A panel data (or longitudinal data) set consists of a time series for each crosssectional member in the data set. As an example, suppose we have wage, education, and employment history for a set of individuals followed over a ten-year period. Or we might collect information, such as investment and financial data, about the same set of firms over a five-year time period. Panel data can also be collected on geographical units. For example, we can collect data for the same set of counties in the United States on immigration flows, tax rates, wage rates, government expenditures, etc., for the years 1980, 1985, and 1990.
The key feature of panel data that distinguishes it from a pooled cross section is the fact that the same cross-sectional units (individuals, firms, or counties in the above examples) are followed over a given time period. The data in Table 1.4 are not considered a panel data set because the houses sold are likely to be different in 1993 and 1995; if there are any duplicates, the number is likely to be so small as to be unimportant. In contrast, Table 1.5 contains a two-year panel data set on crime and related statistics for 150 cities in the United States.
There are several interesting features in Table 1.5. First, each city has been given a number from 1 through 150. Which city we decide to call city 1, city 2, and so on, is irrelevant. As with a pure cross section, the ordering in the cross section of a panel data set does not matter. We could use the city name in place of a number, but it is often useful to have both.
A second useful point is that the two years of data for city 1 fill the first two rows or observations. Observations 3 and 4 correspond to city 2, and so on. Since each of the 150 cities has two rows of data, any econometrics package will view this as 300 observations. This data set can be treated as two pooled cross sections, where the same cities happen to show up in the same year. But, as we will see in Chapters 13 and 14, we can also use the panel structure to respond to questions that cannot be answered by simply viewing this as a pooled cross section.
In organizing the observations in Table 1.5, we place the two years of data for each city adjacent to one another, with the first year coming before the second in all cases. For just about every practical purpose, this is the preferred way for ordering panel data sets. Contrast this organization with the way the pooled cross sections are stored in Table 1.4. In short, the reason for ordering panel data as in Table 1.5 is that we will need to perform data transformations for each city across the two years.
Because panel data require replication of the same units over time, panel data sets, especially those on individuals, households, and firms, are more difficult to obtain than pooled cross sections. Not surprisingly, observing the same units over time leads to several advantages over cross-sectional data or even pooled cross-sectional data. The benefit that we will focus on in this text is that having multiple observations on the same units allows us to control certain unobserved characteristics of individuals, firms, and so on. As we will see, the use of more than one observation can facilitate causal inference in situations where inferring causality would be very difficult if only a single cross section were available. A second advantage of panel data is that it often allows us to study the importance of lags in behavior or the result of decision making. This information can be significant since many economic policies can be expected to have an impact only after some time has passed.
Most books at the undergraduate level do not contain a discussion of econometric methods for panel data. However, economists now recognize that some questions are difficult, if not impossible, to answer satisfactorily without panel data. As you will see, we can make considerable progress with simple panel data analysis, a method which is not much more difficult than dealing with a standard cross-sectional data set.
A Comment on Data Structures
Part 1 of this text is concerned with the analysis of cross-sectional data, as this poses the fewest conceptual and technical difficulties. At the same time, it illustrates most of the key themes of econometric analysis. We will use the methods and insights from cross-sectional analysis in the remainder of the text.
While the econometric analysis of time series uses many of the same tools as crosssectional analysis, it is more complicated due to the trending, highly persistent nature of many economic time series. Examples that have been traditionally used to illustrate the manner in which econometric methods can be applied to time series data are now widely believed to be flawed. It makes little sense to use such examples initially, since this practice will only reinforce poor econometric practice. Therefore, we will postpone the treatment of time series econometrics until Part 2, when the important issues concerning trends, persistence, dynamics, and seasonality will be introduced.
Part 1 of this text is concerned with the analysis of cross-sectional data, as this poses the fewest conceptual and technical difficulties. At the same time, it illustrates most of the key themes of econometric analysis. We will use the methods and insights from cross-sectional analysis in the remainder of the text.
