The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Lot More to Do: The Sensitivity of Time-Series Cross-Section Analyses to Simple Alternative Specifications
Abstract
In 1995, Beck and Katz (B&K) instructed the profession on “What to do (and not to do) with time-series, cross-section data,” and almost instantly their prescriptions became the new orthodoxy for practitioners. Our assessment of the intellectual aftermath of this paper, however, does not inspire confidence in the conclusions reached during the past decade. The 195 papers we reviewed show a widespread failure to diagnose and treat common problems of time-series, cross-section (TSCS) data analysis. To show the importance of the consequences of the B&K assumptions, we replicate eight papers in prominent journals and find that simple alternative specifications often lead to drastically different conclusions. Finally, we summarize many of the statistical issues relative to TSCS data and show that there is a lot more to do with TSCS data than many researchers have apparently assumed.
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
Specification Tests in Econometrics
Hausman, J. A. (1978) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913827 · Cited by 18,820
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
Estimating dynamic panel data models: a guide for macroeconomists
Judson, R. A., & Owen, A. L. (1999) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/s0165-1765(99)00130-5 · Cited by 2,171
Cited by
The Legacy of Lethargy: How Elections to the European Parliament Depress Turnout
Franklin, M. N., & Hobolt, S. B. (2011) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.019 · Cited by 121
Voter Identification Laws and Turnout in the United States
Highton, B. (2017) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022822 · Cited by 93
Metadata
- Authors
- Wilson, S. E., & Butler, D. M.
- Venue
- Political Analysis
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101-123
- ISSN
- 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4989
- OpenAlex
- W2128573368
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 55.63
- 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: A Lot More to Do: The Sensitivity of Time-Series Cross-Section Analyses to Simple Alternative Specifications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/pan/mpl012
- The paper
- Wilson, S. E., & Butler, D. M. (2007). A Lot More to Do: The Sensitivity of Time-Series Cross-Section Analyses to Simple Alternative Specifications. Political Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl012
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.