The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-Cross-Section Models
Abstract
In a previous article we showed that ordinary least squares with panel corrected standard errors is superior to the Parks generalized least squares approach to the estimation of time-series-cross-section models. In this article we compare our proposed method with another leading technique, Kmenta's “cross-sectionally heteroskedastic and timewise autocorrelated” model. This estimator uses generalized least squares to correct for both panel heteroskedasticity and temporally correlated errors. We argue that it is best to model dynamics via a lagged dependent variable rather than via serially correlated errors. The lagged dependent variable approach makes it easier for researchers to examine dynamics and allows for natural generalizations in a manner that the serially correlated errors approach does not. We also show that the generalized least squares correction for panel heteroskedasticity is, in general, no improvement over ordinary least squares and is, in the presence of parameter heterogeneity, inferior to it. In the conclusion we present a unified method for analyzing time-series-cross-section data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects
Nickell, S. (1981) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1911408 · Cited by 8,735
Hsiao, C. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139839327 · Cited by 7,869
What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data
Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2082979 · Cited by 6,840
Self-citation
Cited by
What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data
Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2082979 · Cited by 6,840
Self-citationT IME-S ERIES–C ROSS-S ECTION D ATA: What Have We Learned in the Past Few Years?
Beck, N. (2001) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.271 · Cited by 916
Self-citationModeling Dynamics in Time-Series–Cross-Section Political Economy Data
Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (2011) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-071510-103222 · Cited by 825
Self-citationGreasing the wheels? The impact of regulations and corruption on firm entry
Dreher, A., & Gassebner, M. (2013) · Public Choice · doi:10.1007/s11127-011-9871-2 · Cited by 746
Democracy and Environmental Degradation
LI, Q., & REUVENY, R. (2006) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00432.x · Cited by 495
Metadata
- Authors
- Beck, N., & Katz, J. N.
- Venue
- Political Analysis
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 1-36
- ISSN
- 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4989
- OpenAlex
- W2109595325
- Cited by
- 937
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 19.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-Cross-Section Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/pan/6.1.1
- The paper
- Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1996). Nuisance vs. Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-Series-Cross-Section Models. Political Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/6.1.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.