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

st: re: heteroskedasticity and fixed effects

From   Kit Baum <>
Subject   st: re: heteroskedasticity and fixed effects
Date   Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:29:19 -0400

< >
Mark said

-whitetst- (or, pardon the self-plug, -ivhettest-) after -regress- with
fixed effects inserts as dummies by hand probably won't be appropriate,
for the reason I gave in my previous email.

>From what I know about -xttest3-, it won't be affected by the
Stock-Watson results, but this is just a quick guess. Kit Baum is the
author of -xttest3- and he or someone else would be better placed than
me to say (as I gather he just did!).

Actually, per my prior posting, -whitetst- is one of those tests that only makes use of residuals from a regression, and is thus immune to problems with the variance-covariance matrix. All that is needed are consistent point estimates. The White general test is a special case of the Breusch and Pagan test (q.v. -bpagan-, or more generally - ivhettest-).

Note, though, that the alternative hypotheses of the White / Breusch- Pagan and -xttest3- tests differ considerably. The latter evaluates whether the squared residuals are correlated with a set of dummies for the individual panels. The White test considers whether there is correlation between squared residuals and all regressors, squared regressors and cross-products of regressors. The B-P test allows you to choose the variables in that list (which may thus include variables not in the original regression).

I wholeheartedly agree that the cluster-robust VCE is the most sensible thing to apply in the -xtreg, fe- context. Of course, the vce (bootstrap) could be used to evaluate whether the cluster-robust SEs look reasonable.


Kit Baum, Boston College Economics and DIW Berlin
An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata:

* For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2015 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index