Panel data analysis in comparative politics: Linking method to theory

European Journal of Political Research

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 327-354

  Plümper, Thomas ^a   Troeger, Vera E ^b   Manow, Philip ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN HISTORY   (Germany)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIETIES   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 14644436978     PISSN: 03044130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2005.00230.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Achen, C.H. (2000). Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other independent variables (Political Methodology Working Paper). Available online at: http://polmeth.wustl.edu/papers/00/achen00.pdf.
2. Bartels, L.M. (1996). Pooling disparate observations. American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 905-942.
3. Beck, N. (2001). Time-series cross-section data: What have we learned in the past few years? Annual Review of Political Science 4: 271-293.
4. Beck, N. & Katz, J. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time series cross-section data. American Political Science Review 89(3): 634-647.
5. Beck, N. & Katz, J. (1996). Nuisance versus substance: Specifying and estimating time-series cross-section models. Political Analysis 6(1): 1-36.
6. Beck, N. & Katz, J. (2001). Random Coefficients Models for Time-series Cross-section Data. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at San Diego.
7. Beck, T. et al. (2000). New tools and new tests in comparative political economy: The database of political institutions. Washington: World Bank.
8. Castles, F.G. (1993). Families of nations: Patterns of public policy in Western democracies. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
9. Cochrane, D. & Orcutt, G. (1949). Application of least squares regression to relationships containing autocorrelated error terms. Journal of the American Statistical Association 44(1): 32-61.
10. Döring, H. (1995). Time as a scarce resource: Government control of the agenda. In H. Döring (ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe. New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 223-246.
11. Garrett, G. & Mitchell, D. (2001). Globalization, government spending and taxation in the OECD. European Journal of Political Research 39(2): 145-177.
12. Hausman, J.A. & Taylor, W.E. (1981). Panel data and unobserved individual effects. Econometrica 49(6): 319-339.
13. Huber, E. & Stephens, J.D. (2001). Political choices in global markets: Development and crisis of advanced welfare states. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
14. Kennedy, P. (1998). A guide to econometrics, 4th edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. King, G. (1990). On political methodology, Political Analysis 2: 1-29.
16. Kittel, B. & Obinger, H. (2002). Political parties, institutions and welfare state dynamics in times of austerity (Discussion Paper 1/2002). Cologne: Max-Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.
17. Kittel, B. & Winner, H. (2003). How reliable is pooled analysis in political economy: The globalization-welfare state nexus revisited (Discussion Paper 3/2003). Cologne: Max-Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.
18. Maddala, G.S. (1998). Recent developments in dynamic econometric modeling: A personal viewpoint. Political Analysis 7(1): 59-87.
19. Plümper, T. & Troeger V. (2004). The estimation of time-invariant variables in panel analyses with unit effects (Polmeth and SSRN Working Paper). Available online at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/ AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=374864.
20. Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. New York: Sage.
21. Wawro, G. (2002). Estimating dynamic panel data models in political science. Political Analysis 10(1): 25-48.
22. Western, B. (1998). Causal heterogeneity in comparative research: A Bayesian hierarchical modeling approach. American Journal of Political Science 42(4): 1233-1259.
23. Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.