Is the Use of Autocovariances in Level the Best in Estimating the Income Processes? A Simulation Study
AbstractIn this simulation study, I compare the efficiency and finite sample bias of parameter estimators for popular income dynamic models using various forms of autocovariances. The dynamic models have a random walk or a heterogeneous growth permanent component, a persistent autoregressive component and a white noise transitory component. I compare the estimators using autocovariances in level, first differences (FD), and autocovariances between level and future first differences (LD), where the last one is new in the literature of income dynamics. To maintain the same information used as in using level covariances, I also augment the FD and LD covariances with level variances in the estimation. The results show that using level covariances can give rise to larger finite sample biases and larger standard errors than using covariances in FD and LD augmented by level variance. Without augmenting the level variances, LD provides more efficient estimators than FD in estimating the non-permanent components. I also show that LD provides a convenient test between random walk and heterogeneous growth models with good power.
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 Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 44106.
Date of creation: 30 Jan 2013
Date of revision:
covariance structure; income dynamics; random walk; heterogeneous growth profi le; finite sample bias; efficiency;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C51 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Construction and Estimation
- J31 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
- C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-02-08 (All new papers)
- NEP-ECM-2013-02-08 (Econometrics)
- NEP-ETS-2013-02-08 (Econometric Time Series)
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.:
- Richard Blundell & Luigi Pistaferri & Ian Preston, 2008.
"Consumption Inequality and Partial Insurance,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1887-1921, December.
- Baker, Michael, 1997. "Growth-Rate Heterogeneity and the Covariance Structure of Life-Cycle Earnings," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(2), pages 338-75, April.
- Altonji, Joseph G & Segal, Lewis M, 1996.
"Small-Sample Bias in GMM Estimation of Covariance Structures,"
Journal of Business & Economic Statistics,
American Statistical Association, vol. 14(3), pages 353-66, July.
- Joseph G. Altonji & Lewis M. Segal, 1994. "Small Sample Bias in GMM Estimation of Covariance Structures," NBER Technical Working Papers 0156, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Joseph G. Altonji & Lewis M. Segal, 1994. "Small sample bias in GMM estimation of covariance structures," Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues 94-8, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.