While the econometric analysis of time series uses many of the same tools as crosssectional analysis, it is more complicated due to the trending, highly persistent nature of many economic time series. Examples that have been traditionally used to illustrate the manner in which econometric methods can be applied to time series data are now widely believed to be flawed. It makes little sense to use such examples initially, since this practice will only reinforce poor econometric practice. Therefore, we will postpone the treatment of time series econometrics until Part 2, when the important issues concerning trends, persistence, dynamics, and seasonality will be introduced.
In Part 3, we treat pooled cross sections and panel data explicitly. The analysis of independently pooled cross sections and simple panel data analysis are fairly straightforward extensions of pure cross-sectional analysis. Nevertheless, we will wait until Chapter 13 to deal with these topics.
1.4CAUSALITY AND THE NOTION OF CETERIS PARIBUS IN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS
In most tests of economic theory, and certainly for evaluating public policy, the economist’s goal is to infer that one variable has a causal effect on another variable (such as crime rate or worker productivity). Simply finding an association between two or more variables might be suggestive, but unless causality can be established, it is rarely compelling.
The notion of ceteris paribus—which means “other (relevant) factors being equal”—plays an important role in causal analysis. This idea has been implicit in some of our earlier discussion, particularly Examples 1.1 and 1.2, but thus far we have not explicitly mentioned it.
In most tests of economic theory, and certainly for evaluating public policy, the economist’s goal is to infer that one variable has a causal effect on another variable (such as crime rate or worker productivity). Simply finding an association between two or more variables might be suggestive, but unless causality can be established, it is rarely compelling.
The notion of ceteris paribus—which means “other (relevant) factors being equal”—plays an important role in causal analysis. This idea has been implicit in some of our earlier discussion, particularly Examples 1.1 and 1.2, but thus far we have not explicitly mentioned it.
You probably remember from introductory economics that most economic questions are ceteris paribus by nature. For example, in analyzing consumer demand, we are interested in knowing the effect of changing the price of a good on its quantity demanded, while holding all other factors—such as income, prices of other goods, and individual tastes—fixed. If other factors are not held fixed, then we cannot know the causal effect of a price change on quantity demanded.
Holding other factors fixed is critical for policy analysis as well. In the job training example (Example 1.2), we might be interested in the effect of another week of job training on wages, with all other components being equal (in particular, education and experience). If we succeed in holding all other relevant factors fixed and then find a link between job training and wages, we can conclude that job training has a causal effect on worker productivity. While this may seem pretty simple, even at this early stage it should be clear that, except in very special cases, it will not be possible to literally hold all else equal. The key question in most empirical studies is: Have enough other factors been held fixed to make a case for causality? Rarely is an econometric study evaluated without raising this issue.
In most serious applications, the number of factors that can affect the variable of interest—such as criminal activity or wages—is immense, and the isolation of any particular variable may seem like a hopeless effort. However, we will eventually see that, when carefully applied, econometric methods can simulate a ceteris paribus
experiment.
At this point, we cannot yet explain how econometric methods can be used to estimate ceteris paribus effects, so we will consider some problems that can arise in trying to infer causality in economics. We do not use any equations in this discussion. For each example, the problem of inferring causality disappears if an appropriate experiment can be carried out. Thus, it is useful to describe how such an experiment might be structured, and to observe that, in most cases, obtaining experimental data is impractical. It is also helpful to think about why the available data fails to have the important features of an experimental data set.
Holding other factors fixed is critical for policy analysis as well. In the job training example (Example 1.2), we might be interested in the effect of another week of job training on wages, with all other components being equal (in particular, education and experience). If we succeed in holding all other relevant factors fixed and then find a link between job training and wages, we can conclude that job training has a causal effect on worker productivity. While this may seem pretty simple, even at this early stage it should be clear that, except in very special cases, it will not be possible to literally hold all else equal. The key question in most empirical studies is: Have enough other factors been held fixed to make a case for causality? Rarely is an econometric study evaluated without raising this issue.
