Two points may be worth mentioning here. First, Assumption 4(i) dictates
that the regressors in x3,it are mixing conditional on Fzi . Alternately, we may
assume that x3,it and zi have some common factors, say fi (i =1, ..., N), on
which, conditionally, the variables in x3,it are mixing. This alternative assump-
tion does not generate any materially different asymptotic result. Second, as
discussed in Section 3, Assumption 5(ii) warrants that the conditional α-mixing
coefficient αzi (d) is measurable.
Panel data estimators of individual coefficients have different convergence
rates depending on the types of the corresponding regressors. To address these
differences, we define:
Dx,T = diag (D1T,D2T,D3T);
DT = diag (Dx,T,Ig) ,
where
D1T = diag T-m1,...,T-mk1 ;
D2T = diag (D21τ,D22τ) = diag(l^ ,VTlk22') ;
D3T = diag (D31T, D32T, D33T)
= diag (√TIk31, √Tlk32 ,Tm133 ,...,Tm ´ .
Observe that D1T, D2T, and D3T are conformable to regressor vectors x1,it,
x2,it, and x3,it , respectively, while DT and ]g are to xit and zi , respectively.
The diagonal matrix Dt is chosen so that plimN→∞ -N Pi DtWiWi0Dt is well
defined and finite. For future use, we also define
Gx,T = diag(D1T,]k21,]k22,]k3);
Jx,T = diag(]k1,]k21,D22T,D3T),
so that
Dx,T = Gx,T Jx,T.
Using this notation, we make the following regularity assumptions on the un-
conditional and conditional means of regressors:
Assumption 6 (convergence as T →∞): Defining t =[Tr], we assume that
the following restrictions hold as T →∞.
(i) Let τ1 (r) = diag (rm1,1 , ..., rmk1,1 ) ,where mh,1 is defined in Assumption
2. Then,
D1TE (x1,it) → τ1 (r) Θ1,i
uniformly in i and r ∈ [0, 1], for some Θ1,i = (Θ1,1,i, ..., Θk1,1,i)0 with
supi kΘ1,i k < ∞.
(ii) Θ21,it → Θ21,i and Θ3,it → Θ3,i uniformly in i with supi kΘ21,i k < ∞ and
supi kΘ3,i k < ∞.
21