similar to: trouble with plm , Ubuntu 9?

Hello, Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question. I am running R on Ubuntu 9. R version 2.9.2 (2009-08-24) I am trying to work with plm. I think the library is installed, as I can do > library(plm) Loading required package: kinship Loading required package: survival Loading required package: splines Loading required package: nlme Loading required package: lattice [1] "kinship

Dear "plm"-Package insiders, [I posted the following observation is April already but unfortunately I am not aware of any answers. With the hope that someone found an answer in the mean time, I ask again:] I realized the following difficulty with the summary.plm function (demonstrated with the example from the ?plm documentation). library(plm) data("Produc",

Dear plm Package users, I use the plm package a lot but I have not updated it for some times. Now I realized the following difficulty with the summary.plm function (demonstrated with the example from the ?plm documentation). library(plm) data("Produc", package="Ecdat") estimation_method<-"within" estimation_effect<-"individual" zz

Hi all, I have estimated a random panel model using plm function. I have a question about the vector of resduals obtained with the object $residuals. example: data("Produc", package = "plm") zz <- plm(log(gsp) ~ log(pcap) + log(pc) + log(emp) + unemp, model="random", data = Produc, index = c("state","year")) res<-zz$residuals #

Hi all, what indicates the parameter theta in the summary of a random effect panel model estimated with the plm function? example: data("Produc", package = "plm") zz <- plm(log(gsp) ~ log(pcap) + log(pc) + log(emp) + unemp, model="random", data = Produc, index = c("state","year")) summary(zz) Effects: var std.dev

Hi! I noticed that there is a (minor) bug either the command all.equal() or in the "plm" package. I demonstrate this using an example taken from the documentation of plm(): ====================================== R> data("Produc", package="plm") R> zz <- plm(log(gsp)~log(pcap)+log(pc)+log(emp)+unemp, + data=Produc,

Hello again Max. A correction to my response from yesterday. Things were better than they seemed. I thought it over, checked Arellano's panel book and Driscoll and Kraay (Rev. Econ. Stud. 1998) and finally realized that vcovSCC does what you want: in fact, despite being born primarily for dealing with cross-sectional correlation, 'SCC' standard errors are robust to "both

Hello, I am trying to use the plm package for panel econometrics. I am just trying to get started and load my data. It seems from most of the sample documentation that I need to use the pdata.frame function to get my data loaded. However, even after installing the "plm" package, my R installation cannot find the function. I am trying to follow the example in plmEN.pdf (

Hi all, I installed all required packages for plm, but pdata.frame is not a recognized function on R to start with. I followed the first page of "introduction to plm" by Croissant&Millo, Here are the messages: * > library(plm) Loading required package: kinship Loading required package: survival Loading required package: splines Loading required package: nlme Loading required

Hello, I am trying to run a fixed effects panel regression on data containing 5 columns and 1,494 rows. I read the data in as follows: >drugsXX<-read.csv(file="C:\\Folder\\vX.X\\Drugs\\drugsXX_panel.csv", head=TRUE, sep=",") Verified it read in correctly and had a good data.frame: >dim(drugsXX) [1] 1494 5 >drugs XX produce expected data with correct column

Dear all, I am trying to export my fixed effect results to Latex. I am using the plm package with the summary function. However, it does not look like apsrtable, stargazer, or any other package can accompany using the plm package. I am interested in a classic table with the coefficient in one row followed by the standard error in paranthesis in the next row and stars by the coefficient to show

Hello, I am switching to R from Stata and I am having particular trouble with the transition from Stata's 'xtabond' and 'ivreg' commands to the "plm" package. I am trying to replicate some of the dynamic panel data work using the UK Employment data in Arellano and Bond (1991) and available as 'EmplUK' under the 'plm' package. I have been

Hello list, I'm following the paper (http://www.jstatsoft.org/v27/i02/paper) on how to use "plm" to run panel regressions, and am having trouble with what I believe should be something very basic. When I run the command (p.9 in the paper): R> dynformula(emp~wage+capital,log=list(capital=FALSE,TRUE),lag=list(emp=2,c(2,3)),diff=list(FALSE,capital=TRUE)) I see: emp ~ wage +

Hello list, I'm following the paper (http://www.jstatsoft.org/v27/i02/paper) on how to use "plm" to run panel regressions, and am having trouble with what I believe should be something very basic. When I run the command (p.9 in the paper): R> dynformula(emp~wage+capital,log=list(capital=FALSE,TRUE),lag=list(emp=2,c(2,3)),diff=list(FALSE,capital=TRUE)) I see: emp ~ wage +

Hi Folks, Has anyone got a compiled binary of the package 'plm' and/or of the package 'kinship' for Debian Etch? I'm asking because I'd like to install 'plm', but have failed because it depends on 'kinship', and 'kinship' refuses to compile on my Debian Etch. The underlying reason is the Debian refuses to allow me to install the development

In the rockchalk package, I want to provide functions for regression objects that are "well behaved." If an object responds to the methods that lm or glm objects can handle, like coef(), nobs(), and summary(), I want to be able to handle the same thing. It is more difficult than expected to ask a given fitted model object "do you respond to these functions: coef(), nobs(),

> On Mar 31, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Paul Johnson <pauljohn32 at gmail.com> wrote: > > In the rockchalk package, I want to provide functions for regression > objects that are "well behaved." If an object responds to the methods > that lm or glm objects can handle, like coef(), nobs(), and summary(), > I want to be able to handle the same thing. > > It is more

When using the PLM package (version 1.2-8), I encounter the probem that calling the FGLS estimator evokes strange behavior, when choosing the "random" effects model. After calling the PGGLS function to estimate FGLS, PLM gives me a warning, stating that the "random" model has been replaced with the "pooling" model. I would, however, really like to estimate the random

Hi List I'm having difficulty understanding how plm should work with dynamic formulas. See the commands and output below on a standard data set. Notice that the first summary(plm(...)) call returns the same result as the second (it shouldn't if it actually uses the lagged variable requested). The third call results in error (trying to use diff'ed variable in regression) Other info:

Hello, I am trying to conduct a Hausman test to choose between FE estimators and RE estimators. When I try to run: library(plm) fixed <- plm(ROS ~ DiffClosenessC +ZZiele + AggSK + nRedundantStrecken + Degree + KantenGew + BetweennessC + SitzKappazitaet, data=Panel,index=c("id","time"),model="within") summary(fixed) fixef(fixed) random <-plm(ROS ~