Skip to main content

Fortschritte in der Paneldatenanalyse: Alternativen zum de facto Beck-Katz-Standard

  • Chapter
Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft

Auszug

Gelegentlich verändern einzelne Veröffentlichungen das Gesicht einer gesamten wissenschaftlichen Disziplin. 1995 veröffentlichten Nathaniel Beck und Jonathan Katz einen Artikel in der American Political Science Review, der seitdem definiert, welche makroquantitativen Modellspezifikationen die vergleichende Politikwissenschaft selbst ohne umfassende Begründung akzeptiert. Dieser de facto Konsens schreibt vor, eine Paneldatenanalyse durchzuführen, in der a) serielle Korrelation durch eine Lagged Dependent Variable eliminiert, b) das Problem der Panelheteroskedastizität durch eine Anpassung der Varianz-Kovarianz-Matrix korrigiert und c) unbeobachtete zeitinvariante Effekte durch unit dummies und d) gemeinsame Schocks durch Periodendummies kontrolliert werden. Keine Frage: Je stärker eine quantitative Analyse von dem „de-facto Beck-Katz Standard“ (Plümper et al. 2005) abweicht, desto umfassender muss der Schätzansatz begründet werden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Adolph, Christopher/ Butler, Daniel/ Wilson, Sven (2005): Which Estimator should I use now? Guidance from Monte Carlo Experiments. Unv. Manuskript, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T.W./ Hsiao, Cheng (1981): Estimation of Dynamic Models with Error Components. In: Journal of the American Statistical Association 76: 598–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, Manuel/ Bond, Stephen (1991): Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. In: Review of Economic Studies 58: 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basinger, Scott J./ Hallerberg, Mark (2004): Remodeling the Competition for Capital: How Domestic Politics Erases the Race to the Bottom. In: American Political Science Review 98: 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Nathanial/ Katz, Jonathan (1995): What to do (and not to do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. In: American Political Science Review 89: 634–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Nathaniel/ Katz, Jonathan (2004): Time-Series Cross-Section Issues: Dynamics, unv. Manuskript, New York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Nathaniel/ Katz, Jonathan (2007): Random Coefficients Models for Time-Series-Cross-Section Data: Monte Carlo Experiments. In: Political Analysis 15: 182–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, Giovanni (2005): Estimation and Inference in dynamic unbalanced Panel Data Models with a Small Number of Individuals. Unv. Manuskript, Bocconi University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzese, Robert J./ Hays, Jude C. (2007a): Spatial Econometric Models of Cross-Sectional Interdependence in Political Science Panel and Time-Series-Cross-Section Data. In: Political Analysis 15: 140–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzese, Robert J./ Hays, Jude C. (2007b): Empirical Models of International Capital-Tax Competition. In: Read, Colin/ Gregoriou, Greg (Hrsg.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, Jerry A. (1978): Specification Tests in Econometrics. In: Econometrica 46: 1251–1271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judson, Ruth A./ Owen, Ann L. (1999): Estimating Dynamic Panel Data Models. A Practical Guide for Macroeconomists. In: Economic Letters 65: 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiviet, J.F. (1995): On Bias, Inconsistency, and Efficiency of Various Estimators in Dynamic Panel Data Models. In: Journal of Econometrics 68: 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickell, Stephen (1981): Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects. In: Econometrica 49: 1399–1416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plümper, Thomas/ Neumayer, Eric (2008): Model Specification in the Analysis of Spatial Dependence, unv. Manuskript, University of Essex und London School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plümper, Thomas/ Troeger, Vera E./ Winner, Hannes (2007): Why is there no race to the bottom in Capital Taxation? Tax Competition between Countries of Unequal Size, Different Levels of Budget Rigidities and Heterogeneous Fairness Norms. Unv. Manuskript, University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plümper, Thomas/ Troeger, Vera E. (2007): Efficient Estimation of Time-Invariant and Rarely Changing Variables in Finite Sample Panel Analyses with Unit Effects. In: Political Analysis 15: 124–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plümper, Thomas/ Troeger, Vera E./ Manow, Philip (2005): Panel Data Analysis in Comparative Politics. Linking Method to Theory. In: European Journal of Political Research 44: 327–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, Colin/ Gregoriou, Greg (Hrsg.) (2007): International Taxation Handbook. Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troeger, Vera E. (2007): De Facto Capital Mobility, Equality, and Tax Policy in Open Economies. Unv. Manuskript, University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Susanne Pickel Gert Pickel Hans-Joachim Lauth Detlef Jahn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Plümper, T., Troeger, V.E. (2009). Fortschritte in der Paneldatenanalyse: Alternativen zum de facto Beck-Katz-Standard. In: Pickel, S., Pickel, G., Lauth, HJ., Jahn, D. (eds) Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91826-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91826-6_13

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-16194-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-91826-6

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics