Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 11, 2020 at 14:32 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
S Aug 26, 2019 at 22:32 history suggested ptrj CC BY-SA 4.0
Updated expired link
Aug 26, 2019 at 21:38 review Suggested edits
S Aug 26, 2019 at 22:32
Jul 20, 2014 at 5:01 vote accept generic_user
Jul 20, 2014 at 3:55 comment added jayk I don't have much experience with the bias corrected estimators. The Blundell-Bond estimator will be easy to apply if your data is already formatted for Arellano-Bover. I mostly suggested the Behr paper because I think it's a pretty clear presentation of the Arellano-Bover and Blundell-Bond estimators, rather than because I thought bias corrected estimators were a particularly compelling alternative.
Jul 20, 2014 at 3:42 comment added jayk Hey ACD I've changed the answer to reflect these two questions. The gist? You can use the same number of lags for the instrument (dated t-2 and back) even if you have a large number of lags in your regression equation - because the important thing is the number of lags of the error term, which is always going to be first-differenced. I also suggested two alternative estimators that use a larger set of moment conditions.
Jul 20, 2014 at 3:37 history edited jayk CC BY-SA 3.0
added 895 characters in body
Jul 20, 2014 at 2:58 comment added generic_user Thanks a lot for the answer. I'm still stuck on one question however -- with 3 lags, say, of the the dv, I suppose that I can only instrument with the 4th and backwards? This means that my instruments for the first lag (the most important) will be quite weak. Right? I've also been looking at bias estimators/corrections of those proposed by originally by Kiviet, but those seem to rely on a consistent first-step gmm estimate, which I don't have is Sargan and AR2 tests fail
Jul 19, 2014 at 7:07 history answered jayk CC BY-SA 3.0