Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series–Cross-Section Political Economy Data
Abstract
This article deals with a variety of dynamic issues in the analysis of time-series–cross-section (TSCS) data. Although the issues raised are general, we focus on applications to comparative political economy, which frequently uses TSCS data. We begin with a discussion of specification and lay out the theoretical differences implied by the various types of dynamic models that can be estimated. It is shown that there is nothing pernicious in using a lagged dependent variable and that all dynamic models either implicitly or explicitly have such a variable; the differences between the models relate to assumptions about the speeds of adjustment of measured and unmeasured variables. When adjustment is quick, it is hard to differentiate between the various models; with slower speeds of adjustment, the various models make sufficiently different predictions that they can be tested against each other. As the speed of adjustment gets slower and slower, specification (and estimation) gets more and more tricky. We then turn to a discussion of estimation. It is noted that models with both a lagged dependent variable and serially correlated errors can easily be estimated; it is only ordinary least squares that is inconsistent in this situation. There is a brief discussion of lagged dependent variables combined with fixed effects and issues related to non-stationarity. We then show how our favored method of modeling dynamics combines nicely with methods for dealing with other TSCS issues, such as parameter heterogeneity and spatial dependence. We conclude with two examples.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Nickell bias is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on results because the time dimension (T=42) is more than sufficient to minimize such bias.
“Also, so-called Nickell (1981) bias is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on our results because our time dimension ( T = 42) is more than sufficient to minimize the amount of such bias (Beck and Katz, 2011).”
From Income inequality in authoritarian regimes: the role of political institutions and state capacity (2023) · cites this paper as Beck and Katz, 2011
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 · see citing works
Self-citationWhat to do about missing values in time series cross- section data
Honaker, J., & King, G. (2010) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00447.x · Cited by 966 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The case for welfare state universalism, or the lasting relevance of the paradox of redistribution
Jacques, O., & Noël, A. (2018) · Journal of European Social Policy · doi:10.1177/0958928717700564 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Destined for Democracy? Labour Markets and Political Change in Colonial British America
Nikolova, E. (2017) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123415000101 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
The Politics of Foreign Direct Investment in Authoritarian Regimes
Bastiaens, I. (2016) · International Interactions · doi:10.1080/03050629.2015.1065699 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Income inequality in authoritarian regimes: the role of political institutions and state capacity
Panaro, A. V., & Vaccaro, A. (2023) · Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica · doi:10.1017/ipo.2022.17 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“Also, so-called Nickell (1981) bias is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on our results because our time dimension ( T = 42) is more than sufficient to minimize the amount of such bias (Beck and Katz, 2011).”
BackgroundNordbrandt, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2022.921188 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“Such a model effectively removes all potential bias from the residual that reflects the correlation between the predictors and the past values of the dependent variable (Beck and Katz, 2011).”
Background
- Authors
- Beck, N., & Katz, J. N.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Political Science
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2011-06-15
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 331-352
- ISSN
- 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1577
- OpenAlex
- W2138605668
- Cited by
- 825
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 39 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 13.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Demography › Culture, Economy, and Development Studies
- Keywords
- dynamic model, time-series cross-section data, lagged dependent variables, speed of adjustment, serial correlation, fixed effects, non-stationarity, parameter heterogeneity, spatial dependence, model specification, comparative political economy
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