond the acceptance region corresponding to the null of interest, and so such tests can be inconsistent against fixed alternatives closely related to the nominal null and alternative. The analysis is illustrated by an application to two non-nested linear regression models, and it is shown that the conventional F test, as well as all the one degree of freedom non-nested tests, has an encompassing interpretation, and that the F test is a "complete" parametric encompassing test.

The Encompassing Principle and its Application To Testing Nonnested Hypotheses

Evaluating Dynamic Econometric Models by Encompassing the VAR.

IN AN IMPORTANT RECENT PAPER, Hausman and Taylor (1981)-hereafter HT-considered the instrumental-variable estimation of a regression model using panel data, when the individual effects may be correlated with a subset of the explanatory variables. They provided a simple consistent estimator and an efficient estimator. More recently, Amemiya and MaCurdy (1986)-hereafter AM-have suggested an alternative estimator which is more efficient than the HT estimator, under certain conditions and given stronger assumptions than HT made. However, the relationship between the HT and AM papers is less clear than it might be, in part because of notational differences between the two papers. In this paper we clarify the relationship between the HT and AM estimators, and we show that the difference between these estimators lies in the treatment of the time-varying explanatory variables which are uncorrelated with the effects: HT use each such variable as two instruments (means and deviations from means), while AM use such variables as T + 1 instruments (as deviations from means and also separately for each of the T available time periods). This enables us to make clear the conditions under which the AM estimator is more efficient than the HT estimator. We also present each estimator in a form which allows it to be calculated using standard instrumental-variables (two-stage least squares) software. Following the AM path one step further, we then define a third (BMS) estimator which, under yet stronger assumptions, is more efficient than the AM estimator. Both HT and AM use as instruments the deviations from means of the time-varying variables which are correlated with the effects. A more efficient estimator may be obtained by using separately the (T - 1) linearly independent values of these deviations from individual means. Consistency requires that these be legitimate instruments, and whether this is so depends on why these time-varying variables are correlated with the effects. For example, if such correlation arises solely because of a time-invariant component which is removed in taking deviations from individual means, these instruments are legitimate.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1911060.pdf

Grayham E. Mizon

Papers

Serial Correlation as a Convenient Simplification, not a Nuisance: A Comment on a Study of the Demand for Money by the Bank of England.

The Encompassing Principle and its Application To Testing Nonnested Hypotheses

Evaluating Dynamic Econometric Models by Encompassing the VAR.

Efficient estimation using panel data

Evaluating dynamic econometric models by encompassing the var