In most serious applications, the number of factors that can affect the variable of interest—such as criminal activity or wages—is immense, and the isolation of any particular variable may seem like a hopeless effort. However, we will eventually see that, when carefully applied, econometric methods can simulate a ceteris paribus
experiment.
At this point, we cannot yet explain how econometric methods can be used to estimate ceteris paribus effects, so we will consider some problems that can arise in trying to infer causality in economics. We do not use any equations in this discussion. For each example, the problem of inferring causality disappears if an appropriate experiment can be carried out. Thus, it is useful to describe how such an experiment might be structured, and to observe that, in most cases, obtaining experimental data is impractical. It is also helpful to think about why the available data fails to have the important features of an experimental data set.
We rely for now on your intuitive understanding of terms such as random, independence, and correlation, all of which should be familiar from an introductory probability and statistics course. (These concepts are reviewed in Appendix B.) We begin with an example that illustrates some of these important issues.
E X A M P L E 1 . 3
( E f f e c t s o f F e r t i l i z e r o n C r o p Y i e l d )
( E f f e c t s o f F e r t i l i z e r o n C r o p Y i e l d )
Some early econometric studies [for example, Griliches (1957)] considered the effects of new fertilizers on crop yields. Suppose the crop under consideration is soybeans. Since fertilizer amount is only one factor affecting yields—some others include rainfall, quality of land, and presence of parasites—this issue must be posed as a ceteris paribus question. One way to determine the causal effect of fertilizer amount on soybean yield is to conduct an experiment, which might include the following steps. Choose several one-acre plots of land. Apply different amounts of fertilizer to each plot and subsequently measure the yields; this gives us a cross-sectional data set. Then, use statistical methods (to be introduced in Chapter 2) to measure the association between yields and fertilizer amounts.
As described earlier, this may not seem like a very good experiment, because we have said nothing about choosing plots of land that are identical in all respects except for the amount of fertilizer. In fact, choosing plots of land with this feature is not feasible: some of the factors, such as land quality, cannot even be fully observed. How do we know the results of this experiment can be used to measure the ceteris paribus effect of fertilizer? The answer depends on the specifics of how fertilizer amounts are chosen. If the levels of fertilizer are assigned to plots independently of other plot features that affect yield—that is, other characteristics of plots are completely ignored when deciding on fertilizer amounts— then we are in business. We will justify this statement in Chapter 2.
The next example is more representative of the difficulties that arise when inferring
causality in applied economics.
E X A M P L E 1 . 4
( M e a s u r i n g t h e R e t u r n t o E d u c a t i o n )
Labor economists and policy makers have long been interested in the “return to education.” Somewhat informally, the question is posed as follows: If a person is chosen from the population and given another year of education, by how much will his or her wage increase? As with the previous examples, this is a ceteris paribus question, which implies that all other factors are held fixed while another year of education is given to the person.
We can imagine a social planner designing an experiment to get at this issue, much as the agricultural researcher can design an experiment to estimate fertilizer effects. One approach is to emulate the fertilizer experiment in Example 1.3: Choose a group of people, randomly give each person an amount of education (some people have an eighth grade education, some are given a high school education, etc.), and then measure their wages (assuming that each then works in a job). The people here are like the plots in the fertilizer example, where education plays the role of fertilizer and wage rate plays the role of soybean yield. As with Example 1.3, if levels of education are assigned independently of other characteristics that affect productivity (such as experience and innate ability), then an analysis that ignores these other factors will yield useful results. Again, it will take some
effort in Chapter 2 to justify this claim; for now we state it without support.
