Cited by 825Spatial and Panel Data AnalysisStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceCulture, Economy, and Development Studies

Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series–Cross-Section Political Economy Data

Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N.·2011·Annual Review of Political Science

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

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-polisci-071510-103222

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beck, N., & Katz, J. N.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Political Science
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