A Generalized Nonlinear IV Unit Root Test for Panel Data with Cross-Sectional Dependence Shaoping Wang School of Economics, Huazhong University of Science.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Autocorrelation Functions and ARIMA Modelling
Advertisements

Introduction Describe what panel data is and the reasons for using it in this format Assess the importance of fixed and random effects Examine the Hausman.
Dynamic panels and unit roots
Generalized Method of Moments: Introduction
Threshold Autoregressive. Several tests have been proposed for assessing the need for nonlinear modeling in time series analysis Some of these.
Chapter 12 Simple Linear Regression
Part 12: Asymptotics for the Regression Model 12-1/39 Econometrics I Professor William Greene Stern School of Business Department of Economics.
6-1 Introduction To Empirical Models 6-1 Introduction To Empirical Models.
Financial Econometrics
Random effects estimation RANDOM EFFECTS REGRESSIONS When the observed variables of interest are constant for each individual, a fixed effects regression.
10 Further Time Series OLS Issues Chapter 10 covered OLS properties for finite (small) sample time series data -If our Chapter 10 assumptions fail, we.
STAT 497 APPLIED TIME SERIES ANALYSIS
Cox Model With Intermitten and Error-Prone Covariate Observation Yury Gubman PhD thesis in Statistics Supervisors: Prof. David Zucker, Prof. Orly Manor.
Econometric Details -- the market model Assume that asset returns are jointly multivariate normal and independently and identically distributed through.
The Multiple Regression Model Prepared by Vera Tabakova, East Carolina University.
The Simple Linear Regression Model: Specification and Estimation
Linear Methods for Regression Dept. Computer Science & Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
Chapter 7 Sampling and Sampling Distributions
SYSTEMS Identification
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) and Factor Analysis (FA)
Chapter 15 Panel Data Analysis.
Economics 20 - Prof. Anderson
9. Binary Dependent Variables 9.1 Homogeneous models –Logit, probit models –Inference –Tax preparers 9.2 Random effects models 9.3 Fixed effects models.
The horseshoe estimator for sparse signals CARLOS M. CARVALHO NICHOLAS G. POLSON JAMES G. SCOTT Biometrika (2010) Presented by Eric Wang 10/14/2010.
STAT 497 LECTURE NOTES 2.
Shrinkage Estimation of Vector Autoregressive Models Pawin Siriprapanukul 11 January 2010.
An Empirical Likelihood Ratio Based Goodness-of-Fit Test for Two-parameter Weibull Distributions Presented by: Ms. Ratchadaporn Meksena Student ID:
Random Regressors and Moment Based Estimation Prepared by Vera Tabakova, East Carolina University.
Various topics Petter Mostad Overview Epidemiology Study types / data types Econometrics Time series data More about sampling –Estimation.
1 Modeling Coherent Mortality Forecasts using the Framework of Lee-Carter Model Presenter: Jack C. Yue /National Chengchi University, Taiwan Co-author:
Measurement Bias Detection Through Factor Analysis Barendse, M. T., Oort, F. J. Werner, C. S., Ligtvoet, R., Schermelleh-Engel, K.
Maximum Likelihood Estimation Methods of Economic Investigation Lecture 17.
Chapter 7 Point Estimation of Parameters. Learning Objectives Explain the general concepts of estimating Explain important properties of point estimators.
Chapter 4 The Classical Model Copyright © 2011 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. Slides by Niels-Hugo Blunch Washington and Lee University.
1 We will now look at the properties of the OLS regression estimators with the assumptions of Model B. We will do this within the context of the simple.
Simulation Study for Longitudinal Data with Nonignorable Missing Data Rong Liu, PhD Candidate Dr. Ramakrishnan, Advisor Department of Biostatistics Virginia.
Panel Data Analysis Using GAUSS
CpSc 881: Machine Learning
Charles University FSV UK STAKAN III Institute of Economic Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Institute of Economic Studies Faculty of Social Sciences.
M.Sc. in Economics Econometrics Module I Topic 4: Maximum Likelihood Estimation Carol Newman.
September 28, 2000 Improved Simultaneous Data Reconciliation, Bias Detection and Identification Using Mixed Integer Optimization Methods Presented by:
Previously Definition of a stationary process (A) Constant mean (B) Constant variance (C) Constant covariance White Noise Process:Example of Stationary.
Week 21 Order Statistics The order statistics of a set of random variables X 1, X 2,…, X n are the same random variables arranged in increasing order.
1/61: Topic 1.2 – Extensions of the Linear Regression Model Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York.
Stationarity and Unit Root Testing Dr. Thomas Kigabo RUSUHUZWA.
Week 21 Statistical Model A statistical model for some data is a set of distributions, one of which corresponds to the true unknown distribution that produced.
© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Estimating standard error using bootstrap
Inference about the slope parameter and correlation
Chapter 15 Panel Data Models.
REGRESSION DIAGNOSTIC III: AUTOCORRELATION
Esman M. Nyamongo Central Bank of Kenya
Esman M. Nyamongo Central Bank of Kenya
15.5 The Hausman test For the random effects estimator to be unbiased in large samples, the effects must be uncorrelated with the explanatory variables.
Kakhramon Yusupov June 15th, :30pm – 3:00pm Session 3
Further Issues Using OLS with Time Series Data
Fundamentals of regression analysis
Chapter 15 Panel Data Analysis.
Further Issues in Using OLS with Time Series Data
Advanced Panel Data Methods
The regression model in matrix form
Microeconometric Modeling
Instrumental Variables
Introduction to Time Series
Testing for near integration with stationary covariates
Further Issues Using OLS with Time Series Data
16. Mean Square Estimation
Advanced Panel Data Methods
Threshold Autoregressive
Presentation transcript:

