Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T18:54:10.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Lot More to Do: The Sensitivity of Time-Series Cross-Section Analyses to Simple Alternative Specifications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Sven E. Wilson  and
Daniel M. Butler
Sven E. Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Brigham Young University, 732 SWKT, Provo, UT 84602. e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Daniel M. Butler
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Encina Hall West, Room 100, Stanford, CA 94305. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1995, Beck and Katz (B&K) instructed the profession on “What to do (and not to do) with time-series, cross-section data,” and almost instantly their prescriptions became the new orthodoxy for practitioners. Our assessment of the intellectual aftermath of this paper, however, does not inspire confidence in the conclusions reached during the past decade. The 195 papers we reviewed show a widespread failure to diagnose and treat common problems of time-series, cross-section (TSCS) data analysis. To show the importance of the consequences of the B&K assumptions, we replicate eight papers in prominent journals and find that simple alternative specifications often lead to drastically different conclusions. Finally, we summarize many of the statistical issues relative to TSCS data and show that there is a lot more to do with TSCS data than many researchers have apparently assumed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 15 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Time-Series Cross-Sectional Analysis , Spring 2007 , pp. 101 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alt, James, King, Gary, and Signorino, Curtis S. 2001. Aggregation among binary, count and duration models: Estimating the same quantities from different levels of data. Political Analysis 9: 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Donald W. K. 1986. A note on the unbiasedness of feasible GLS, quasi-maximum likelihood, robust and spectral estimators of the linear model. Econometrica 54: 687–98.Google Scholar
Arellano, Manuel. 2003. Panel data econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arellano, Manuel, and Bond, Stephen. 1991. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies 58: 277–97.Google Scholar
Baltagi, Badi H. 2002. Econometric analysis of panel data. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathanial. 2001. Time-series cross-section data: What have we learned in the past few years? Annual Review of Political Science 4: 271–93.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N. 1995. What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review 89: 634–47.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N. 1996. Nuisance v. substance: Specifying and estimating time-series cross-section models. Political Analysis 6: 1–36.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N. 2004. Random coefficient models for time-series cross-section data. Social Science Working paper 1205, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Campos, Julia, Ericsson, Neil R., and Hendry, David F. 2005. General to specific modeling. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Carree, Martin A. 2001. Nearly unbiased estimation in dynamic panel data models. Working paper.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., Rosenbluth, Frances M., and Thies, Michael F. 1998. Mobilization, social networks, and turnout: Evidence from Japan. World Politics 50: 447–74.Google Scholar
Freeman, John R. 1989. Systematic sampling, temporal aggregation, and the study of political relationships. Political Analysis 1: 61–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Jerry A. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46: 1251–71.Google Scholar
Hendry, David F. 1995. Dynamic econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, M. V., Kidd, Quentinn, and Morris, Irwin L. 2001. The key issue: Constituency effects and southern senators' roll-call voting on civil rights. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: 599–621.Google Scholar
Hsiao, Cheng M. 1986. Analysis of panel data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hsiao, Cheng, Hashem Pesaran, M., and Kamil Tahmiscioglu, A. 2002. Maximum likelihood estimation of fixed effects dynamic panel data models covering short time periods. Journal of Econometrics 109: 107–50.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David. 2001. An asset theory of social policy preferences. American Political Science Review 95: 875–93.Google Scholar
Judson, Ruth A., and Owen, Ann L. 1999. Estimating dynamic panel data models: A guide for macroeconomists. Economic Letters 65: 9–15.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Peter. 1998. A guide to econometrics. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kittel, Bernhard. 1999. Sense and sensitivity in pooled analysis of political data. European Journal of Political Research 35: 225–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiviet, Jan F. 1995. On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 68: 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leamer, Edward E. 1983. Let's take the con out of econometrics. American Economic Review 73: 31–43.Google Scholar
Leamer, Edward E. 1985. Sensitivity analysis would help. American Economic Review 75: 308–13.Google Scholar
Levine, Ross, and Renelt, David. 1992. A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions. American Economic Review 82: 942–63.Google Scholar
Moene, Karl Ove, and Wallerstein, Michael. 2001. Inequality, social insurance, and redistribution. American Political Science Review 95: 859–74.Google Scholar
Nerlove, Marc. 1971. Further evidence on the estimation of dynamic economic relations from a time series of cross sections. Econometrica 39: 359–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickell, Stephen. 1981. Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49: 1417–26.Google Scholar
Parks, Richard. 1967. Efficient estimation of a system of regression equations when disturbances are both serially and contemporaneously correlated. Journal of the American Statistical Association 62: 500–9.Google Scholar
Pickering, Jeffrey. 2002. War-weariness and cumulative effects: Victors, vanquished, and subsequent interstate intervention. Journal of Peace Research 39: 313–37.Google Scholar
Poe, Steven C., and Neal Tate, C. 1994. Repression of the human right to personal integrity in the 1980s: A global analysis. American Political Science Review 88: 853–72.Google Scholar
Reich, Gary M. 1999. Coordinating restraint: Democratization, fiscal policy and money creation in Latin America. Political Research Quarterly 52: 729–51.Google Scholar
Saideman, Stephen M., Lanoue, David J., Campenni, Michael, and Stanton, Samuel. 2002. Democratization, political institutions, and ethnic conflict: A pooled time-series analysis, 1985-1998. Comparative Political Studies 35: 103–29.Google Scholar
Shellman, Stephen M. 2004. Time series intervals and statistical inference: The effects of temporal aggregation on event data analysis. Political Analysis 12: 97–104.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1985. Regression in time and space: A statistical essay. American Journal of Political Science 29: 914–47.Google Scholar
Wawro, Gregory. 2002. Estimating dynamic panel models in political science. Political Analysis 10: 25–48.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zahariadis, Nikolas. 2001. Asset specificity and state subsidies in industrialized countries. International Studies Quarterly 45: 603–16.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material

Appendices

Download Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 175.4 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material

Appendices

Download Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 158.2 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material

Appendices

Download Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 24.7 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material

Appendices

Download Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 456.9 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material

Appendices

Download Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 561.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Wilson and Butler Supplementary Material(File)
File 1.6 KB