Empirically Analyzing the Impacts of U.S. Export Credit Programs on U.S. Agricultural Export Competitiveness



One of the major problems with panel data is heterogeneity across panels. If the
unobserved heterogeneity effects of the individual panels are correlated with the
variables, a fixed-effect model is estimated.

However, if the unobserved effects are uncorrelated with the variables, there will
be efficiency gains if we model the individual panel -effects as randomly distributed
components of the error using a random-effect estimator (Baltagi, 1995).24 We perform a
Hausman specification test to test compare the estimates from the consistent fixed effects
model to the estimates from the efficient random effects estimator. The null hypothesis is
that the individual effects are uncorrelated with the model. If null hypothesis is rejected
(individual effects are correlated), a random effect model produces biased estimators and
a fixed effects model is preferred. For both the models the Hausman test rejected the null
hypothesis in favor of the fixed effects model. But, when we used the Bresusch and
Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test for random effects, we rejected the null hypothesis in
favor of the random effects model.25 However, due to the inconsistencies of the Hausman
test, we decided to use the random effects model.26

24

The standard random effects estimator is that the weighted average of the fixed effect and between effect
estimator. See Baltagi (1995) chapter 7 for details.

25 We also test for random effects using the Breusch and Pagan Lagrange multiplier (LM) test. The null
hypothesis is that the variances across groups are zero. If the null hyothesis is not rejected, pooled OLS
regression is appropriate. We reject the null hypothesis in favour of random effect model in both models.

26 One of the more stronger assumptions of the Hausman test is that one of the estimators is efficient, that
is, has minimum asymptotic variance. If this is violated, results are inconsistent. In our analysis, when we
specified the random effects model as efficient (tested fixed vs random), we rejected the null hyothesis in
favour of the fixed effect model in both models I and II. However, when we specified the fixed effects
model as efficient (that is tested random vs fixed) we obtained a negative Chi-Square value in both the
models. Though a negative Chi-Square value may be interpreted as allowing us to accept that the random
effects model in favour of the fixed effects model. However, the results of the Hausman test are sensitive to
specification of the regression model and need to interpreted with caution. Please see Greene (2003) for
more details.

29



More intriguing information

1. Internationalization of Universities as Internationalization of Bildung
2. The name is absent
3. sycnoιogιcaι spaces
4. Output Effects of Agri-environmental Programs of the EU
5. The name is absent
6. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE ECONOMETRIC PACKAGES: AN APPLICATION TO ITALIAN DEPOSIT INTEREST RATES
7. DISCUSSION: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS OF EMERGING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
8. Notes on an Endogenous Growth Model with two Capital Stocks II: The Stochastic Case
9. The name is absent
10. Migrant Business Networks and FDI
11. The name is absent
12. Tariff Escalation and Invasive Species Risk
13. Lumpy Investment, Sectoral Propagation, and Business Cycles
14. Wirkung einer Feiertagsbereinigung des Länderfinanzausgleichs: eine empirische Analyse des deutschen Finanzausgleichs
15. A Principal Components Approach to Cross-Section Dependence in Panels
16. Individual tradable permit market and traffic congestion: An experimental study
17. Migrating Football Players, Transfer Fees and Migration Controls
18. Examining the Regional Aspect of Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries
19. Testing the Information Matrix Equality with Robust Estimators
20. Studying How E-Markets Evaluation Can Enhance Trust in Virtual Business Communities