Bias Correction in the Dynamic Panel Data Model with a Nonscalar Disturbance Covariance Matrix

Approximation formulae are developed for the bias of ordinary and generalized Least Squares Dummy Variable (LSDV) estimators in dynamic panel data models. Results from Kiviet [Kiviet, J. F. (1995), on bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models, J. Econometrics68:53-78; Kiviet, J. F. (1999), Expectations of expansions for estimators in a dynamic panel data model: some results for weakly exogenous regressors, In: Hsiao, C., Lahiri, K., Lee, L-F., Pesaran, M. H., eds., Analysis of Panels and Limited Dependent Variables, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199-225] are extended to higher-order dynamic panel data models with general covariance structure. The focus is on estimation of both short- and long-run coefficients. The results show that proper modelling of the disturbance covariance structure is indispensable. The bias approximations are used to construct bias corrected estimators which are then applied to quarterly data from 14 European Union countries. Money demand functions for M1, M2 and M3 are estimated for the EU area as a whole for the period 1991: I-1995: IV. Significant spillovers between countries are found reflecting the dependence of domestic money demand on foreign developments. The empirical results show that in general plausible long-run effects are obtained by the bias corrected estimators. Moreover, finite sample bias, although of moderate magnitude, is present underlining the importance of more refined estimation techniques. Also the efficiency gains by exploiting the heteroscedasticity and cross-correlation patterns between countries are sometimes considerable.     

Facilitative Aspects of Field Research with Deviant Street Populations*

The authors examine facilitative aspects of field research with deviant street populations. Based on the authors' research with the homeless and with male street prostitutes, the facilitative aspects include access to settings, social relationships, acquisition of information, and the maintenance of researcher interest. The authors argue that in each of these aspects street deviants may in some ways be easier to study than other populations. The paper concludes with suggestions for maximizing the efficiency and quality of fieldwork with specific deviant populations.     

Campus attitudes toward alcohol and drugs in a deep southern university.

In our zeal to deal with alcohol and drug abuse, we may have a distorted picture of what the majority of college students actually think about alcohol and drug use. Students in this study done at a public university located in the Deep South report being generally intolerant of substance abuse.     

A modified random-effect procedure for combining risk difference in sets of 2×2 tables from clinical trials

Summary Meta-analyses of sets of clinical trials often combine risk differences from several 2×2 tables according to a random-effects model. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects procedure, widely used for estimating the populaton mean risk difference, weights the risk difference from each primary study inversely proportional to an estimate of its variance (the sum of the between-study variance and the conditional within-study variance). Because those weights are not independent of the risk differences, however, the procedure sometimes exhibits bias and unnatural behavior. The present paper proposes a modified weighting scheme that uses the unconditional within-study variance to avoid this source of bias. The modified procedure has variance closer to that available from weighting by ideal weights when such weights are known. We studied the modified procedure in extensive simulation experiments using situations whose parameters resemble those of actual studies in medical research. For comparison we also included two unbiased procedures, the unweighted mean and a sample-size-weighted mean; their relative variability depends on the extent of heterogeneity among the primary studies. An example illustrates the application of the procedures to actual data and the differences among the results. This research was supported by Grant HS 05936 from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to Harvard University.