Search results

The effect of changes in commodity prices on factor rewards is studied in the multi-commodity, multi-factor case. It is shown that the inverse of the distributive share matrix must satisfy the following restriction: it cannot be anti-symmetric in its sign pattern. This means that one cannot partition the commodities into two groups (I and II) and factors into two groups (A and B), such that all factors in group A benefit (nominally) from all commodity price increases in group I, and simultaneously all factors in group B suffer from all commodity price increases in group II. It turns out that this is also the only sign-pattern restriction imposed by the general nature of the relationship of commodity prices and factor rewards.

Building on an analysis of values and prices in the context of explicitly heterogeneous concrete labors, this paper formally examines Marx’s repeated imagery of capitalist competition as a process of “sharing” among “hostile brothers,” each a “shareholder” in a “social enterprise” in which particular commodities and capitals appear as “aliquot parts of the whole.” Approaching each commodity as it appears in competition – as the product of an aliquot part of the aggregate inputs to production – allows several conclusions. First, value-price transformation is equivalent to a transformation of actual production conditions (on the basis of which the social labor contained in the commodity is its value) into socially average or aliquot part production conditions (on the basis of which the social labor contained in the commodity is its production price). Second, price formation (“gravitational” adjustment to levels expressing equivalence) is the same thing as the formation of abstract labor as the homogeneous unit of measure for the labor content of commodities. Each is an aspect of a single process that simultaneously commensurates use-values as market equivalents and commensurates concrete labors as abstract labor, so that equivalents in exchange do indeed “contain” equal amounts of abstract labor. Third, concerning commodity fetishism and the “illusions” of competition, the social content of particular magnitudes becomes visible when each is represented as a “bearer” of crucial characteristics of the aggregate that have been projected onto its parts, so that what initially appears as separate, particular and individual is simultaneously connected, general, and social.

Hausman (1978) represented a tectonic shift in inference related to the specification of econometric models. The seminal insight that one could compare two models which were both consistent under the null spawned a test which was both simple and powerful. The so-called ‘Hausman test’ has been applied and extended theoretically in a variety of econometric domains. This paper discusses the basic Hausman test and its development within econometric panel data settings since its publication. We focus on the construction of the Hausman test in a variety of panel data settings, and in particular, the recent adaptation of the Hausman test to semiparametric and nonparametric panel data models. We present simulation experiments which show the value of the Hausman test in a nonparametric setting, focusing primarily on the consequences of parametric model misspecification for the Hausman test procedure. A formal application of the Hausman test is also given focusing on testing between fixed and random effects within a panel data model of gasoline demand.

The estimation of regression models subject to linear restrictions is a widely applied technique; however, aside from simple examples, the equivalence between the linear restricted case to the reparameterization and the substitution case is rarely employed. We believe this is due to the lack of a general transformation method for changing from the definition of restrictions in terms of the unrestricted parameters to the equivalent reparameterized model and conversely from the reparameterized model to the equivalent linear restrictions for the unrestricted model. In many cases, the reparameterization method is computationally more efficient especially when estimation involves an iterative method. But the linear restriction case allows a simple method for adding and removal of restrictions.

In this chapter, we derive a general relationship that allows the conversion between the two forms of the restricted models. Examples emphasizing systems of demand equations, polynomial lagged equations, and splines are given in which the transformation from one form to the other are demonstrated as well as the combination of both forms of restrictions. In addition, we demonstrate how an alternative Wald test of the restrictions can be constructed using an augmented version of the reparameterized model.

To date, the literature on quantile regression and least absolute deviation regression has assumed either explicitly or implicitly that the conditional quantile regression model is correctly specified. When the model is misspecified, confidence intervals and hypothesis tests based on the conventional covariance matrix are invalid. Although misspecification is a generic phenomenon and correct specification is rare in reality, there has to date been no theory proposed for inference when a conditional quantile model may be misspecified. In this paper, we allow for possible misspecification of a linear conditional quantile regression model. We obtain consistency of the quantile estimator for certain “pseudo-true” parameter values and asymptotic normality of the quantile estimator when the model is misspecified. In this case, the asymptotic covariance matrix has a novel form, not seen in earlier work, and we provide a consistent estimator of the asymptotic covariance matrix. We also propose a quick and simple test for conditional quantile misspecification based on the quantile residuals.

Since its introduction by Chari, Kehoe, and McGrattan (2007), Business Cycle Accounting (BCA) exercises have become widespread. Much attention has been devoted to the results of such exercises and to methodological departures from the baseline methodology. Little attention has been paid to identification issues within these classes of models. In this chapter, the authors investigate whether such issues are of concern in the original methodology and in an extension proposed by Šustek (2011) called Monetary Business Cycle Accounting. The authors resort to two types of identification tests in population. One concerns strict identification as theorized by Komunjer and Ng (2011) while the other deals both with strict and weak identification as in Iskrev (2010). Most importantly, the authors explore the extent to which these weak identification problems affect the main economic takeaways and find that the identification deficiencies are not relevant for the standard BCA model. Finally, the authors compute some statistics of interest to practitioners of the BCA methodology.

The authors propose a semiparametric approach for testing independence between two infinite-order cointegrated vector autoregressive series (IVAR(∞)). The procedures considered can be viewed as extensions of classical methods proposed by Haugh (1976, JASA) and Hong (1996b, Biometrika) for testing independence between stationary univariate time series. The tests are based on the residuals of long autoregressions, hence allowing for computational simplicity, weak assumptions on the form of the underlying process, and a direct interpretation of the results in terms of innovations (or shocks). The test statistics are standardized versions of the sum of weighted squares of residual cross-correlation matrices. The weights depend on a kernel function and a truncation parameter. Multivariate portmanteau statistics can be viewed as a special case of our procedure based on the truncated uniform kernel. The asymptotic distributions of the test statistics under the null hypothesis are derived, and consistency is established against fixed alternatives of serial cross-correlation of unknown form. A simulation study is presented which indicates that the proposed tests have good size and power properties in finite samples.

This paper tests the feasibility and empirical implications of a spatial econometric model with a full set of interaction effects and weight matrix defined as an equally weighted group interaction matrix applied to research productivity of individuals. We also elaborate two extensions of this model, namely with group fixed effects and with heteroskedasticity. In our setting, the model with a full set of interaction effects is overparameterised: only the SDM and SDEM specifications produce acceptable results. They imply comparable spillover effects, but by applying a Bayesian approach taken from LeSage (2014), we are able to show that the SDEM specification is more appropriate and thus that colleague interaction effects work through observed and unobserved exogenous characteristics common to researchers within a group.

This article reviews the literature on the econometric relationship between DSGE and VAR models from the point of view of estimation and model validation. The mapping between DSGE and VAR models is broken down into three stages: (1) from DSGE to state-space model; (2) from state-space model to VAR( ∞ ); (3) from VAR( ∞ ) to finite-order VAR. The focus is on discussing what can go wrong at each step of this mapping and on critically highlighting the hidden assumptions. I also point out some open research questions and interesting new research directions in the literature on the econometrics of DSGE models. These include, in no particular order: understanding the effects of log-linearization on estimation and identification; dealing with multiplicity of equilibria; estimating nonlinear DSGE models; incorporating into DSGE models information from atheoretical models and from survey data; adopting flexible modeling approaches that combine the theoretical rigor of DSGE models and the econometric model’s ability to fit the data.