We can imagine a social planner designing an experiment to get at this issue, much as the agricultural researcher can design an experiment to estimate fertilizer effects. One approach is to emulate the fertilizer experiment in Example 1.3: Choose a group of people, randomly give each person an amount of education (some people have an eighth grade education, some are given a high school education, etc.), and then measure their wages (assuming that each then works in a job). The people here are like the plots in the fertilizer example, where education plays the role of fertilizer and wage rate plays the role of soybean yield. As with Example 1.3, if levels of education are assigned independently of other characteristics that affect productivity (such as experience and innate ability), then an analysis that ignores these other factors will yield useful results. Again, it will take some
effort in Chapter 2 to justify this claim; for now we state it without support.
Unlike the fertilizer-yield example, the experiment described in Example 1.4 is infeasible. The moral issues, not to mention the economic costs, associated with randomly determining education levels for a group of individuals are obvious. As a logistical matter, we could not give someone only an eighth grade education if he or she already has a college degree. Even though experimental data cannot be obtained for measuring the return to education, we can certainly collect nonexperimental data on education levels and wages for a large group by sampling randomly from the population of working people. Such data are available from a variety of surveys used in labor economics, but these data sets have a feature that makes it difficult to estimate the ceteris paribus return to education.
People choose their own levels of education, and therefore education levels are probably not determined independently of all other factors affecting wage. This problem is a feature shared by most nonexperimental data sets.
One factor that affects wage is experience in the work force. Since pursuing more education generally requires postponing entering the work force, those with more education usually have less experience. Thus, in a nonexperimental data set on wages and education, education is likely to be negatively associated with a key variable that also affects wage. It is also believed that people with more innate ability often choose higher levels of education. Since higher ability leads to higher wages, we again have a correlation between education and a critical factor that affects wage.
The omitted factors of experience and ability in the wage example have analogs in the the fertilizer example. Experience is generally easy to measure and therefore is similar to a variable such as rainfall. Ability, on the other hand, is nebulous and difficult to quantify; it is similar to land quality in the fertilizer example. As we will see throughout this text, accounting for other observed factors, such as experience, when estimating the ceteris paribus effect of another variable, such as education, is relatively straightforward. We will also find that accounting for inherently unobservable factors, such as ability, is much more problematical. It is fair to say that many of the advances in econometric methods have tried to deal with unobserved factors in econometric
models.
One factor that affects wage is experience in the work force. Since pursuing more education generally requires postponing entering the work force, those with more education usually have less experience. Thus, in a nonexperimental data set on wages and education, education is likely to be negatively associated with a key variable that also affects wage. It is also believed that people with more innate ability often choose higher levels of education. Since higher ability leads to higher wages, we again have a correlation between education and a critical factor that affects wage.
The omitted factors of experience and ability in the wage example have analogs in the the fertilizer example. Experience is generally easy to measure and therefore is similar to a variable such as rainfall. Ability, on the other hand, is nebulous and difficult to quantify; it is similar to land quality in the fertilizer example. As we will see throughout this text, accounting for other observed factors, such as experience, when estimating the ceteris paribus effect of another variable, such as education, is relatively straightforward. We will also find that accounting for inherently unobservable factors, such as ability, is much more problematical. It is fair to say that many of the advances in econometric methods have tried to deal with unobserved factors in econometric
models.
One final parallel can be drawn between Examples 1.3 and 1.4. Suppose that in the fertilizer example, the fertilizer amounts were not entirely determined at random. Instead, the assistant who chose the fertilizer levels thought it would be better to put more fertilizer on the higher quality plots of land. (Agricultural researchers should have a rough idea about which plots of land are better quality, even though they may not be able to fully quantify the differences.) This situation is completely analogous to the level of schooling being related to unobserved ability in Example 1.4. Because better land leads to higher yields, and more fertilizer was used on the better plots, any
observed relationship between yield and fertilizer might be spurious.
observed relationship between yield and fertilizer might be spurious.
E X A M P L E 1 . 5
( T h e E f f e c t o f L a w E n f o r c e m e n t o n C i t y C r i m e L e v e l s )
( T h e E f f e c t o f L a w E n f o r c e m e n t o n C i t y C r i m e L e v e l s )
The issue of how best to prevent crime has, and will probably continue to be, with us for some time. One especially important question in this regard is: Does the presence of more police officers on the street deter crime?
