Testing Panel Data Regression Models with Spatial Error Correlation



3.2 Marginal and Conditional Tests for λ = 0

Figure 1 plots the frequency of rejections in 2000 replications for testing λ = 0, i.e., zero
spatial error correlation. Figure 1 reports these frequencies for various values of
N = 25; 49
and T = 3; 7, for both Rook and Queen weight matrices.  Marginal tests for H0: λ = 0

(assuming ¾^ = 0) as well as conditional tests for Hd: λ = 0 (assuming ¾t > 0) are plotted
for various values of
λ. As clear from the graphs, marginal tests can have misleading size
when
½ is large (0:5 or 0:8). Marginal tests also have lower power than conditional tests for
½ > 0:2 and 0:2 λ 0:8. This is true whether we use LM or LR type tests. This difference
in power is quite substantial for example when
½ = 0:8 and λ = 0:6. This phenomena persists
even when we increase
N or T. However, it is important to note that marginal tests still
detect that something is wrong when
½ is large.

3.3  Marginal and Conditional Tests for σ2μ = 0

Table 2 gives the frequency of rejections in 2000 replications for the marginal LR and LM
tests for
H0 : σ2μ = 0 (assuming λ = 0). The results are reported only when σ2μ = 0 for
N = 25; 49 and T = 3; 7 for both the Queen and Rook weight matrices. Table 2 shows
that at the
5% level, the size of the two-sided LM test (LMG) for H0b (compared to its one
sided counterpart
LM1) could be missleading, especially when A is large. For example, for
the Queen weight matrix when
N = 49; T = 7 and A = 0:9, the frequency of rejection for
LMG is 50:4% whereas the corresponding one-sided LM (LM1) has a size of 7:6%: The two-
sided likelihood ratio (
LRG) test for H0b performs better than its two-sided LM counterpart
(
LMG). However, in most experiments, LRG underestimates its size and is outperformed by
its one-sided LR alternative (
LR1).

Table 2 also gives the frequency of rejections in 2000 replications for the conditional LR
and LM tests (
LR* and LM* ) for Hθ : σ2μ = 0 (assuming A = 0). These were derived in
Section 2.2. The results are reported only when
σ2μ = 0 for N = 25; 49 and T = 3; 7 for
both the Queen and Rook weight matrices. For most experiments, the conditional LM and
LR tests have size not significantly different from
5%. For cases where A is large, conditional
tests have better size than marginal tests. For example, when the weight matrix is Queen,
N = 49; T = 3 and A = 0:9, the frequency of rejections at the 5% significance level, when the
null is true, is
11:4% and 12% for LMi and LRi compared to 4:9% and 4:3% for LM'* and
LR* .

M

13



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Agricultural Policy as a Social Engineering Tool
3. NATURAL RESOURCE SUPPLY CONSTRAINTS AND REGIONAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: A COMPUTABLE GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM APPROACH
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Work Rich, Time Poor? Time-Use of Women and Men in Ireland
7. Dual Track Reforms: With and Without Losers
8. The name is absent
9. Restricted Export Flexibility and Risk Management with Options and Futures
10. The name is absent
11. The name is absent
12. Reputations, Market Structure, and the Choice of Quality Assurance Systems in the Food Industry
13. Non-farm businesses local economic integration level: the case of six Portuguese small and medium-sized Markettowns• - a sector approach
14. The name is absent
15. Nurses' retention and hospital characteristics in New South Wales, CHERE Discussion Paper No 52
16. The name is absent
17. Impacts of Tourism and Fiscal Expenditure on Remote Islands in Japan: A Panel Data Analysis
18. The name is absent
19. SOME ISSUES IN LAND TENURE, OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL IN DISPERSED VS. CONCENTRATED AGRICULTURE
20. The name is absent