Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: Fixed effects model, Hausman test (panel data)

From   Zia Hydari <>
Subject   Re: st: Fixed effects model, Hausman test (panel data)
Date   Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:24:20 -0400

BTW, I used Stata command 'hausman' on output from "xtreg , fe" vs "xtreg , re".


On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Zia Hydari <> wrote:
> (1) I understand that to estimate a fixed-effect linear model,
> independent variables (of interest) must have some variation.  Is it
> necessary that there should be variation in each and every
> cross-sectional unit?  If yes, should cross-sectional units with no
> variation be eliminated from the dataset?
> To be slightly more specific, we have data on products that may get
> "impaired" at some point in their life.  Once impaired, the product
> remains impaired for the rest of its life.  We use a dummy variable:
> impaired==0 (not impaired yet) and impaired==1 (already impaired).
> The problem is that some products are impaired from day 1, so there is
> no variation for these specific products for the "impaired" dummy
> variable.
> The value of the product depreciates over time.  However, we are
> trying to find if product impairment causes a further decline in the
> value of the product (then there may benefit in delaying impairment).
> (2) A Hausman test indicates that a random effects model is
> appropriate.  We find it surprising that the individual-specific
> effect has no correlation with independent variables.  What are some
> things worth checking to make sure that a random effects is indeed
> appropriate.
> Regards,
> Zia
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *
> *
> *

*   For searches and help try:

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