Capital adjustment cost and inconsistency in income-based dynamic panel models with fixed effects

Abstract

After the seminal work of Nickell (1981), a vast literature demonstrates the inconsistency of ‘conditional convergence’ estimator in income‐based dynamic panel models with fixed effects when the time horizon (T) is short but the sample of countries (N) is large. Less attention is given to the economic root of inconsistency of the fixed effects estimator when T is also large. Using a variant of the Ramsey growth model with long‐run adjustment cost of capital, we demonstrate that the fixed effects estimator of such models could be inconsistent when T is large. This inconsistency arises because of the long‐run adjustment cost of capital which gives rise to a negative moving average coefficient in the error term. Income convergence will be thus overestimated. We theoretically characterize the order of this inconsistency. Our Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates that the size of the bias is substantial and it is greater in economies with higher capital adjustment costs. We show that the use of instrumental variables that take into account the presence of the negative moving average term in the error will overcome this bias.

The corruption–growth relationship: does the political regime matter?

“…Next we test its validity, comparing the variances of parameters obtained from the random-effect model using the Hausman test. According to Baltagi (2008) and Basu et al (2019), all estimators in the FE model even with a small number of cross-sections N are consistent as time (t) increases and approaches to infinity. In the random-effects model, with the regression error term v i,t = u i + ε i,t , where u i is the time-invariant random individual effect in addition to ε i,t error term denoting all other missing elements.…”

Does corruption matter for stock markets? The role of heterogeneous institutions

“…Next, we test its validity comparing the variances of parameters obtained from the random-effect model using the Hausman test. According to Baltagi (2008) and Basu et al (2019) , all estimators in the fixed effect model even with a small number of cross-sections N, are consistent as time (t) increases and approaches to infinity. In the random effect model, with the regression error term v i,t = u i + ε i,t, where u i is the time-invariant random individual effect in addition to ε i,t iid error term denoting all other missing elements.…”

The corruption–growth relationship: Do political institutions matter?

“…Next we test its validity, comparing the variances of parameters obtained from the random effect model using the Hausman test. According to Baltagi (2008) and Basu et al (2019), all estimators in the fixed effect model even with small number of cross sections N, are consistent as time (t) increases and approaches to infinity. In the random effect model, with the regression error term vi,t = ui + εi,t, where ui is the time-invariant random individual effect in addition to εi,t error term denoting all other missing elements.…”