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

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

From |
Rodolphe Desbordes <rodolphe.desbordes@strath.ac.uk> |

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

Subject |
st: RE: System GMM and fixed effects - xtabond2 |

Date |
Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:39:54 +0000 |

Dear Zohal, I think that you will find the answers to your question in David Roodman's paper (http://www.stata-journal.com/article.html?article=st0159). The WP is available on http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/11619 In the absence of external instruments, you can include time-invariant variables in your model as long as you are willing to assume that they are uncorrelated with the error term. However, it would be a mistake to include fixed effects in your level equation, since this implicit within transformation would invalidate the use of lags as internal instruments. The instruments used for the level equation are the lagged first-differences of the time-varying variables. These instruments are valid as long as a) the idiosyncratic shocks are not serially correlated b) the correlation between these variables and the individual effects is constant, i.e. a stationarity assumption is met. If the additional moment conditions are valid, the "SYS-GMM" estimator is consistent. It is also likely to be more efficient than the "DIFF-GMM", depending on the degree of persistence in your data. I hope this helps, Rodolphe ________________________________________ From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Zohal Hessami [Zohal.Hessami@uni-konstanz.de] Sent: 28 February 2010 20:19 To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: st: System GMM and fixed effects - xtabond2 Dear Statalisters, I have a question regarding System GMM and fixed effects in the context of xtabond2. Apparently, time constant variables can be included in System GMM in the level equation. Does that mean that the level equation has no fixed effects included? And if so, does this imply that the level equation is not robust to unobserved heterogeneity? Since my control variables are probably correlated with the fixed effects, should I use Difference GMM instead of System GMM even though it is less efficient? (The results between the two estimation methods differ significantly for my model.) Thank you very much for your help! Zohal Hessami Department of Economics, University of Konstanz * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: System GMM and fixed effects - xtabond2***From:*"Zohal Hessami" <Zohal.Hessami@uni-konstanz.de>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Missing data analysis** - Next by Date:
**st: RE; R for Stata Users** - Previous by thread:
**st: System GMM and fixed effects - xtabond2** - Next by thread:
**st: Missing data analysis** - Index(es):