IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/stapro/v83y2013i7p1770-1775.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficiency of repeated-cross-section estimators in fixed-effects models

Author

Listed:
  • Rosati, Nicoletta

Abstract

Comparing repeated-cross-section (RCS) and panel estimators, asymptotically there is no efficiency loss using synthetic individuals. Small-sample simulations show higher efficiency of panels for static models, but RCS estimators are superior in the dynamic case, especially for larger values of the auto-regressive parameter.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosati, Nicoletta, 2013. "Efficiency of repeated-cross-section estimators in fixed-effects models," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(7), pages 1770-1775.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:stapro:v:83:y:2013:i:7:p:1770-1775
    DOI: 10.1016/j.spl.2013.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167715213001260
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.spl.2013.04.005?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. Verbeek, Marno & Vella, Francis, 2005. "Estimating dynamic models from repeated cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 127(1), pages 83-102, July.
    2. Mark Harris & Laszlo Matyas & Patrick Sevestre, 2008. "Dynamic Models for Short Panels," Post-Print halshs-00279980, HAL.
    3. Moffitt, Robert, 1993. "Identification and estimation of dynamic models with a time series of repeated cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1-2), pages 99-123, September.
    4. Verbeek, Marno & Nijman, Theo, 1992. "Can Cohort Data Be Treated as Genuine Panel Data?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 9-23.
    5. Deaton, Angus, 1985. "Panel data from time series of cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 109-126.
    6. McKenzie, D.J.David J., 2004. "Asymptotic theory for heterogeneous dynamic pseudo-panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 235-262, June.
    7. Verbeek, Marno & Nijman, Theo, 1993. "Minimum MSE estimation of a regression model with fixed effects from a series of cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1-2), pages 125-136, September.
    8. László Mátyás & Patrick Sevestre (ed.), 2008. "The Econometrics of Panel Data," Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics, Springer, number 978-3-540-75892-1, July-Dece.
    9. Chamberlain, Gary, 1987. "Asymptotic efficiency in estimation with conditional moment restrictions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 305-334, March.
    10. Heckman, James J. & Robb, Richard Jr., 1985. "Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions : An overview," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 239-267.
    11. Dolores Collado, M., 1997. "Estimating dynamic models from time series of independent cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-62.
    12. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Can cohort data be treated as genuine panel data?," Other publications TiSEM d4eada8f-b91c-4fe7-a58c-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    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. Rumman Khan, 2018. "Assessing cohort aggregation to minimise bias in pseudo-panels," Discussion Papers 2018-01, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
    2. Rumman Khan, 2021. "Assessing Sampling Error in Pseudo‐Panel Models," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 742-769, June.
    3. Xavier d'Haultfoeuille & Stefan Hoderlein & Yuya Sasaki, 2013. "Nonlinear difference-in-differences in repeated cross sections with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP40/13, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    4. Tamvada, Jagannadha Pawan, 2010. "The Dynamics of Self-employment in a Developing Country: Evidence from India," MPRA Paper 20042, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Hai‐Anh H. Dang & Peter F. Lanjouw, 2023. "Measuring Poverty Dynamics with Synthetic Panels Based on Repeated Cross Sections," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 85(3), pages 599-622, June.
    6. Ortiz, Rodrigo & Fernandez, Viviana, 2022. "Business perception of obstacles to innovate: Evidence from Chile with pseudo-panel data analysis," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. Verbeek, Marno & Vella, Francis, 2005. "Estimating dynamic models from repeated cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 127(1), pages 83-102, July.
    8. Lucio Masserini & Caterina Liberati & Paolo Mariani, 2017. "Quality service in banking: a longitudinal approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 509-523, March.
    9. Chiara Comolli & Fabrizio Bernardi, 2015. "The causal effect of the great recession on childlessness of white American women," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, December.
    10. Kanang Amos Akims & Perez Ayieko Onono & Dianah Mukwate Ngui, . "Trade Liberalization and Productivity in the Nigerian Manufacturing Sector," Journal of Economic and Sustainable Growth 3, Office Of The Chief Economist, Development Bank of Nigeria.
    11. McKenzie, D.J.David J., 2004. "Asymptotic theory for heterogeneous dynamic pseudo-panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 235-262, June.
    12. Guarini, Giulio & Laureti, Tiziana & Garofalo, Giuseppe, 2018. "Territorial and individual educational inequality: A Capability Approach analysis for Italy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 247-262.
    13. Badi Baltagi & Seuck Song, 2006. "Unbalanced panel data: A survey," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 493-523, October.
    14. Dang,Hai-Anh H. & Lanjouw,Peter F., 2013. "Measuring poverty dynamics with synthetic panels based on cross-sections," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6504, The World Bank.
    15. Lavin, Felipe Vasquez & Bratti, Luna & Orrego, Sergio & Barrientos, Manuel, 2020. "Assessing the Use of Pseudo-panels to Estimate the Value of Statistical Life in Developing Countries," EfD Discussion Paper 20-20, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    16. Inoue, Atsushi, 2008. "Efficient estimation and inference in linear pseudo-panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 449-466, January.
    17. Artūras Juodis, 2018. "Pseudo Panel Data Models With Cohort Interactive Effects," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 47-61, January.
    18. David Aristei & Luca Pieroni, 2010. "Habits, Complementarities and Heterogeneity in Alcohol and Tobacco Demand: A Multivariate Dynamic Model," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 72(4), pages 428-457, August.
    19. Jagannadha Pawan Tamvada & Mili Shrivastava & Tapas Kumar Mishra, 2022. "Education, social identity and self-employment over time: evidence from a developing country," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1449-1468, December.
    20. Koksal, Aycan & Wohlgenant, Michael, 2013. "Pseudo Panel Data Estimation Technique and Rational Addiction Model: An Analysis of Tobacco, Alcohol and Coffee Demands," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150457, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:stapro:v:83:y:2013:i:7:p:1770-1775. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622892/description#description .

    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.