The PCSE Estimator is Good -- Just Not as Good as You Think
AbstractThis paper investigates the properties of the Panel-Corrected Standard Error (PCSE) estimator. The PCSE estimator is commonly used when working with time-series, crosssectional (TSCS) data. In an influential paper, Beck and Katz (1995) (henceforth BK) demonstrated that FGLS produces coefficient standard errors that are severely underestimated. They report Monte Carlo experiments in which the PCSE estimator produces accurate standard error estimates at no, or little, loss in efficiency compared to FGLS. Our study further investigates the properties of the PCSE estimator. We first reproduce the main experimental results of BK using their Monte Carlo framework. We then show that the PCSE estimator does not perform as well when tested in data environments that better resemble “practical research situations.” When (i) the explanatory variable(s) are characterized by substantial persistence, (ii) there is serial correlation in the errors, and (iii) the time span of the data series is relatively short, coverage rates for the PCSE estimator frequently fall between 80 and 90 percent. Further, we find many “practical research situations” where the PCSE estimator compares poorly with FGLS on efficiency grounds.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance in its series Working Papers in Economics with number 10/53.
Length: 31 pages
Date of creation: 13 Aug 2010
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand
Phone: 64 3 369 3123 (Administrator)
Fax: 64 3 364 2635
Web page: http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz
More information through EDIRC
Panel data estimation; Monte Carlo analysis; FGLS; Parks; PCSE; finite sample;
Other versions of this item:
- Reed W. Robert & Webb Rachel, 2010. "The PCSE Estimator is Good -- Just Not As Good As You Think," Journal of Time Series Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-26, September.
- C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
- C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ilan Noy, 2007.
"The Macroeconomic Consequences of Disasters,"
200707, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
- Reed, W. Robert & Webb, Rachel S., 2010.
"Estimating standard errors for the Parks model: Can jackknifing help?,"
Economics Discussion Papers
2010-23, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- Reed, W. Robert & Webb, Rachel S., 2011. "Estimating standard errors for the Parks model: Can jackknifing help?," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14.
- W. Robert Reed & Rachel S. Webb, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors For The Parks Model: Can Jackknifing Help?," Working Papers in Economics 09/18, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Albert Yee).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.