Cited by 2,950Spatial and Panel Data AnalysisFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models

Testing Weak Cross-Sectional Dependence in Large Panels

Pesaran, M. Hashem·2015·Econometric Reviews

Abstract

This article considers testing the hypothesis that errors in a panel data model are weakly cross-sectionally dependent, using the exponent of cross-sectional dependence α, introduced recently in Bailey, Kapetanios, and Pesaran (2012). It is shown that the implicit null of the cross-sectional dependence (CD) test depends on the relative expansion rates of N and T. When T = O(N ε), for some 0 < ε ≤1, then the implicit null of the CD test is given by 0 ≤ α < (2 − ε)/4, which gives 0 ≤ α <1/4, when N and T tend to infinity at the same rate such that T/N → κ, with κ being a finite positive constant. It is argued that in the case of large N panels, the null of weak dependence is more appropriate than the null of independence which could be quite restrictive for large panels. Using Monte Carlo experiments, it is shown that the CD test has the correct size for values of α in the range [0, 1/4], for all combinations of N and T, and irrespective of whether the panel contains lagged values of the dependent variables, so long as there are no major asymmetries in the error distribution.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07474938.2014.956623

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Model 2, the Pesaran cross-sectional dependence test statistic is 2.9, down from 13.7 in Model 1, indicating weaker evidence of strong cross-sectional dependence.

    “The Pesaran cross-sectional dependence test is still significant. But the test statistic, distributed N(0,1), drops from 13.7 to 2.9, so evidence of strong cross-sectional dependence is far weaker than in Model 1.”

    From Consumer panic in the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as Pesaran (2015)

  • The Pesaran (2015) cross-sectional dependence test over-rejects when T is large relative to N.

    “As Pesaran (2015) notes, the test over-rejects when T is large relative to N (as we have here), so it is actually quite impressive that the CSD test statistic for Model 2 is only 2.9.”

    From Consumer panic in the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as Pesaran (2015)

  • The simplified domestic model is suspect because specification tests point to problems: the Pesaran (2015) test rejects weak cross-sectional dependence and the Sims (1972) test rejects strict exogeneity of policy variables.

    “The results from this simplified model are suspect however, as the specification tests point to some problems.”

    From Consumer panic in the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as Pesaran (2015)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pesaran, M. H.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Pesaran, M. Hashem
Venue
Econometric Reviews
Published
2014-12-17
Volume
34
Issue
6-10
Pages
1089-1117
ISSN
  • 0747-4938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-4168
OpenAlex
W3122456196
Cited by
2,950
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 581 · 2025: 536 · 2024: 466 · 2023: 478 · 2022: 330 · 2021: 195 · 2020: 165 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
53.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Econometric Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Manchester
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/I031626/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Risk and Volatility Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
Keywords
cross-sectional dependence, panel data models, large panels, test size, lagged dependent variables

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review