Timeline for Forecasting unemployment rate with plm
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 14:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stats.stackexchange.com/ with https://stats.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 31, 2013 at 19:47 | history | edited | StasK |
retagged gmm -> generalized-moments
|
|
| Jan 25, 2011 at 12:28 | vote | accept | teucer | ||
| Dec 8, 2010 at 14:48 | history | edited | user88 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited title
|
| Dec 8, 2010 at 13:04 | answer | added | mpiktas | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 15:08 | comment | added | teucer | @kwak but the model specification is correct, isn't it? Btw, why the numbers of instruments should be smaller than years-1? If you look the example of plm vignette with EmplUK data set (p.23) they use 2:99 (I don't really understand why)? I came across the following formula for number of instruments (T-1)*(T-2)/2+(T-3)...I'll have a look at gretl, thx! | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 14:33 | comment | added | user603 | I haven't used this package extensively myself. I think individual effect is indeed what you want. Two step will yield smaller standard errors (see the paper i linked to in my original answer). The number of instruments should be smaller than the number of years-1 you have. Try 2:9 (i think you have 9 years per region). You could also start by using the gretl implementation (which is simpler to use) and come back to R whence you have mastered the model a bit. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 12:32 | history | asked | teucer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |