Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.

Random Effects Estimator - an introduction

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 7 авг 2024
  • This video introduces the concept of 'Random Effects' estimators for panel data. It also explains the conditions under which Random Effects estimators can be better than First Differences and Fixed Effects estimators.
    Check out oxbridge-tutor.co.uk/undergrad... for course materials, and information regarding updates on each of the courses. Check out ben-lambert.com/econometrics-... for course materials, and information regarding updates on each of the courses. Quite excitingly (for me at least), I am about to publish a whole series of new videos on Bayesian statistics on youtube. See here for information: ben-lambert.com/bayesian/ Accompanying this series, there will be a book: www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1...

Комментарии • 34

  • @xiaolu8334
    @xiaolu8334 3 года назад +1

    Thank you, Ben. Clear and inspirational explanation.

  • @juancarlosmatosgarcia960
    @juancarlosmatosgarcia960 7 лет назад +7

    you have helped me throuugh all my courses of economietrics, I am
    infinitely in gratitude wit you

    • @JMRG2992
      @JMRG2992 5 лет назад

      Mate, one question, what is the intepretation of B1 in a random effect model Yit = B0 + B1Xit + b2Zit +c+u ? i haven't been able to find the interpretation of the estimator anywhere. so it implies a change on Xit produces B1 change in Yit... or how?

    • @lastua8562
      @lastua8562 4 года назад

      @@JMRG2992 Mate the way he wrote the comment it is unlikely he would respppond! I guess it is the same as OLS since alpha is assumed to be somewhat irrelevant (i.e. countries are homogenous in the independent variable we are trying to estimate). Did you find your answer?

    • @JMRG2992
      @JMRG2992 4 года назад +1

      @@lastua8562 Well, I did require it for my barchelor thesis in economics, but the interpretation of betha remains the same, by an increase of 1 unit, there's a change in b units, ceteris paribus, (and here's the new trick for random effects), in average across countries in time.

  • @etibo
    @etibo 7 лет назад +58

    You should get my teacher's salary.

  • @misi7259
    @misi7259 6 лет назад +1

    clear and direct, Thank you so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • @dimasmukhlas3952
    @dimasmukhlas3952 9 лет назад +2

    Thanks Ben!

  • @eepaul1981
    @eepaul1981 4 года назад +1

    awesome. very understandable. Thank you!!!!!

  • @simonmartin5704
    @simonmartin5704 5 лет назад

    Dude you rock. Thank you.

  • @louisaerts927
    @louisaerts927 5 лет назад

    If eit and eis were correlated, would we then use a random effects estimator with cluster-robust standard errors?

  • @bouguenadrien1278
    @bouguenadrien1278 8 лет назад +4

    Thanks for this again very clear video on RE. You are doing a fantastic job here!
    About the assumption for the consistency of the RE, you mention that it might hold if all factors are being controlled for. But is it the case that if you include more control variables in the regression, then these will also need to be uncorrelated with the alpha_i and hence would make this assumption even less likely? I am still looking for a situation where this assumption would be valid... Best

    • @alexmarsh8464
      @alexmarsh8464 6 лет назад

      I know this is a year old, but I too had a similar thought. Imho, the best examples of random effects being valid are in actual random expirements. The fertilizer example is a great one. Different types of fertilizer is placed on different fields randomly. However, due to randomness in measurement error (the amount placed on each field) or just in soil quality, some fields might produce more or less yield independent of the brand or quality of the fertilizer used.

  • @TheRealDCoy
    @TheRealDCoy 3 года назад

    This is wonderful, thanks. One question, though. Should we be talking about Cov(alpha_i, X) or even Cov(alpha_i, X_i) instead of Cov(alpha_i, X_it)? Or have I misunderstood something about the notation?

  • @wanjadouglas3058
    @wanjadouglas3058 3 года назад

    Forever grateful 🌻

  • @mehradghazanfaryan640
    @mehradghazanfaryan640 3 года назад +1

    You are the best

  • @enteetne6704
    @enteetne6704 3 года назад

    This also counts for binary and multinomial logit models right? If my DV is either 1 or 0 and my IVs are both continuous or binary.

  • @JMRG2992
    @JMRG2992 5 лет назад

    What is the interpretation of b1 (crime rate) in random effects ? By the increase of 1% in the crime rate over the time, the house price increase by B1 ceteris paribus ?

  • @kulsoomabid7379
    @kulsoomabid7379 6 лет назад

    plz share the procedure of estimating the parameters by using the linear model keeping the explanatory variable random..kindly help ....

  • @Swetter1000
    @Swetter1000 3 года назад

    But when you calculate the covariance of the errors, wouldn't subtract the mean alpha_i from the alpha_i (covariance formula) which gives 0 as alpha_i is constant? And thus get a covariance = 0?

  • @Michael-yu9ix
    @Michael-yu9ix 3 года назад

    I don't understand why the error term still consists of alpha if we assume that all factors have been controlled for.

  • @TheShushanmargaryan
    @TheShushanmargaryan 8 лет назад

    Hi Ben. When you mention that POLS has the problem of serial correlation of the error term, would not clustering solve this problem ? Thanks

    • @lastua8562
      @lastua8562 4 года назад

      I am not sure about clustering here, though I thought of using SC robust SE. Did you find the answer?

  • @rexevan6714
    @rexevan6714 6 лет назад +1

    So Random Effect is basicly FGLS for Pooled OLS, right?

    • @lastua8562
      @lastua8562 4 года назад

      I think pooled OLS is only one possible random effects estimation. We use fGLS to correct for SC.
      Did you find a different answer?

  • @TheMagic0wnz
    @TheMagic0wnz 8 лет назад +4

    if alpha_i is a constant how can it have a variance?

    • @MyMpc1
      @MyMpc1 8 лет назад +1

      +Bob S I am also wondering this vary same thing! I've also read alpha_i being described as 'time invariant'.

    • @SpartacanUsuals
      @SpartacanUsuals  8 лет назад +13

      +MyMpc1 Thanks for your message. Something can have a variance if it varies. Whilst alpha_i is time invariant, it varies with i - the cross sectional unit. This variance across cross sectional units is what we are representing by allowing it to be a random effect. Does that make sense? Best, Ben

    • @MyMpc1
      @MyMpc1 8 лет назад

      +Ben Lambert Ahhhh I see it now! Thanks so much for your quick reply and answering my question ;-)

  • @szpacur
    @szpacur 8 лет назад +1

    champion

  • @kangtoby
    @kangtoby 6 лет назад

    you are godlike

  • @drewbryk
    @drewbryk 6 лет назад +2

    so random XD