The ceteris paribus question is easy to state: If a city is randomly chosen and given 10 additional police officers, by how much would its crime rates fall? Another way to state the question is: If two cities are the same in all respects, except that city A has 10 more police officers than city B, by how much would the two cities’ crime rates differ?
It would be virtually impossible to find pairs of communities identical in all respects except for the size of their police force. Fortunately, econometric analysis does not require this. What we do need to know is whether the data we can collect on community crime levels and the size of the police force can be viewed as experimental. We can certainly imagine a true experiment involving a large collection of cities where we dictate how many police officers each city will use for the upcoming year.
It would be virtually impossible to find pairs of communities identical in all respects except for the size of their police force. Fortunately, econometric analysis does not require this. What we do need to know is whether the data we can collect on community crime levels and the size of the police force can be viewed as experimental. We can certainly imagine a true experiment involving a large collection of cities where we dictate how many police officers each city will use for the upcoming year.
While policies can be used to affect the size of police forces, we clearly cannot tell each city how many police officers it can hire. If, as is likely, a city’s decision on how many police officers to hire is correlated with other city factors that affect crime, then the data must be viewed as nonexperimental. In fact, one way to view this problem is to see that a city’s choice of police force size and the amount of crime are simultaneously determined. We will
explicitly address such problems in Chapter 16.
explicitly address such problems in Chapter 16.
The first three examples we have discussed have dealt with cross-sectional data at various levels of aggregation (for example, at the individual or city levels). The same hurdles arise when inferring causality in time series problems.
E X A M P L E 1 . 6
( T h e E f f e c t o f t h e M i n i m u m Wa g e o n U n e m p l o y m e n t )
( T h e E f f e c t o f t h e M i n i m u m Wa g e o n U n e m p l o y m e n t )
An important, and perhaps contentious, policy issue concerns the effect of the minimum wage on unemployment rates for various groups of workers. While this problem can be studied in a variety of data settings (cross-sectional, time series, or panel data), time series data are often used to look at aggregate effects. An example of a time series data set on unemployment rates and minimum wages was given in Table 1.3.
Standard supply and demand analysis implies that, as the minimum wage is increased above the market clearing wage, we slide up the demand curve for labor and total employment decreases. (Labor supply exceeds labor demand.) To quantify this effect, we can study the relationship between employment and the minimum wage over time. In addition to some special difficulties that can arise in dealing with time series data, there are possible problems with inferring causality. The minimum wage in the United States is not determined in a vacuum. Various economic and political forces impinge on the final minimum wage for any given year. (The minimum wage, once determined, is usually in place for several years, unless it is indexed for inflation.) Thus, it is probable that the amount of the minimum wage is related to other factors that have an effect on employment levels.
We can imagine the U.S. government conducting an experiment to determine the employment effects of the minimum wage (as opposed to worrying about the welfare of low wage workers). The minimum wage could be randomly set by the government each year, and then the employment outcomes could be tabulated. The resulting experimental time series data could then be analyzed using fairly simple econometric methods. But this
scenario hardly describes how minimum wages are set.
If we can control enough other factors relating to employment, then we can still hope to estimate the ceteris paribus effect of the minimum wage on employment. In this sense, the problem is very similar to the previous cross-sectional examples.
Standard supply and demand analysis implies that, as the minimum wage is increased above the market clearing wage, we slide up the demand curve for labor and total employment decreases. (Labor supply exceeds labor demand.) To quantify this effect, we can study the relationship between employment and the minimum wage over time. In addition to some special difficulties that can arise in dealing with time series data, there are possible problems with inferring causality. The minimum wage in the United States is not determined in a vacuum. Various economic and political forces impinge on the final minimum wage for any given year. (The minimum wage, once determined, is usually in place for several years, unless it is indexed for inflation.) Thus, it is probable that the amount of the minimum wage is related to other factors that have an effect on employment levels.
