Finite-sample comparison of alternative methods for estimating dynamic panel data models

Journal of Applied Econometrics

Volumn 27, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1189-1204

  Akay, Alpaslan ^a  

^a IZA   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864677870     PISSN: 08837252     EISSN: 10991255     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jae.1254     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Arulampalam W, Stewart M. 2009. Simplified implementation of the Heckman estimator of the dynamic probit model and a comparison with alternative estimators. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 71: 659-681.
2. Butler JS, Moffitt R. 1982. A computationally efficient quadrature procedure for the one-factor multinomial probit model. Econometrica 50: 761-764.
3. Card D, Hyslop DR. 2005. Estimating the effects of a time-limited earnings subsidy for welfare-leavers. Econometrica 73: 1723-1770.
4. Card D, Sullivan D. 1988. Measuring the effect of subsidized training programs on movements in and out of employment. Econometrica 56: 497-530.
5. Chamberlain G. 1984. Panel data. In Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. II, Griliches Z, Intriligator M. North-Holland: Amsterdam; 1247-1318.
6. Contoyannis P, Jones AM, Rice N. 2004. The dynamics of health in the British Household Panel Survey. Journal of Applied Econometrics 19: 473-503.
7. Edin PA, Frederiksson P. 2000. LINDA: Longitudinal INdividual DAta for Sweden. Working Paper 19, Department of Economics, Uppsala University.
8. Heckman JJ. 1978. Simple statistical models for discrete panel data developed and applied to test the hypothesis of true state dependence against the hypothesis of spurious state dependence. Annales de l'INSEE 30-31: 227-269.
9. Heckman JJ. 1981a. Heterogeneity and state dependence. In Studies in Labor Markets, Rosen S (ed.). University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL; 91-139.
10. Heckman JJ. 1981b. The incidental parameters problem and the problem of initial conditions in estimating a discrete time-discrete data stochastic process. In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, Manski C, McFadden D (eds). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA; 114-178.
11. Honore B. 1993. Orthogonality conditions for Tobit model with fixed effect and lagged dependent variables. Journal of Econometrics 59: 35-61.
12. Honore B. 2002. Nonlinear models with panel data. Portuguese Economic Journal 1: 163-179.
13. Honore B, Kyriazidou E. 2000. Panel data discrete choice models with lagged dependent variables. Econometrica 68: 839-874.
14. Honore B, Tamer E. 2006. Bounds on parameters in panel dynamic discrete choice models. Econometrica 74: 611-629.
15. Hsiao C. 2003. Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
16. Hu L. 2002. Estimation of a censored dynamic panel-data model. Econometrica 70: 2499-2517.
17. Hyslop DR. 1999. State dependence, serial correlation and heterogeneity in intertemporal labor force participation of married women. Econometrica 67: 1255-1294.
18. Nerlove M. 1971. Further evidence on the estimation of dynamic econometric relations from a time series of cross sections. Econometrica 39: 359-382.
19. Neyman J, Scott E. 1948. Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations. Econometrica 16: 1-32.
20. Orme CD. 1997. The initial conditions problem and two-step estimation in discrete panel data models. Mimeo, University of Manchester.
21. Wooldridge JM. 2005. Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel-data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics 20: 39-54.