Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at

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

Re: st: heteroscedasticity in dymamic fixed effects (or LSDV) models

From   Christopher Baum <>
To   "" <>
Subject   Re: st: heteroscedasticity in dymamic fixed effects (or LSDV) models
Date   Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:53:01 -0400

On Jun 10, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Joales wrote:

> I have a usual panel data set on some variables that evolve across
> time and countries.
> I set up a dynamic panel fixed effects model
> and I test for heteroscedasticity using xttest3. So my next step is to use
> xtreg  dependent variable, lagged dependent, rest variables , fe cluster(id)
> where id is the usual panel identifier.
> Checking for heteroscedasticity (using again xttest)  I still find
> that I have heteroscedasticity.
> IS there any problem in my approach?

Yes. It is called Nickell bias (Econometrica, 1981). That is why we have the Anderson-Hsiao and Arellano-Bond/Blundell-Bond estimators.
Computing robust standard errors will generally deal with heteroskedasticiy in this context, and is commonly applied. But you should not apply the fixed effects (LSDV) estimator in this context without computing the potential damage done by Nickell bias -- or better yet, apply an estimator without this bias such as those mentioned above.


Kit Baum   |   Boston College Economics & DIW Berlin   |
                             An Introduction to Stata Programming  |
  An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata  |

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index