2014
DOI: 10.1017/psrm.2014.32
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Should I Use Fixed or Random Effects?

Abstract: Empirical analyses in social science frequently confront quantitative data that are clustered or grouped. To account for group-level variation and improve model fit, researchers will commonly specify either a fixed- or random-effects model. But current advice on which approach should be preferred, and under what conditions, remains vague and sometimes contradictory. This study performs a series of Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the total error due to bias and variance in the inferences of each model, for … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
341
0
6

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 554 publications
(370 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
3
341
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…However, econometricians now argue that the Hausman test does not help in deciding between fixed and random effects. Instead, more weight is given to the size of the data set, the extent of variability within units and the level of correlation between and within the covariates and units (Clark and Linzer 2012). The modelling of random effects usually follows strong assumptions, such as a normal distribution and independence of residuals of explanatory variables (without omitted variables), while fixed effects estimators do not rely on as strong assumptions as the random effects model and therefore are not likely to fail.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, econometricians now argue that the Hausman test does not help in deciding between fixed and random effects. Instead, more weight is given to the size of the data set, the extent of variability within units and the level of correlation between and within the covariates and units (Clark and Linzer 2012). The modelling of random effects usually follows strong assumptions, such as a normal distribution and independence of residuals of explanatory variables (without omitted variables), while fixed effects estimators do not rely on as strong assumptions as the random effects model and therefore are not likely to fail.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model selection relies on Monte Carlo studies, identifying it as the recommended option for small cross-sectional samples with a short time dimension (Petersen, 2009;Clark and Linzer, 2013), but our results are robust to estimating random effects models, and to not clustering the standard errors.…”
Section: Modelmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Finally, as suggested by Clark, Liner (2015), different specifications of the model have been computed in order to confirm the stability of the results. As can be seen from Table A.1 (Appendix) the signs of the estimates for all parameters are the same independently of the type of model (fixed effects, random effects or pooling), although some differences can be observed regarding the statistical relevance of the estimates.…”
Section: Panel Data Model Without Spatial Effectsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Nevertheless, as discussed by Clark, Liner (2015), the Hausman test has important limitations for a final decision regarding the choice of a specific model, which should be grounded on theoretical assumptions about the observations. In our case -and considering the close link between the specific characteristics of the territories and tourism dynamics, it seems plausible to assume that individual regional features have specific impacts on tourism activities, also justifying the option for a fixed effects model.…”
Section: Panel Data Model Without Spatial Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%