A strategy to reduce the count of moment conditions in panel data GMM

Bontempi, Maria Elena and Mammi, Irene (2012): A strategy to reduce the count of moment conditions in panel data GMM.

Abstract

The problem of instrument proliferation and its consequences (overfitting of endogenous variables, bias of estimates, weakening of Sargan/Hansen test) are well known. The literature provides little guidance on how many instruments is too many. It is common practice to report the instrument count and to test the sensitivity of results to the use of more or fewer instruments. Strategies to alleviate the instrument proliferation problem are the lag-depth truncation and/or the collapse of the instrument set (the latter being an horizontal squeezing of the instrument matrix). However, such strategies involve either a certain degree of arbitrariness (based on the ability and the experience of the researcher) or of trust in the restrictions implicitly imposed (and hence untestable) on the instrument matrix. The aim of the paper is to introduce a new strategy to reduce the instrument count. The technique we propose is statistically founded and purely datadriven and, as such, it can be considered a sort of benchmark solution to the problem of instrument proliferation. We apply the principal component analysis (PCA) on the instrument matrix and exploit the PCA scores as the instrument set for the panel generalized method-of-moments (GMM) estimation. Through extensive Monte Carlo simulations, under alternative characteristics of persistence of the endogenous variables, we compare the performance of the Difference GMM, Level and System GMM estimators when lag truncation, collapsing and our principal component-based IV reduction (PCIVR henceforth) are applied to the instrument set. The same comparison has been carried out with two empirical applications on real data: the first replicates the estimates of Blundell and Bond [1998]; the second exploits a new and large panel data-set in order to assess the role of tangible and intangible capital on productivity. Results show that PCIVR is a promising strategy of instrument reduction.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Panel data, generalized method of moments, proliferation of instruments, principal component analysis, persistence
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C13 - Estimation: General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C15 - Statistical Simulation Methods: General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models ; Multiple Variables > C33 - Panel Data Models ; Spatio-temporal Models; D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations > D24 - Production ; Cost ; Capital ; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity ; Capacity

References

References

[1] Amemiya, T. (1966) “On the use of principal components of independent variables in two-stage least-squares estimation”, International Economic Review, Vol. 7, pp. 283-303.

[2] Arellano, M. (2003) “Modelling optimal instrumental variables for dynamic panel data models”, CEMFI, working paper 0310, Madrid.

[3] Arellano, M. and S.R. Bond (1991) “Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 58, pp. 277-297.

[4] Arellano, M., O. Bover (1995) “Another look at the instrumental variables estimation of error-components models”, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 68, pp. 29-51.

[5] Bai, J. and S. Ng (2010) “Instrumental Variable Estimation In A Data Rich Environment”, Econometric Theory, Vol. 26, pp. 1577-1606.

[6] Barro, R.J. and X. Sala-i-Martin (2003) “Economic Growth, Second edition”, MIT Press, Cambridge.

[7] Blundell, R.W. and S.R. Bond (1998) “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 87, pp. 115-143.

[8] Blundell, R.W., S.R. Bond and F. Windmeijer (2000) “Estimation in dynamic panel data models: improving on the performance of the standard GMM estimator”, in Baltagi B. (ed.), Advances in Econometrics, vol. 15, Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels, JAI Elsevier Sceince, Amsterdam.

[9] Bond, S. (2002) “Dynamic panel data models: a guide to micro data methods and practice”, CEMMAP, Working paper 09/02.

[10] Bond, S. and F. Windmeijer (2002) “Finite sample inference for GMM estimators in linear panel data model”, CEMMAP, Working paper 04/02.

[11] Bontempi M.E. and J. Mairesse (2008) “Intangible capital and productivity: an exploration on a panel of Italian manufacturing firms”, NBER, Working paper n. 14108. 34

[12] Bound, J., Jaeger, D.A. and Baker, R.M. (1995) “Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak”, Journal of the American Statistica Association, vol. 90, pp. 443-450.

[13] Bowsher, C. G. (2002) “On testing overidentifying restrictions in dynamic panel data models”, Economics Letters, vol. 77, pp. 211-220.

[14] Bun M.J.G. and F. Windmeijer (2010) “The weak instrument problem of the system GMM estimator in dynamic panal data models”, Econometrics Journal, vol. 13, pp. 95-126.

[15] D’Alessio G. (1989) “Multistep principal components analysis in the study of panel data”, in Coppi R. and S. Bolasco (eds.), multiway Data Analysis, pp. 375-381, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland).

[16] Doran H.E. and Schmidt P. (2006) “GMM estimators with improved finite sample properties using principla components of the weighting matrix, with an application to the dynamic panel data model”, Journal of econometrics, Vol. 133, pp. 387-409.

