[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Niko Wrede" <wrede@wiso.uni-koeln.de> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: AW: RE: xtabond2: gmm in levels only meaningful? |

Date |
Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:24:16 +0100 |

Thank you very much Jean. I have not seen the problem from this perspective. In my case problem 1 and 2 are both an issue and I need the equation in differences to get rid of the individual effect. This clarifies, that using GMM for equation in levels only does not make sense in my case. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von Salvati, Jean Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 17:04 An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Betreff: st: RE: xtabond2: gmm in levels only meaningful? There are two potential problems in a model with an individual effect: 1) Correlation between some regressors and the individual effect; 2) Correlation between some regressors and the idiosyncratic disturbance; First-differencing solves problem 1). IV estimation (2SLS or, more generally, GMM) solves problem 2). When the first lag of the dependent variable is used as a regressor, then first-differencing solves problem 1) but generates problem 2). In this case, using instrumental variables is required for consistency. This is the foundation of the Anderson-Hsiao IV/2SLS estimator and of the Arellano-Bond GMM estimator. When 1) is not an issue for any of the regressors (that is, when all the regressors are orthogonal to the individual effect), then you can estimate the levels equation directly (without first-differencing). This is the so-called "random effect" estimator. There are GLS and 2SLS/IV versions of this estimator. If you only want to use the levels equation, then you should consider the random-effect estimator and ask yourself whether your regressors are all orthogonal to the individual effect. If you really want to use GMM, then just remember that 2SLS can be seen as a special case of GMM. When some (but not all) of the regressors are orthogonal to the individual effect, you can use the levels equation to establish orthogonality conditions that can be combined with the orthogonality conditions for the first-difference equation. This leads to the Arellano-Bover/Blundell-Bond GMM estimator implemented in xtabond2. To summarize, if 1) is not an issue in your model, then you don't need first-differencing, and you don't need the kind of GMM implemented in xtabond and xtabond2. In this case, you should look at the "random-effect" estimators implemented in xtreg, xtivreg, and xtivreg2/ivreg2. If 1) is an issue, then you can only use the regressors that are orthogonal to the individual effect to derive orthogonality conditions from the levels equation. Jean Salvati > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Niko Wrede > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:32 AM > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > Subject: st: xtabond2: gmm in levels only meaningful? > > Dear all, > the System-GMM estimator exploits moment conditions for > equation in differences AND for equation in levels. > > However, using xtabond2 > ..., gmm(depvar, lag(2 .) equ(BOTH)) ... > I do not get plausibel results (in almost all cases the > Hansen J Test indicates overidentifying restrictions). > > But when using xtabond2 > ..., gmm(d.depvar, lag(2 .) equ(LEVEL)) ... > [WITHOUT an additional gmm(depvar, lag(2 .) equ(diff) > command] the results are economically plausibel and the > Hansen J Test is ok. > > My understanding of GMM is, that one has to use the equation > in differences to get rid of the individual effects. In > addition, one can exploit the equation in levels and use > differences of the depvar as instruments for those. > > But I have not seen GMM estimators, that use ONLY the > equation in levels. > However, maybe anybody knows of such cases and is able to > give some references. > I would greatly appreciate any help since I already spent a > lot of time searching for valuable information on this topic. > > Niko > > * > * For searches and help try: > * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html > * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq > * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ > * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: RE: xtabond2: gmm in levels only meaningful?***From:*"Salvati, Jean" <JSalvati@imf.org>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Protecting data sets** - Next by Date:
**st: A new module in SSC archives. Tablemat.** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: xtabond2: gmm in levels only meaningful?** - Next by thread:
**st: A new module in SSC archives. Tablemat.** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |