Rodrigo,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Rodrigo A. Alfaro
> Sent: 17 October 2006 17:11
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: st: Re: RE: Fixed-effects, unbalanced panel and
> time-invariant variable
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> RE estimation is more restrictive than the current FE+BE. For
> RE we need that time variant (TV) and time invariant (TI)
> variables have to be uncorrelated with the cross sectional
> unobservable (u_i)), if the assumption if false the TV and TI
> estimates are inconsistent. But for this procedure
> (FE+BE) only TI estimates will be inconsistent (Hsiao 2003,
> page 52-53).
Very clear - I understand now.
How does this help Barbara, though? She says she's interested in the
coefficient on the TI variable in particular. FE+BE doesn't help here,
or am I missing something?
Cheers,
Mark
> Of course under not correlation RE is more
> efficient. The following example show you the 3 methods:
> FE+BE, RE and LS.
>
> In T1 we have the xtfevd output, T2+T3 the FE+BE without any
> adjustment (the constant is added to T3 therefore the
> constant in T2 is irrelevant). T4 is GLS RE, T5 is the LS and
> T6 is MLE RE. It seems that std errors fot TI in T1 are too
> much small in compare with other methods, maybe there is a
> typo in the ado-file. T2+T3 give us a more reliable result
> that we can compare with T4, T5 and T6. Look fem estimate
> (gender dummy), GLS RE is similar to LS even that 75% of the
> total variance is explained by u_i. For T6 the results are
> close to FE in the case of coef but very different in the std
> error of TI... any idea?
>
> Best, Rodrigo.
>
>
> /******************** Example **************************************/
> qui {
> webuse psidextract
> tsset id t
> xtfevd lwage wks south smsa ms exp exp2 occ ind union fem blk
> ed, invariant(fem blk ed) est store T1 xtreg lwage wks south
> smsa ms exp exp2 occ ind union, fe est store T2 predict aux1,
> r bysort id: egen aux2=mean(aux1) replace aux2=aux2+_b[_cons]
> reg aux2 fem blk ed est store T3 xtreg lwage wks south smsa
> ms exp exp2 occ ind union fem blk ed, re est store T4 reg
> lwage wks south smsa ms exp exp2 occ ind union fem blk ed, re
> est store T5 xtreg lwage wks south smsa ms exp exp2 occ ind
> union fem blk ed, mle est store T6 } est table T*, se
> /******************** Example **************************************/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Schaffer, Mark E" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:12 AM
> Subject: st: RE: Fixed-effects, unbalanced panel and
> time-invariant variable
>
>
> Barbara,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> > PETITT Barbara
> > Sent: 17 October 2006 14:47
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: st: Fixed-effects, unbalanced panel and
> > time-invariant variable
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have an unbalanced panel (for some firms, I have three
> > years of data, for others, two years or even only one year).
> > One of my independent variables is a time-invariant variable
> > and with fixed-effects models, its gets dropped. I
> > contemplated using the fixed effects vector decomposition
> > (xtfevd), but does it work for unbalanced panel?
> > Otherwise, is there any alternative?
>
> Maybe I am missing something obvious, but why won't the
> standard random
> effects estimator work for you? -xtreg,re- etc.
>
> --Mark
>
> Prof. Mark Schaffer
> Director, CERT
> Department of Economics
> School of Management & Languages
> Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
> tel +44-131-451-3494 / fax +44-131-451-3296
> email: [email protected]
> web: http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/ecomes
>
>
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Barbara.
> >
*
* 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/