[17] Durlauf, S.N., Johnson, P.A. and J.R.W. Temple (2005) “Growth Econometrics”, in P. Aghion and S. N. Durlauf (eds.) Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1A, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 555-677.

[18] Forni, M., M. Hallin, M. Lippi, and L. Reichlin (2000) “The Generalized Factor Model: Identification And Estimation”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 82, pp. 540�554.

[19] Forni, M., M. Hallin, M. Lippi, and L. Reichlin (2004) “The Generalized Factor Model: Consistency and Rates”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 119, pp. 231-255.

[20] Forni, M., M. Hallin, M. Lippi, and L. Reichlin (2005) “The Generalized Dynamic Factor Model: One-Sided Estimation and Forecasting”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 100, pp. 830-839.

[21] Griliches Z. (1998) “R&D and productivity. The econometric evidence”, The University of Chicago Press.

[22] Griliches Z. and J.A. Hausman (1986) “Errors in variables in panel data”, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 31, pp. 93-118. 35

[23] Griliches Z. and Mairesse J. (1998) “Production Functions: the Search for Identification” in S. Strom (ed.), Essays in Honour of Ragnar Frisch, Econometric Society Monograph Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 169-203.

[24] Groen, J.J.J. and G. Kapetanios (2009) “Parsimonious estimation with many instruments”, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Staff Report n. 386.

[25] Hall A.R. and F.P.M. Peixe (2003) “A consistent method for the selection of relevant instruments”, Econometric Reviews, Vol. 22, pp. 269-287.

[26] Han C. and P.C.B. Phillips (2006) “GMM with many moment conditions”, Econometrica, Vol. 74, pp. 147-192.

[27] Hayakawa, K. (2009) “On the effect of mean-nonstationarity in dynamic panel data model”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 153, pp. 133-135.

[28] Holtz-Eakin D., Newey W. and Rosen H. (1998) “Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data”, Econometrica, Vol. 56, pp. 1371-1395.

[29] Kapetanios, G. and M. Marcellino (2010) “Factor-GMM estimation with large sets of possibly weak instruments manuscript”, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 54, pp. 2655-2675.

[30] Kloek, T., and L.B.M. Mennes (1960) “Simultaneous equations estimation based on principal components of predetermined variables”, Econometrica, Vol. 28, pp. 45-61.

[31] Mairesse J. and B.H. Hall (1995) “Exploring the relationship between R&D and productivity in French manufactirung firms”, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 65, pp. 263-293.

[32] Mairesse J. and B.H. Hall (1996) “Estimating the productivity of research and development in French and US manufacturing firms: an exploration of simultaneity issues with GMM methods”, in K. Wagner and Bart Van Ark (eds.) International Productivity Differences and Their Explanations, Elsevier Science, pp. 285-315.

[33] Mairesse J. and M. Sassenou (1991) “R&D and productivity: a survey of econometric studies at the firm level”, NBER, Working paper n. 3666.

[34] Mammi I., (2011) “Essays in GMM estimation of dynamic panel data models”, PhD dissertation, IMT Institute for Advanced Studies, Lucca, Italy. 36

[35] Mehrhoff, J., (2009) “A solution to the problem of too many instruments in dynamic panel data GMM”, Discussion paper n. 1/2009, Deutsche Bundesbank.

[36] Kloek, T., and L.B.M. Mennes (1960) “Simultaneous equations estimation based on principal components of predetermined variables”, Econometrica, Vol. 28, pp. 45-61.

[37] Nickell, S. (1981) “Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects”, Econometrica, Vol. 49, pp. 1417-26.

[38] Roodman, D. (2009) “A Note on the theme of too many instruments”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol. 71, pp. 135-158.

[39] Stock, J.H. and M.W. Watson, (1998) “Diffusion indexes”, NBER, Working Paper 6702.

[40] Stock, J.H. and M.W. Watson, (2002a) “Forecasting using principal components from a large number of predictors”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 97, pp. 1167-1179.

[41] Stock, J.H. and M.W. Watson, (2002b) “Macroeconomic forecasting using diffusion indexes”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, vol. 20, pp. 147-162.

[42] Stock, J.H. and M.W. Watson, (2010) “Dynamic factor models”, Chapter 2 in M. Clements and D. Hendry (eds), Oxford Handbook of Economic Forecasting.

[43] Windmeijer F. (2005) “A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators”, Journal of Econometric, vol. 126, pp. 25-51.

[44] Ziliak J. P. (1997) “Efficient estimation with panel data when instruments are predetermined: an empirical comparison of moment-condition estimators”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, vol. 15, pp. 419-431.