We can imagine the U.S. government conducting an experiment to determine the employment effects of the minimum wage (as opposed to worrying about the welfare of low wage workers). The minimum wage could be randomly set by the government each year, and then the employment outcomes could be tabulated. The resulting experimental time series data could then be analyzed using fairly simple econometric methods. But this
scenario hardly describes how minimum wages are set.
If we can control enough other factors relating to employment, then we can still hope to estimate the ceteris paribus effect of the minimum wage on employment. In this sense, the problem is very similar to the previous cross-sectional examples.
Even when economic theories are not most naturally described in terms of causality, they often have predictions that can be tested using econometric methods. The following is an example of this approach.
E X A M P L E 1 . 7
( T h e E x p e c t a t i o n s H y p o t h e s i s )
( T h e E x p e c t a t i o n s H y p o t h e s i s )
The expectations hypothesis from financial economics states that, given all information available to investors at the time of investing, the expected return on any two investments is the same. For example, consider two possible investments with a three-month investment horizon, purchased at the same time: (1) Buy a three-month T-bill with a face value of $10,000, for a price below $10,000; in three months, you receive $10,000. (2) Buy a sixmonth T-bill (at a price below $10,000) and, in three months, sell it as a three-month T-bill. Each investment requires roughly the same amount of initial capital, but there is an important difference. For the first investment, you know exactly what the return is at the time of purchase because you know the initial price of the three-month T-bill, along with its face value. This is not true for the second investment: while you know the price of a six-month T-bill when you purchase it, you do not know the price you can sell it for in three months.
Therefore, there is uncertainty in this investment for someone who has a three-month investment horizon.
The actual returns on these two investments will usually be different. According to the expectations hypothesis, the expected return from the second investment, given all information at the time of investment, should equal the return from purchasing a three-month T-bill. This theory turns out to be fairly easy to test, as we will see in Chapter 11.
Therefore, there is uncertainty in this investment for someone who has a three-month investment horizon.
The actual returns on these two investments will usually be different. According to the expectations hypothesis, the expected return from the second investment, given all information at the time of investment, should equal the return from purchasing a three-month T-bill. This theory turns out to be fairly easy to test, as we will see in Chapter 11.
SUMMARY
In this introductory chapter, we have discussed the purpose and scope of econometric analysis. Econometrics is used in all applied economic fields to test economic theories, inform government and private policy makers, and to predict economic time series. Sometimes an econometric model is derived from a formal economic model, but in other cases econometric models are based on informal economic reasoning and intuition. The goal of any econometric analysis is to estimate the parameters in the model and to test hypotheses about these parameters; the values and signs of the parameters determine the validity of an economic theory and the effects of certain
policies.
Cross-sectional, time series, pooled cross-sectional, and panel data are the most common types of data structures that are used in applied econometrics. Data sets involving a time dimension, such as time series and panel data, require special treatment because of the correlation across time of most economic time series. Other issues, such as trends and seasonality, arise in the analysis of time series data but not crosssectional
data.
In Section 1.4, we discussed the notions of ceteris paribus and causal inference. In most cases, hypotheses in the social sciences are ceteris paribus in nature: all other relevant factors must be fixed when studying the relationship between two variables. Because of the nonexperimental nature of most data collected in the social sciences, uncovering causal relationships is very challenging.
policies.
Cross-sectional, time series, pooled cross-sectional, and panel data are the most common types of data structures that are used in applied econometrics. Data sets involving a time dimension, such as time series and panel data, require special treatment because of the correlation across time of most economic time series. Other issues, such as trends and seasonality, arise in the analysis of time series data but not crosssectional
data.
In Section 1.4, we discussed the notions of ceteris paribus and causal inference. In most cases, hypotheses in the social sciences are ceteris paribus in nature: all other relevant factors must be fixed when studying the relationship between two variables. Because of the nonexperimental nature of most data collected in the social sciences, uncovering causal relationships is very challenging.