A Generalized Nonlinear IV Unit Root Test for Panel Data with Cross-Sectional Dependence Shaoping Wang School of Economics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,WuHan, China Peng Wang Department of Economics,New York University, New York, NY, U.S.A. Jisheng Yang School of Economics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,WuHan, China Zinai Li School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Introduction Panel unit root test: Survey by Hurlin and Mignon (2004) Assume cross sectional independence Levin and Lin (1992,1993); Levin, Lin and Chu (2002); Harris and Tzavalis (1999); Im, Pesaran and Shin (1997, 2003); Maddala and Wu (1999); Choi (1999,2001)

Panel unit root test : Assuming cross sectional dependence Flôres, Preumont and Szafarz (1995): The test statistics are based on a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR), and follow some nonstandard asymptotic distributions. Tayor and Sarno (1998): They propose a Wald-type test, but the asymptotic distribution of the test statistics is unknown. Breitung and Das (2004): They apply the ADF test to pooled samples with robust standard errors. Introduction

Panel unit root test : Assumming cross sectional dependence Bai and Ng (2001, 2004); Moon and Perron (2004); Phillips and Sul (2003): They all assume that the dependence of the cross- sectional units comes from some common factors, and employ the principal components method to eliminate the common factors (hence the correlation of cross-sectional units), and then apply the ADF type test. Introduction

Panel unit root test : Assumming cross sectional dependence Choi (2002) He models the cross-sectional dependency by time-invariant common factors, and employs the demeaning or detrending method developed by Elliott, Rothenberg and Stock (1996) to eliminate the common factors, and then applies the combining p-value test of Choi (2001). Introduction

Motivation Chang (2002) Bai and Ng (2004) This Paper A Two Step Test Improved the performance This paper, following Bai & Ng (2004) and Chang (2002), (1)apply Bai & Ngs common factor method to eliminate the cross-sectional dependency; (2)employ Changs NIV estimation to the treated data to form the test which convergence to the standard normal distribution.

Bai & Ng (2002, 2004)s Model They model the cross-sectional dependency by common factor: F t is the r×1 common factor among individuals After eliminating the cross-sectional dependency by the method Of principal component, and then employ the combining p-value test of ADF statistics. The statistics has the normal standard limiting Distribution.

Changs Model (1) : coefficient on the lagged dependent variable : error term which follows the AR(p) process: (2) : lag operator : autoregressive coefficient : some integer that is known and fixed

Model Assumptions To ensure the AR(p) process in (2) is invertible Assumption 1: for all and To restrict the distribution of error term Assumption 2: Denote (1) are independent and identically distributed and its distribution is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure (2) has mean zero and covariance matrix (3) satisfies for some and has a characteristic function that satisfies for some

NIV Estimation OLS estimation: Under, the asymptotic distribution of obtained from (3) is asymmetric, and not the usual t-distribution NIV estimation: as instrument for, where is some function satisfying Assumption 3: is regularly integrable and satisfy

Under assumption 1-3, Chang draw the key result: as and are asymptotically uncorrelated regardless of the cross sectional dependence And the test statistic has a limiting standard normal distribution Chang Test

Findings about Chang (2002) The bigger the N is, the Smaller the correlation coefficient of cross-sectional units becomes. The test statistic does not fully follow the limiting standard normal distribution when the cross sectional dependence is strong. Chang test perform well in finite samples when when the cross sectional dependence is low.

