2012
DOI: 10.1007/s10888-012-9216-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification of the covariance structure of earnings using the GMM estimator

Abstract: In this paper we study the performance of the GMM estimator in the context of the covariance structure of earnings. Using analytical and Monte Carlo techniques we examine the sensitivity of parameter identification to key features such as panel length, sample size, the degree of persistence of earnings shocks and the evolution of inequality over time. We show that the interaction of transitory persistence with the time pattern of inequality determines identification in these models and offer some practical rec… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, in Section VI we 3 The relative performance of levels versus growthbased generalised method of moments estimates has not previously been examined to our knowledge. Doris et al (2010) look at the performance only of levelsbased estimates, and their wage model does not allow for either heterogeneous growth or purely transitory shocks. Likewise, Hryshko (2012) focuses only on the performance of growth-based estimation, while Manovskii et al (2015) look at levels-versus growth-based estimation but only in relation to reconciling differences in estimates of persistent and transitory shocks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Nevertheless, in Section VI we 3 The relative performance of levels versus growthbased generalised method of moments estimates has not previously been examined to our knowledge. Doris et al (2010) look at the performance only of levelsbased estimates, and their wage model does not allow for either heterogeneous growth or purely transitory shocks. Likewise, Hryshko (2012) focuses only on the performance of growth-based estimation, while Manovskii et al (2015) look at levels-versus growth-based estimation but only in relation to reconciling differences in estimates of persistent and transitory shocks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Doris et al . () look at the performance only of levels‐based estimates, and their wage model does not allow for either heterogeneous growth or purely transitory shocks. Likewise, Hryshko () focuses only on the performance of growth‐based estimation, while Manovskii et al .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This causes problems in identification, since both the transitory and the permanent components reflect relatively permanent earnings inequality, making it difficult to distinguish them from one another, especially, if panel length is short. Doris et al (2010) gives Monte Carlo evidence on the ranges of parameter values that lead to biased estimates. According to Tables 2a and 3 in their paper, a model estimated using eight panel years of observations and ρ = .8 is sufficient to give unbiased results.…”
Section: Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reliable inference on flexible models earnings dynamics requires access to data with both a high number of observations and a long time frame, as Doris et al . () emphasized. We can allow the variance of both permanent and transitory shocks to vary flexibly with workers’ age—an essential feature emphasized in Blundell et al .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%