Search results

Panel data-based demand forecasting models have been widely adopted in various industrial settings over the past few decades. Despite being a highly versatile and intuitive method, in the literature, there is a lack of comprehensive review examining the strengths, the weaknesses, and the industrial applications of panel data-based demand forecasting models. The purpose of this paper is to fill this gap by reviewing and exploring the features of various main stream panel data-based demand forecasting models. A novel process, in the form of a flowchart, which helps practitioners to select the right panel data models for real world industrial applications, is developed. Future research directions are proposed and discussed.

It is a review paper. A systematically searched and carefully selected number of panel data-based forecasting models are examined analytically. Their features are also explored and revealed.

This paper is the first one which reviews the analytical panel data models specifically for demand forecasting applications. A novel model selection process is developed to assist decision makers to select the right panel data models for their specific demand forecasting tasks. The strengths, weaknesses, and industrial applications of different panel data-based demand forecasting models are found. Future research agenda is proposed.

This review covers most commonly used and important panel data-based models for demand forecasting. However, some hybrid models, which combine the panel data-based models with other models, are not covered.

The reviewed panel data-based demand forecasting models are applicable in the real world. The proposed model selection flowchart is implementable in practice and it helps practitioners to select the right panel data-based models for the respective industrial applications.

This paper is the first one which reviews the analytical panel data models specifically for demand forecasting applications. It is original.

This chapter proposes semiparametric estimation of the relationship between growth rate of GDP per capita, growth rates of physical and human capital, labor as well as other covariates and common trends for a panel of 23 OECD countries observed over the period 1971–2015. The observed differentiated behaviors by country reveal strong heterogeneity. This is the motivation behind using a mixed fixed- and random coefficients model to estimate this relationship. In particular, this chapter uses a semiparametric specification with random intercepts and slopes coefficients. Motivated by Lee and Wand (2016), the authors estimate a mean field variational Bayes semiparametric model with random coefficients for this panel of countries. Results reveal nonparametric specifications for the common trends. The use of this flexible methodology may enrich the empirical growth literature underlining a large diversity of responses across variables and countries.

This chapter extends the work of Baltagi, Bresson, Chaturvedi, and Lacroix (2018) to the popular dynamic panel data model. The authors investigate the robustness of Bayesian panel data models to possible misspecification of the prior distribution. The proposed robust Bayesian approach departs from the standard Bayesian framework in two ways. First, the authors consider the ε-contamination class of prior distributions for the model parameters as well as for the individual effects. Second, both the base elicited priors and the ε-contamination priors use Zellner’s (1986) g-priors for the variance–covariance matrices. The authors propose a general “toolbox” for a wide range of specifications which includes the dynamic panel model with random effects, with cross-correlated effects à la Chamberlain, for the Hausman–Taylor world and for dynamic panel data models with homogeneous/heterogeneous slopes and cross-sectional dependence. Using a Monte Carlo simulation study, the authors compare the finite sample properties of the proposed estimator to those of standard classical estimators. The chapter contributes to the dynamic panel data literature by proposing a general robust Bayesian framework which encompasses the conventional frequentist specifications and their associated estimation methods as special cases.

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.

This chapter revisits the Hausman (1978) test for panel data. It emphasizes that it is a general specification test and that rejection of the null signals misspecification and is not an endorsement of the fixed effects estimator as is done in practice. Non-rejection of the null provides support for the random effects estimator which is efficient under the null. The chapter offers practical tips on what to do in case the null is rejected including checking for endogeneity of the regressors, misspecified dynamics, and applying a nonparametric Hausman test, see Amini, Delgado, Henderson, and Parmeter (2012, chapter 16). Alternatively, for the fixed effects die hard, the chapter suggests testing the fixed effects restrictions before adopting this estimator. The chapter also recommends a pretest estimator that is based on an additional Hausman test based on the difference between the Hausman and Taylor estimator and the fixed effects estimator.

Introduction: Financial failure is a concept that may arise from many internal and external factors such as operational, financial, and economic items and may incur serious losses. Over-indebtedness arising from managerial misjudgments may cause high financial distress, insufficiency, and bankruptcy. In this regard, determination of effects of capital structure decisions on financial failure risk is crucial.

Aim: The main purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between capital structure decisions and financial failure risk. For this purpose, data from Borsa İstanbul (BIST) for listed food and beverage companies for the period from 2004 to 2019 is used. Another purpose of this study is to compare the financial failure models considering capital structure theories.

Method: In the study, capital structure decisions are associated with five different financial ratios; while the financial failure risk is proxied by financial failure scores of Altman (1968), Springate (1978), Ohlson (1980), Taffler (1983), and Zmijewski (1984). Therefore, five different panel data models are used for testing these hypotheses.

Findings: The results of panel data analysis reveal that capital structure decisions have statistically significant effects on financial failure risk for all models; however, those effects vary from one financial failure model to another. Also, the results show that in the models in which financial failure risk is proxied by the Altman (1968) and Taffler (1983) scores, the aggressive financial policies increase the financial failure risk. However, regarding the models in which financial failure risk is proxied by the Springate (1978), Ohlson (1980), and Zmijewski (1984) scores, aggressive financial policies decrease the financial failure risk.

Originality of the Study: To the best of our knowledge, this chapter is original and important in terms of revealing the effects of capital structure decisions on the financial failure risk and comparing the financial failure models.

Implications: The results revealed that the risk of financial failure models represented by Altman (1968) and Taffler (1983) scores are found to be statistically stronger and more successful in meeting theoretical expectations compared to other models. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to refer Altman’s (1968) and Taffler’s (1983) financial failure models in financial failure risk measurements.

We examine the roles of sample initial conditions and unobserved individual effects in consistent estimation of the dynamic binary response panel data model. Different specifications of the model are estimated using female welfare and labor force participation data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation. These include alternative random effects (RE) models, in which the conditional distributions of both the unobserved heterogeneity and the initial conditions are specified, and fixed effects (FE) conditional logit models that make no assumptions on either distribution. There are several findings. First, the hypothesis that the sample initial conditions are exogenous is rejected by both samples. Misspecification of the initial conditions results in drastically overstated estimates of the state dependence and understated estimates of the short- and long-run effects of children on labor force participation. The FE conditional logit estimates are similar to the estimates from the RE model that is flexible with respect to both the initial conditions and the correlation between the unobserved heterogeneity and the covariates. For female labor force participation, there is evidence that fertility choices are correlated with both unobserved heterogeneity and pre-sample participation histories.

In this chapter, we utilize the residual concept of productivity measures defined in the context of normal-gamma stochastic frontier production model with heterogeneity to differentiate productivity and inefficiency measures. In particular, three alternative two-way random effects panel estimators of normal-gamma stochastic frontier model are proposed using simulated maximum likelihood estimation techniques. For the three alternative panel estimators, we use a generalized least squares procedure involving the estimation of variance components in the first stage and estimated variance–covariance matrix to transform the data. Empirical estimates indicate difference in the parameter coefficients of gamma distribution, production function, and heterogeneity function variables between pooled and the two alternative panel estimators. The difference between pooled and panel model suggests the need to account for spatial, temporal, and within residual variations as in Swamy–Arora estimator, and within residual variation in Amemiya estimator with panel framework. Finally, results from this study indicate that short- and long-run variations in financial exposure (solvency, liquidity, and efficiency) play an important role in explaining the variance of inefficiency and productivity.

We review the experimental evidence on risk aversion in controlled laboratory settings. We review the strengths and weaknesses of alternative elicitation procedures, the strengths and weaknesses of alternative estimation procedures, and finally the effect of controlling for risk attitudes on inferences in experiments.