I want to regress my dependent variable on my independent variables in R. First for the level of the variables: lm(y~x+z+u). Now since my variables are non-stationary I have to take the first difference of each variable. My question is, is it right to do the following: lm(diff(y)~diff(x)+diff(z)+diff(u))?

My question arises because I read the question and the corresponding answer from this thread: How do I interpret my regression with first differenced variables? What baffled me was the answer from Charlie. Is taking the difference from each variable the same as subtracting $y_{t-1}$ from each side of the model in levels? I.e. is subtracting $y_{t-1}$ from lm(y~x+z+u) equal to lm(diff(y)~diff(x)+diff(z)+diff(u))? I already posted this question on Stack Overflow, but since it has nothing to do with programming/coding I deleted it an reposted it on this forum.

  • $\begingroup$ many thanks. could you please explain your formula lm(diff(y)~x[-1]+z[-1]+u[-1]+offset(1*tail(y,-1))) in words? $\endgroup$
    – Michael B
    Apr 5 '15 at 17:06
  • $\begingroup$ lm(diff(y)~-1+x[-1]+z[-1]+u[-1]+offset(1*tail(y,-1)))) is equivalent to running a regression of the form $\Delta y_t=\beta_1 x_t+\beta_2 z_t+\beta_3 \Delta u_t-1 \cdot y_{t−1}+\varepsilon_t$. You may look up functions diff, tail and offset separately in R help files. [-1] and tail(y,-1) are used to effectively create non-lagged and lagged variables. $\endgroup$ Apr 9 '15 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ As you perhaps noticed, I turned my comments into an answer and fixed a few typos and omissions in the formulas. Nothing substantively new was added. $\endgroup$ Apr 9 '15 at 18:11

Using lm(diff(y)~-1+diff(x)+diff(z)+diff(u)) (note the -1 to remove intercept) is perfectly fine (the answer by Charlie is not at odds with this approach) -- unless your variables are cointegrated. If they are, a vector error correction model (VECM) would be more appropriate.

Since $y_{t−1}$ is not exactly equal a linear combination of $x_{t−1}$, $z_{t−1}$ and $u_{t−1}$ (because there is an error term, too!),

(equivalently $\Delta y_t=\beta_1 \Delta x_t+\beta_2 \Delta z_t+\beta_3 \Delta u_t+\varepsilon_t$)

will not give exactly the same numerical results as

(equivalently $\Delta y_t=\beta_1 x_t+\beta_2 z_t+\beta_3 \Delta u_t-1 \cdot y_{t−1}+\varepsilon_t$)

But the two should be pretty close.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your further explanation. But why do you remove the intercept? $\endgroup$
    – Michael B
    Apr 9 '15 at 18:43
  • $\begingroup$ Because first you have a relationship $y_t=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_t+\beta_2 x_t+\beta_3 u_t+\varepsilon_t$ as inferred from your OP: lm(y~x+z+u). When you difference both sides of this equation, the intercept cancels out and disappears. $\endgroup$ Apr 9 '15 at 19:07
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, but thats exactly what confuses me. Why should the intercept drop out in this case? Isnt that only the case if you subtract Y(t-1) from both sides? (How do I type mathematical formulas on this forum?) $\endgroup$
    – Michael B
    Apr 9 '15 at 19:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For a short example, consider $y_t=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_t+\varepsilon_t$. Then $y_{t-1}=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_{t-1}+\varepsilon_{t-1}$. Subtract the latter equation from the former one to get $\Delta y_t=\beta_1 \Delta x_t+\Delta \varepsilon_t$ and replace $\Delta \varepsilon_t$ with $u_t$ to make it look nicer. Regarding mathematical formulas: open any post with formulas, click "edit" and see how they were produced. Alternatively, search for "MathJax", "Latex" or similar. $\endgroup$ Apr 9 '15 at 20:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.