The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dynamic Models for Dynamic Theories: The Ins and Outs of Lagged Dependent Variables
Abstract
A lagged dependent variable in an OLS regression is often used as a means of capturing dynamic effects in political processes and as a method for ridding the model of autocorrelation. But recent work contends that the lagged dependent variable specification is too problematic for use in most situations. More specifically, if residual autocorrelation is present, the lagged dependent variable causes the coefficients for explanatory variables to be biased downward. We use a Monte Carlo analysis to assess empirically how much bias is present when a lagged dependent variable is used under a wide variety of circumstances. In our analysis, we compare the performance of the lagged dependent variable model to several other time series models. We show that while the lagged dependent variable is inappropriate in some circumstances, it remains an appropriate model for the dynamic theories often tested by applied analysts. From the analysis, we develop several practical suggestions on when and how to use lagged dependent variables on the right-hand side of a model.
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
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
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- 10.1093/biomet/48.1-2.85 · doi:10.1093/biomet/48.1-2.85
- 10.2307/1911222 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01671-L · DOI · Paper page
- Malinvaud, 1970, Statistical Methods of Econometrics
- Hibbs, 1974, Sociological Methodology 1973–1974, 252
- 10.2307/1914095 · doi:10.2307/1914095
- 10.1093/0198283164.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
- Greene, 2003, Econometric Analysis
- Davidson, 1993, Estimation and Inference in Econometrics
- Beck, 1992, Comparing Dynamic Specifications: The Case of Presidential Approval, Political Analysis, 3, 27
- Beck, 1985, Estimating Dynamic Models Is Not Merely a Matter of Technique, Political Methodology, 11, 71
- 10.2307/2232053 · DOI · Paper page
- Phillips, 1978, Exercises in Econometrics, 2
- 10.2307/1907688 · doi:10.2307/1907688
- Hurwicz, 1950, Statistical Inference in Dynamic Economic Models, 215
Cited by
Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y · Cited by 1,123
Modeling 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
Optimal Obfuscation: Democracy and Trade Policy Transparency
KONO, D. Y. (2006) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055406062241 · Cited by 417
Kim, H., & Sikkink, K. (2010) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00621.x · Cited by 401
Hendrix, C. S., & Wong, W. H. (2013) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123412000488 · Cited by 305
Metadata
- Authors
- Keele, L., & Kelly, N. J.
- Venue
- Political Analysis
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 186-205
- ISSN
- 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4989
- OpenAlex
- W2106069978
- Cited by
- 926
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 34.74
- 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
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.