Our Test: A Two Step Test Step1: eliminate the cross sectional dependence through the method of principal components suggested by Bai & Ng. Step2: Apply Changs NIV estimation to the treated data, and form our test statistics which convergence to the standard normal distribution.

Model Setting Adopting the DGP in Bai and Ng (2004) to model the cross- sectional dependency by common factor: or (3) Where: F t is the r × 1 common factor among individuals. Error term has zero mean with covariance matrix, for. e it is the panel data after eliminating the common factor when the common factor and its loading vector are known.

We are interested to test: for all VS for some Hypothesis

Test procedure: Step one Under the null hypothesis: The differenced common component estimator of is times the eigenvectors corresponding to the largest r eigenvalue of the matrix, the estimated loading matrix is given by..

Step one (contd) the data with weak (or no) cross-sectional dependence where can be set as 0. After eliminating the common factor, model (3) can be rewritten as: (4) Model (4) is of the same form as Changs model (1), but with a different error term.

Step two Denote,,,, where. We have the model with no (weak) cross-sectional dependence (5)

Step Two (contd) Denote, The NIV estimator for (5) is: t-ratio of :, is the variance estimator of. Test statistics:.

The Distribution Suppose that Assumption and Bai & Ng (2004)s assumptions A-E hold. We have: Then, under those assumptions, the t-ratio of auto-regression coefficient in (5) is similar to its asymptotic distribution in Changs model (1).

The Distribution Theorem 1. Suppose that Assumption and Bai & Ng (2004)s assumptions A-E hold. Under the null hypothesis of panel unit root, we obtain, as, for all and, where denote the correlation coefficient. Theorem 2. Suppose that Assumption Bai & Ng (2004)s assumptions A-E hold. Under the null hypothesis of panel unit root and as, we obtain Extend Theorem 1 and 2 to panel data models with individual intercept and/or time trend by de-meaning and/or de-trending schemes

Simulation DGP with General Cross-sectional dependence (6) The covariance matrix of,

DGP with General cross sectional dependence for size evaluation, for power evaluation The number of common factor is set as 1 for eliminating the cross-sectional dependency by method of principal components. Simulation (contd)

DGP with General cross sectional dependence Size no intercept and no linear trend The empirical sizes of BN test and our test in all cases are fairly close to the nominal sizes (we pick up 5%). The distortions of Chang test are more pronounced when the cross sectional dependence is high (e.g., 0.8). Simulation ( contd )

The three tests have reasonably good power in all designs and the power increases as N and T increase. The power of BN test is a little lower than the power of our test in some cases. no intercept and no linear trend ~ Uniform[0.85, 0.99]. General cross sectional dependence Power Simulation (contd)

Simulation DGP of Chang (2002) DGP of Chang (2002) is also based on (6) with the covariance matrix generated randomly. Size Both tests are very close to each other and approximate the nominal test sizes very well. no intercept and no linear trend

Simulation DGP of Chang (2002) Power Changs test is more powerful than our test when sample is small. The empirical power of two tests are high enough. no intercept and no linear trend

The covariance matrix of, for size evaluation, for power evaluation Simulation DGP with one common factor

no intercept and no linear trend The empirical sizes of two tests are almost identical and close to the nominal sizes. Simulation (contd) : Common factor dependence Size

no intercept and no linear trend The empirical power of two tests are high enough. Simulation (contd) : Common factor dependence Power

Idea: remove the cross sectional dependence before applying Chang test Method: first removing the cross-sectional dependence by method of principal component and then applying Chang NIV to the treated data Test Distribution: a limiting standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis of panel unit root Test Performance: (1) much better than Chang test when the cross sectional dependence is moderate to high; (2) as good as Chang test when the cross sectional dependence is low; (3) The finite sample performance is similar to that of BN test. Conclusion

Thank you!