Panel data

About: Panel data is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 28543 publications have been published within this topic receiving 775177 citations.

Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship

Abstract: This paper investigates the relationship between product market competition and innovation. We find strong evidence of an inverted-U relationship using panel data. We develop a model where competition discourages laggard firms from innovating but encourages neck-and-neck firms to innovate. Together with the effect of competition on the equilibrium industry structure, these generate an inverted-U. Two additional predictions of the model—that the average technological distance between leaders and followers increases with competition, and that the inverted-U is steeper when industries are more neck-and-neck—are both supported by the data.

Econometric Analysis Of Panel Data

Abstract: Define the two basic approaches to modeling unobserved effects in panel data. What are the different assumptions that are made in the two settings? What is the benefit of the fixed effects assumption? What is the cost? Same for the random effects specification. Now, extend your definitions to a model in which all parameters, not just the constant term, are heterogeneous. For the random parameters case, describe the estimators that one would use under the two assumptions.

Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice

Abstract: This paper reviews econometric methods for dynamic panel data models, and presents examples that illustrate the use of these procedures The focus is on panels where a large number of individuals or firms are observed for a small number of time periods, typical of applications with microeconomic data The emphasis is on single equation models with autoregressive dynamics and explanatory variables that are not strictly exogenous, and hence on the Generalised Method of Moments estimators that are widely used in this context Two examples using firm-level panels are discussed in detail: a simple autoregressive model for investment rates; and a basic production function

Does Foreign Direct Investment Increase the Productivity of Domestic Firms? In Search of Spillovers Through Backward Linkages

Abstract: Many countries compete against one another in attracting foreign investors by offering ever more generous incentive packages and justifying their actions with the productivity gains that are expected to accrue to domestic producers from knowledge externalities generated by foreign affiliates. Despite this being hugely important to public policy choices, there is little conclusive evidence indicating that domestic firms benefit from foreign presence in their sector. It is possible, though, that researchers have been looking for foreign direct investment (FDI) spillovers in the wrong place. Multinationals have an incentive to prevent information leakage that would enhance the performance of their local competitors in the same industry but at the same time may want to transfer knowledge to their local suppliers in other sectors. Spillovers from FDI may be, therefore, more likely to take place through backward linkages-that is, contacts between domestic suppliers of intermediate inputs and their multinational clients-and thus would not have been captured by the earlier literature. This paper focuses on the understudied issue of FDI spillovers through backward linkages and goes beyond existing studies by shedding some light on factors driving this phenomenon. It also improves over existing literature by addressing several econometric problems that may have biased the results of earlier research. Based on a firm-level panel data set from Lithuania, the estimation results are consistent with the existence of productivity spillovers. They suggest that a 10 percent increase in the foreign presence in downstream sectors is associated with 0.38 percent rise in output of each domestic firm in the supplying industry. The data indicate that these spillovers are not restricted geographically, since local firms seem to benefit from the operation of downstream foreign affiliates on their own, as well as in other regions. The results further show that greater productivity benefits are associated with domestic-market, rather than export-oriented, foreign affiliates. But no difference is detected between the effects of fully-owned foreign firms and those with joint domestic and foreign ownership. The findings of a positive correlation between productivity growth of domestic firms and the increase in multinational presence in downstream sectors should not, however, be interpreted as a call for subsidizing FDI. These results are consistent with the existence of knowledge spillovers from foreign affiliates to their local suppliers, but they may also be a result of increased competition in upstream sectors. While the former case would call for offering FDI incentive packages, it would not be the optimal policy in the latter. Certainly more research is needed to disentangle these two effects.