This paper develops a new approach to the problem of testing the existence of a level relationship between a dependent variable and a set of regressors, when it is not known with certainty whether the underlying regressors are trend- or first-difference stationary. The proposed tests are based on standard F- and t-statistics used to test the significance of the lagged levels of the variables in a univariate equilibrium correction mechanism. The asymptotic distributions of these statistics are non-standard under the null hypothesis that there exists no level relationship, irrespective of whether the regressors are I(0) or I(1). Two sets of asymptotic critical values are provided: one when all regressors are purely I(1) and the other if they are all purely I(0). These two sets of critical values provide a band covering all possible classifications of the regressors into purely I(0), purely I(1) or mutually cointegrated. Accordingly, various bounds testing procedures are proposed. It is shown that the proposed tests are consistent, and their asymptotic distribution under the null and suitably defined local alternatives are derived. The empirical relevance of the bounds procedures is demonstrated by a re-examination of the earnings equation included in the UK Treasury macroeconometric model. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

/pdf/bounds-testing-approaches-to-the-analysis-of-level-un6p8czliu.pdf

Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships

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

计量经济分析 = Econometric analysis

Convergence of Probability Measures. By P. Billingsley. Chichester, Sussex, Wiley, 1968. xii, 253 p. 9 1/4“. 117s.

Convergence of Probability Measures

This paper proposes new error correction-based cointegration tests for panel data. The limiting distributions of the tests are derived and critical values provided. Our simulation results suggest that the tests have good small-sample properties with small size distortions and high power relative to other popular residual-based panel cointegration tests. In our empirical application, we present evidence suggesting that international healthcare expenditures and GDP are cointegrated once the possibility of an invalid common factor restriction has been accounted for.

/pdf/testing-for-error-correction-in-panel-data-2kaa2flvh0.pdf

Testing for error correction in panel data

In this paper, the author discusses the appropriateness of treating explanatory variables of a single-equation error correction model as being weakly exogenous. He restates the derivation of the error correction model, and particularly the single-equation conditional error correction model, both in reduced and structural form. These allow the author to point out that the condition of weak endogeneity implicitly tested by usual orthogonality tests is generally not sufficient for single-equation conditional error correction models. The potential pitfalls of working within incomplete simultaneous dynamic equation models for exogeneity tests are also pointed out. The author illustrates this on some empirical studies. Copyright 1992 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

On weak exogeneity in error correction models

Common stochastic trends in European stock markets

Several panel unit root tests that account for cross-section dependence using a common factor structure have been proposed in the literature recently. Pesaran's (2007) cross-sectionally augmented unit root tests are designed for cases where cross-sectional dependence is due to a single factor. The Moon and Perron (2004) tests which use defactored data are similar in spirit but can account for multiple common factors. The Bai and Ng (2004a) tests allow to determine the source of nonstationarity by testing for unit roots in the common factors and the idiosyncratic factors separately. Breitung and Das (2008) and Sul (2007) propose panel unit root tests when cross-section dependence is present possibly due to common factors, but the common factor structure is not fully exploited. This article makes four contributions: (1) it compares the testing procedures in terms of similarities and differences in the data generation process, tests, null, and alternative hypotheses considered, (2) using Monte Carlo results ...

/pdf/panel-unit-root-tests-in-the-presence-of-cross-sectional-51nn6pfg4w.pdf

Panel unit root tests in the presence of cross-sectional dependencies: comparison and implications for modelling

https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/files/1426338/guid-1e294086-aa21-4ed3-8a79-0959bd3f2c4b-ASSET1.0

Cross-sectional averages versus principal components ☆

Panel unit‐root and no‐cointegration tests that rely on cross‐sectional independence of the panel unit experience severe size distortions when this assumption is violated, as has, for example, been shown by Banerjee, Marcellino and Osbat [Econometrics Journal (2004), Vol. 7, pp. 322–340; Empirical Economics (2005), Vol. 30, pp. 77–91] via Monte Carlo simulations. Several studies have recently addressed this issue for panel unit‐root tests using a common factor structure to model the cross‐sectional dependence, but not much work has been done yet for panel no‐cointegration tests. This paper proposes a model for panel no‐cointegration using an unobserved common factor structure, following the study by Bai and Ng [Econometrica (2004), Vol. 72, pp. 1127–1177] for panel unit roots. We distinguish two important cases: (i) the case when the non‐stationarity in the data is driven by a reduced number of common stochastic trends, and (ii) the case where we have common and idiosyncratic stochastic trends present in the data. We discuss the homogeneity restrictions on the cointegrating vectors resulting from the presence of common factor cointegration. Furthermore, we study the asymptotic behaviour of some existing residual‐based panel no‐cointegration tests, as suggested by Kao [Journal of Econometrics (1999), Vol. 90, pp. 1–44] and Pedroni [Econometric Theory (2004a), Vol. 20, pp. 597–625]. Under the data‐generating processes (DGP) used, the test statistics are no longer asymptotically normal, and convergence occurs at rate T rather than inline image as for independent panels. We then examine the possibilities of testing for various forms of no‐cointegration by extracting the common factors and individual components from the observed data directly and then testing for no‐cointegration using residual‐based panel tests applied to the defactored data.

Jean-Pierre Urbain

Papers

On weak exogeneity in error correction models

Common stochastic trends in European stock markets

Panel unit root tests in the presence of cross-sectional dependencies: comparison and implications for modelling

Cross-sectional averages versus principal components ☆

Cointegration Testing in Panels with Common Factors