similar to: predict() for plm?

Hello, I am using {plm} to estimate panel models. I want to estimate a model that includes fixed effects for time and individual, but has a random individual effect for the coefficient on the independent variable. That is, I would like to estimate the model: Y_it = a_i + a_t + B_i * X_it + e_it Where i denotes individuals, t denotes time, X is my independent variable, and B (beta) is the

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

Dear R users I get different F-statistic results for a "within" model, when using "time" or "twoways" effects in plm() [1] and when manually specifying the time control dummies [2]. [1] vignette("plm") [2] http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Farnsworth-EconometricsInR.pdf Two examples below: library("AER") data("Grunfeld", package =

Dear Sir, Thank you for accepting my request for registration on this site. I am trying to solve panel data problems using plm package , but while suing random effect model i am getting following messege saying " Warning message:In sqrt(sigma2) : NaNs produced " In some other cases i am getting message saying where TSS = NA , that I am not understanding I am sending you my code along

Dear Kailas Gokhale, The negative individual variance is not a problem with your code or plm. It a property of your data. Please check the posts of Giovanni Millo on this topic: [R] R: plm random effect: the estimated variance of the individual effect is negative Millo Giovanni Giovanni_Millo at Generali.com Sat Jan 5 10:10:01 CET 2013 You can find the posts in the archive by rseek.org.

Hello Giovanni I made a minor modification to your function, which now allows to compute the within R-sq in Twoways Within models (see below). However I ran into an issue that I have already encountered before: whenever I try to fit Twoways Within models on my unbalanced data, the process is strangely slow and I usually terminate it either after ~15min or when my CPU hits 100C. This is similar to

Hi All, I am doing econometric modeling of panel data (fixed effects). We currently use Eviews to do this, but I have discovered a bug in Eviews 7 and am exploring the use of R to build panel data models / longitudinal data models. I looked at the plm package but do not see how I can incorporate AR terms in the model using the plm package. I have an Eviews model with two AR terms, AR(1) and

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, So I am afraid I am having a recurring problem that I just can't figure out. I am using the plm package to conduct a panel analysis - although I am not sure if the problem is arising as a result of the plm package or something more general. I am trying to run a fixed effects model with effects over time and individual. The model has various lags, and the problem is that these lags do

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

Good day fellow R users: I have routinely received the following message when attempting to estimate a GMM model for a somewhat square panel (N = 20, T = 9-27, Obs = 338) using the pgmm function in the plm package: Error in function (..., deparse.level = 1) : number of rows of matrices must match (see arg 2) So far, I am not wedded to a particular GMM model but what I have used thus far is

Hello to all on the list, I'm trying to estimate a fixed effects model from a large (unbalanced) panel data set. I have no problems when using only an individual effect or only a time effect, but I get an error message when I try for a "twoways" effect. Here is some of the code: paneldata27 is the entire panel data set: > dim(paneldata27) [1] 1178831 8 >

 Hi R users:  I am using the plm package for linear panel data analysis but encountered the following message when I try plm function to estimate an random model with individual effect.  data.re.ind <- plm(X.RETURN. ~ IOB + IOBS,data=E,model="random",effect = "individual")  Error in swar(object, data, effect) :  the estimated variance of the individual effect is negative

Hello everyone, I am working with plm package and I have problem with random and within models, which are giving errors which says "empty model". However, the model is not empty. In the source code for plm.fit, where the error originates it says something like (writing from the top of my head...) X <- model.matrix(formula,data, lhs=1,...) if (ncol(X) == 0) stop("empty

Hello, I am working on a data set (already as a plm.data object) located here: http://econsteve.com/arch/plmWithDensity.Robj With the following R session: > library(plm) ... >load("plmWithDensity.Robj") >model <- plm(RATE ~ density08, data=plmWithDensity) Error: subscript out of bounds I am not understanding the "subscript out of bounds" error, as this is a

Dear All, I'm looking to perform an ANOVA between two nested panel fixed effects models. I tried with anova, as well as with waldtest. anova tells me there is no method available for plm objects, while waldtest tells me my models are not nested. I think they are instead. The difference between the two models is that in the second I let the regression coefficients of a given variable variate

Hello. Just a quick follow-up, for other 'plm' users on the list: - the problem turned out to be logs of zero values hidden in the big dataset - trying log(xx) would not reveal the problem, because log(0)=-Inf is a valid result in log() while it is an invalid input to plm() --> it is always advisable to try lm(yourformula, yourdata) as a first diagnostic check when plm(yourformula,

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:

Dear R help, I use the package plm the function plm() to analyse a panel data and estimate a fixeffect model. I use the code as follow : fe <- plm(y~x+z, data, model = "within") I want to use bootstrap to estimate standard error I consult the paper plm.pdf , but I can't find any answer. Can I estimate variance with bootstrap? Thanks, Helen

Dear all I am working on unbalanced panel data and I can readily fit a "pooling" model using plm(), but not a "within" or "random" model. Reproducing the examples in vignette("plm") and in the AER package I encountered no such issues. ##unfortunately I cannot disclose the data, and it is too big anyway > dim(ibes.kld.exp.p[x.subs , ]) [1] 13189 34