State dependence in work-related training participation among British employees: A comparison of different random effects probit estimators
This paper compares three different estimation approaches for the random effects dynamic panel data model, under the probit assumption on the distribution of the errors. These three approaches are attributed to Heckman (1981), Wooldridge (2005) and Orme (2001). The results are then compared with those obtained from generalised method of moments (GMM) estimators of a dynamic linear probability model, namely the Arellano and Bond (1991) and Blundell and Bond (1998) estimators. A model of work-related training participation for British employees is estimated using individual level data covering the period 1991-1997 from the British Household Panel Survey. This evaluation adds to the existing body of empirical evidence on the performance of these estimators using real data, which supplements the conclusions from simulation studies. The results suggest that for the dynamic random effects probit model the performance of no one estimator is superior to the others. GMM estimation of a dynamic LPM of training participation suggests that the random effects estimators are not sensitive to the distributional assumptions of the unobserved effect.
|Date of creation:||Jul 2008|
|Date of revision:||Mar 2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-1054, July.
- Avery, Robert B & Hansen, Lars Peter & Hotz, V Joseph, 1983. "Multiperiod Probit Models and Orthogonality Condition Estimation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 24(1), pages 21-35, February.
- Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1995. "Selection corrections for panel data models under conditional mean independence assumptions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 115-132, July.
- Chamberlain, Gary, 1984. "Panel data," Handbook of Econometrics,in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 22, pages 1247-1318 Elsevier.
- David Roodman, 2009.
"How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata,"
StataCorp LP, vol. 9(1), pages 86-136, March.
- David Roodman, 2006. "How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to "Difference" and "System" GMM in Stata," Working Papers 103, Center for Global Development.
- M. Ruth & K. Donaghy & P. Kirshen, 2006. "Introduction," Chapters,in: Regional Climate Change and Variability, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
- J. Breitung & M. Lechner, 1995. "GMM-Estimation of Nonlinear Models on Panel Data," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1995,67, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
- Arellano, Manuel & Honore, Bo, 2001. "Panel data models: some recent developments," Handbook of Econometrics,in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 53, pages 3229-3296 Elsevier.
- Arellano, M. & Honore, B., 2000. "Panel Data Models: Some Recent Developments," Papers 0016, Centro de Estudios Monetarios Y Financieros-.
- Arellano, Manuel & Bover, Olympia, 1995. "Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-51, July.
- M Arellano & O Bover, 1990. "Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-Components Models," CEP Discussion Papers dp0007, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Arulampalam, W., 1998. "A Note on Estimated Coefficients in Random Effects Probit Models," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 520, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Blundell, Richard & Bond, Stephen, 1998. "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 115-143, August.
- R Blundell & Steven Bond, "undated". "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data model," Economics Papers W14&104., Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
- Blundell, R. & Bond, S., 1995. "Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models," Economics Papers 104, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
- Richard Blundell & Stephen Bond, 1995. "Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models," IFS Working Papers W95/17, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Douglas Holtz-Eakin & Whitney K. Newey & Harvey S. Rosen, 1989. "Implementing Causality Tests with Panel Data, with an Example from LocalPublic Finance," NBER Technical Working Papers 0048, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Mundlak, Yair, 1978. "On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 69-85, January.
- Bo E. Honoré & Ekaterini Kyriazidou, 2000. "Panel Data Discrete Choice Models with Lagged Dependent Variables," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 839-874, July.
- Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
- Tom Doan, "undated". "RATS program to replicate Arellano-Bond 1991 dynamic panel," Statistical Software Components RTZ00169, Boston College Department of Economics.