I would vote for option 1: "Long" data. The ability to handle unbalanced
panels is a very attractive feature since they are actually more a �rule�
than an �exception�.
Sofia.
> Fellow listers,
>
> I am writing a procedure for Pooled Mean Group estimation for
> heterogeneous panels (a la Pesaran, Smith, and Shin). I have all the
> estimation figured out, but I would like some input regarding user
> preferences of model setup.
>
> Basically, I am interested to know if potential users of such a procedure
> prefer "long" or "wide" data format for this type of estimation.
>
> The give and take:
>
> Option 1: "Long" data: the procedure would seem much more like Stata's
> other xt estimation commands. More importantly, unbalanced panels can be
> easily handled. However, cross equation restrictions will be unavailable
> to the user.
>
> Option 2: "Wide" data: it will be trivial to allow users to impose cross
> equation (that is, cross panel) restrictions of parameter estimates.
> However, unbalanced panels will not be allowed.
>
> Please note that with either option the user will be able to perform
> cross-equation tests -- but only with Option 2 will the a priori
> restrictions be easily handled.
>
> My underlying question is which is more valuable to users: the ability to
> handle unbalanced panels or (in the context of these heterogeneous models)
> allow for cross-panel restrictions?
>
> I have my preference, but I would be interested to hear from any
> enlightened and opinionated users!
>
> Edward F. Blackburne III, PhD
> Associate Professor
> Economics and International Business
> Sam Houston State University
> [email protected]
> 936-294-3934
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
