IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v120y2013i2p346-349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Avoiding biased versions of Wooldridge’s simple solution to the initial conditions problem

Author

Listed:
  • Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia
  • Skrondal, Anders

Abstract

Wooldridge (2005) provided a simple and elegant solution to the initial conditions problem for dynamic nonlinear unobserved-effects models. His original auxiliary model includes the time-varying explanatory variables at each period. Unfortunately, a popular constrained version that includes within-means of the explanatory variables can be severely biased. We show that there are several ways to avoid this problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia & Skrondal, Anders, 2013. "Avoiding biased versions of Wooldridge’s simple solution to the initial conditions problem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 346-349.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:120:y:2013:i:2:p:346-349
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.05.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176513002462
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.05.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre‐Carl Michaud & Konstantinos Tatsiramos, 2011. "Fertility and female employment dynamics in Europe: the effect of using alternative econometric modeling assumptions," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(4), pages 641-668, June.
    2. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2005. "Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 39-54, January.
    3. Rabe-Hesketh, Sophia & Skrondal, Anders & Pickles, Andrew, 2005. "Maximum likelihood estimation of limited and discrete dependent variable models with nested random effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 301-323, October.
    4. Alpaslan Akay, 2012. "Finite‐sample comparison of alternative methods for estimating dynamic panel data models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(7), pages 1189-1204, November.
    5. Konstantinos Drakos & Panagiotis Th. Konstantinou, 2013. "Investment decisions in manufacturing: assessing the effects of real oil prices and their uncertainty," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 151-165, January.
    6. Gabriella Conti & Stephen Pudney, 2011. "Survey Design and the Analysis of Satisfaction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(3), pages 1087-1093, August.
    7. Wiji Arulampalam & Mark B. Stewart, 2009. "Simplified Implementation of the Heckman Estimator of the Dynamic Probit Model and a Comparison with Alternative Estimators," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 71(5), pages 659-681, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schnitzlein, Daniel D. & Stephani, Jens, 2016. "Locus of Control and low-wage mobility," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 164-177.
    2. Emara, Noha & Owens, David & Smith, John & Wilmer, Lisa, 2017. "Serial correlation in National Football League play calling and its effects on outcomes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 125-132.
    3. Sebastian Königs, 2013. "The Dynamics of Social Assistance Benefit Receipt in Germany: State Dependence Before and After the Hartz Reforms," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 136, OECD Publishing.
    4. Drescher, Katharina & Janzen, Benedikt, 2021. "Determinants, persistence, and dynamics of energy poverty: An empirical assessment using German household survey data," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. Manudeep Bhuller & Christian N. Brinch & Sebastian Königs, 2017. "Time Aggregation and State Dependence in Welfare Receipt," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(604), pages 1833-1873, September.
    6. Ha Trong Nguyen & Luke B. Connelly, 2017. "The Dynamics of Informal Care Provision in an Australian Household Panel Survey: Previous Work Characteristics and Future Care Provision," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(302), pages 395-419, September.
    7. Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti & Claudia Pigini, 2020. "Choice of solutions to the initial-conditions problem in dynamic panel probit models," Working Papers 2020:27, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    8. Francesco Bartolucci & Claudia Pigini, 2017. "Granger causality in dynamic binary short panel data models," Working Papers 421, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    9. Lucchetti, Riccardo & Pigini, Claudia, 2017. "DPB: Dynamic Panel Binary Data Models in gretl," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i08).
    10. Joaquín Prieto, 2021. "Poverty traps and affluence shields: Modelling the persistence of income position in Chile," Working Papers 576, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    11. Danalet, Antonin & Tinguely, Loïc & Lapparent, Matthieu de & Bierlaire, Michel, 2016. "Location choice with longitudinal WiFi data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 1-17.
    12. Sinem H. Ayhan & Selin Pelek, 2020. "State Dependence in Welfare Benefits in a Non‐Welfare Context," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 66(3), pages 711-735, September.
    13. Minjeong Jeon & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, 2016. "An autoregressive growth model for longitudinal item analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(3), pages 830-850, September.
    14. Grant Gibson & Michel Grignon & Jeremiah Hurley & Li Wang, 2019. "Here comes the SUN: Self‐assessed unmet need, worsening health outcomes, and health care inequity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 727-735, June.
    15. Yi, DongGyu, 2014. "Three studies on environmental valuation," ISU General Staff Papers 201401010800005065, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    16. Chrysanthou, Georgios Marios & Vasilakis, Chrysovalantis, 2018. "The Dynamics and Determinants of Bullying Victimisation," IZA Discussion Papers 11902, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Cuesta, Maite Blázquez & Budría, Santiago, 2017. "Unemployment persistence: How important are non-cognitive skills?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 29-37.
    18. Prieto Suarez, Joaquin, 2021. "Poverty traps and affluence shields: modelling the persistence of income position in Chile," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110719, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Kostas Mavromaras & Darcy Fitzpatrick, 2017. "Self-employment Dynamics in Australia and the Importance of State Dependence," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93, pages 144-170, June.
    20. Nolte, Andre & Gürtzgen, Nicole, 2015. "Changing Fortunes during Economic Transition - Low-Wage Persistence before and after German Unification," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112828, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dynamic model; Initial conditions; Panel data; Unbalanced panels;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:120:y:2013:i:2:p:346-349. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.