Is the Use of Autocovariances in Level the Best in Estimating the Income Processes? A Simulation Study

Chau, Tak Wai (2013): Is the Use of Autocovariances in Level the Best in Estimating the Income Processes? A Simulation Study.

Abstract

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.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: covariance structure; income dynamics; random walk; heterogeneous growth profi le; finite sample bias; efficiency
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C5 - Econometric Modeling > C51 - Model Construction and Estimation; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J3 - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs > J31 - Wage Level and Structure ; Wage Differentials; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models ; Multiple Variables > C33 - Panel Data Models ; Spatio-temporal Models

References

Altonji, J.G. and L.M. Segal (1996) ``Small-Sample Bias in GMM Estimation of Covariance Structures.'' Journal of Business and Economic Statistics}, 14(3), 353-386.

Baker, M. (1997) ``Growth-Rate Heterogeneity and the Covariance Structure of Life-Cycle Earnings.'' Journal of Labor Economics, 15(2), 338-375.

Blundell, R., L. Pistaferri and I. Preston (2008), ``Consumption Inequality and Partial Insurance.'' American Economic Review, 98(5), 1887-1921.

Chamberlain, G. (1984) ``Panel Data.'' In: Griliches, Z., Intriligator, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Econometrics, Volume 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1274-1318.

Guvenen, F. (2007) ``Learning Your Earning: Are Labor Income Shocks Really Very Persistent?'' American Economic Review, 97(3), 687-712.

Guvenen, F. (2009) ``An Empirical Investigation of Labor Income Processes.'' Review of Economic Dynamics, 12, 58-79.

Hryshko, D. (2012) ``Labor Income Profiles Are Not Heterogeneous: Evidence from Income Growth Rates.'' Quantitative Economics, 3, 177-209.

MaCurdy, T., (1982) ``The Use of Time-Series Processes to Model the Error Structure of Earnings in a Longitudinal Data Analysis.'' Journal of Econometrics, 18, 83-114.

Meghir, C. and L. Pistaferri (2011) ``Earnings, Consumption and Life Cycle Choices.'' In: Ashenfelter, O. and D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, 4B, 773-854.

Moffitt, R and P. Gottschalk (2012) ``Trends in the Transitory Variance of Male Earnings: Methods and Evidence.'' Journal of Human Resources, 47(1), 204-236.