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

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

Most papers that employ Differences-in-Differences estimation (DD) use many years of data and focus on serially correlated outcomes but ignore that the resulting standard errors are inconsistent. To illustrate the severity of this issue, we randomly generate placebo laws in state-level data on female wages from the Current Population Survey. For each law, we use OLS to compute the DD estimate of its “effect” as well as the standard error of this estimate. These conventional DD standard errors severely understate the standard deviation of the estimators: we find an “effect” significant at the 5 percent level for up to 45 percent of the placebo interventions. We use Monte Carlo simulations to investigate how well existing methods help solve this problem. Econometric corrections that place a specific parametric form on the time-series process do not perform well. Bootstrap (taking into account the autocorrelation of the data) works well when the number of states is large enough. Two corrections based on asymptotic approximation of the variance-covariance matrix work well for moderate numbers of states and one correction that collapses the time series information into a “pre”- and “post”-period and explicitly takes into account the effective sample size works well even for small numbers of states.

/pdf/how-much-should-we-trust-differences-in-differences-407p70a9b4.pdf

How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?

The capabilities for visualization, rapid data retrieval, and manipulation in geographic information systems (GIS) have created the need for new techniques of exploratory data analysis that focus on the “spatial” aspects of the data. The identification of local patterns of spatial association is an important concern in this respect. In this paper, I outline a new general class of local indicators of spatial association (LISA) and show how they allow for the decomposition of global indicators, such as Moran's I, into the contribution of each observation. The LISA statistics serve two purposes. On one hand, they may be interpreted as indicators of local pockets of nonstationarity, or hot spots, similar to the Gi and G*i statistics of Getis and Ord (1992). On the other hand, they may be used to assess the influence of individual locations on the magnitude of the global statistic and to identify “outliers,” as in Anselin's Moran scatterplot (1993a). An initial evaluation of the properties of a LISA statistic is carried out for the local Moran, which is applied in a study of the spatial pattern of conflict for African countries and in a number of Monte Carlo simulations.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00338.x

Local Indicators of Spatial Association—LISA

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

Convergence of Probability Measures

Economic duration data and hazard functions

This article investigates whether differences in information-based trading can explain observed differences in spreads for active and infrequently traded stocks. Using a new empirical technique, we estimate the risk of information-based trading for a sample of New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) listed stocks. We use the information in trade data to determine how frequently new information occurs, the composition of trading when it does, and the depth of the market for different volume-decile stocks. Our most important empirical result is that the probability of information-based trading is lower for high volume stocks. Using regressions, we provide evidence of the economic importance of information-based trading on spreads.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2329399.pdf

Liquidity, Information, and Infrequently Traded Stocks

Using the model structure of Easley and O'Hara, we demonstrate how the parameters of the market-maker's beliefs can be estimated from trade data. We show how to extract information from both trade and no-trade intervals, and how intraday and interday data provide information. We derive and evaluate tests of model specification and estimate the information content of differential trade sizes. Our work provides a framework for testing extant microstructure models, shows how to extract the information contained in the trading process, and demonstrates the empirical importance of asymmetric information models for asset prices. Article published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Financial Studies in its journal, The Review of Financial Studies.

/pdf/one-day-in-the-life-of-a-very-common-stock-2i7far8jbs.pdf

One Day in the Life of a Very Common Stock

Purchased order flow refers to the practice of dealers or trading locales paying brokers for retail order flow. It is alleged that such agreements are used to "cream skim" uninformed liquidity trades, leaving the information-based trades to established markets. We develop a test of this hypothesis, using a model of the stochastic process of trades. We then estimate the model for a sample of stocks known to be used in order purchase agreements that trade on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Cincinnati Stock Exchange. Our main empirical result is that there is a significant difference in the information content of orders executed in New York and Cincinnati, and that this difference is consistant with cream-skimming. A STRIKING FEATURE OF global capital markets is the proliferation of trading venues. Whereas established trading centers such as London and New York traditionally controlled the trading volume in securities, new markets have begun to erode that dominance. Frankfurt, Milan, Madrid, and Amsterdam are but a few of the locales now challenging the dominance of the London Stock Exchange for trading in Europe. In the United States, this trend can be seen in the dramatic growth of electronic trading systems such as Instinet and POSIT (the Portfolio System for Institutional Trading), in the increasing volume of the Nasdaq, and in the growth of regional exchanges such as the Cincinnati Stock Exchange (CSE) and the Arizona Stock Exchange. Whether this fragmentation of trading is desirable is debatable. Increased competition could reduce the monopoly power of price-setting agents and thus result in better execution and prices for traders. But this same competition also reduces the liquidity available in any one setting, thereby potentially limiting any market's ability to provide stable prices. Moreover, liquidity facilitates the crucial price discovery role of markets. As order flow fragments, the ability of prices to aggregate information can be reduced, and with it the efficiency of the market. This problem can be exacerbated if markets choose to compete by focusing on particular components of the order flow. By "creamskimming" the order flow, new markets could undermine both the viability of old markets, and of the trading process itself.

Cream-Skimming or Profit-Sharing? The Curious Role of Purchased Order Flow

A new …rst-order asymptotic theory for heteroskedasticity-autocorrelation (HAC) robust tests based on nonparametric covariance matrix estimators is developed. The bandwidth of the covariance matrix estimator is modeled as a …xed proportion of the sample size. This leads to a distribution theory for HAC robust tests that explicitly captures the choice of bandwidth and kernel. This contrasts with the traditional asymptotics (where the bandwidth increases slower than the sample size) where the asymptotic distributions of HAC robust tests do not depend on the bandwidth or kernel. Finite sample simulations show that the new approach is more accurate than the traditional asymptotics. The impact of bandwidth and kernel choice on size and power of t-tests is analyzed. Smaller bandwidths lead to tests with higher power but greater size distortions and large bandwidths lead to tests with lower power but less size distortions. Size distortions across bandwidths increase as the serial correlation in the data becomes stronger. Overall, the results clearly indicate that for bandwidth and kernel choice

/pdf/a-new-asymptotic-theory-for-heteroskedasticity-uwwbm0uzmv.pdf

Nicholas M. Kiefer

Papers

Economic duration data and hazard functions

Liquidity, Information, and Infrequently Traded Stocks

One Day in the Life of a Very Common Stock

Cream-Skimming or Profit-Sharing? The Curious Role of Purchased Order Flow

A New Asymptotic Theory for Heteroskedasticity-Autocorrelation Robust Tests