The PCSE Estimator is Good -- Just Not As Good As You Think
This paper investigates the properties of the Panel-Corrected Standard Error (PCSE) estimator. The PCSE estimator is commonly used when working with time-series, cross-sectional (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.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 2 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jtse|
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Rose, Andrew K, 2002.
"Do We Really Know that the WTO Increases Trade?,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
3538, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Mitchell A. Petersen, 2005.
"Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches,"
NBER Working Papers
11280, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Mitchell A. Petersen, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 435-480, January.
- Noy, Ilan, 2009.
"The macroeconomic consequences of disasters,"
Journal of Development Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 221-231, March.
- Miaw-Chwen Lee & Andrew M. Jones, 2004. "How did Dentists Respond to the Introduction of Global Budgets in Taiwan? An Evaluation Using Individual Panel Data," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 307-326, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:jtsmet:v:2:y:2010:i:1:n:8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.