Is the Use of Autocovariances in Level the Best in Estimating the Income Processes? A Simulation Study
In 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.
|Date of creation:||30 Jan 2013|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- 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 353-366, July.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 338-375, April.
- 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.
- Richard Blundell & Luigi Pistaferri & Ian Preston, 2004. "Consumption inequality and partial insurance," IFS Working Papers W04/28, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Dmytro Hryshko, 2012. "Labor income profiles are not heterogeneous: Evidence from income growth rates," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(2), pages 177-209, 07. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:44106. 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: (Joachim Winter)
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.