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]
AW: st: fixed vs random effect model
From
"Martin Weiss" <[email protected]>
To
<[email protected]>
Subject
AW: st: fixed vs random effect model
Date
Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:54:11 +0200
<>
" One source on this
is the Wooldrige econometrics book on cross-sectional and pooled
time-series models (sorry but the book's at home, so I don't have a
complete citation)"
Probably http://www.stata.com/bookstore/cspd.html...
HTH
Martin
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von David Jacobs
Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Juli 2010 18:51
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: st: fixed vs random effect model
If the Haussman test rejects random-effects, that test is telling you
a random-effects approach would not produce consistent results. And
this would be a deadly flaw.
A reasonable answer to your question depends on how small your
over-time (or within) variances actually are (which you don't tell
us). Given the limited information you've provided, I'd go with
fixed-effects, but tell the reader the degree to which specific
explanatory variables approach time invariance. One source on this
is the Wooldrige econometrics book on cross-sectional and pooled
time-series models (sorry but the book's at home, so I don't have a
complete citation) on about page 270 (I think).
One way to assess this problem is to use the Stata routine -xtsum- as
it provides over time (or within) standard deviations for variables
in a pooled time-series model.
Dave Jacobs
At 10:42 AM 7/4/2010, you wrote:
>Good day Stata-listers,
>I'm apoloziging is the question may seems elementary for many of you,
>but i really need to check this before going on in my analysis. i'm
>running a panel data regression and after performing the haussman test
>the conclusion was that my model is a fixed effect one. The problem is
>located on my explanatory variables which display week variations, and
>as it is well known fixed effect model gives weak results in a such
>case. So should 'i use the random effect instead???
>
>Thanks a lot in advance.
>
>Ama.
>*
>* 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/
*
* 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/