Sociological Perspectives · 2019 · 326 citations · 8 references
Public HealthBiostatisticsEconomicsCausal InferenceEconometricsExperimental DesignCausal Effect EstimationExternal ValidityFixed-effect ModelsLongitudinal Data AnalysisPanel Data AnalysisPanel Data MethodsFixed Effects RegressionPanel Data Causal InferencePanel Data Fixed EffectsPanel Data RegressionPanel Regression ModelsType Ii ErrorUnobserved ConfoundingUnobserved Heterogeneity
Although fixed‑effects models for panel data are widely recognized as powerful tools, their limitations are not well known. The authors critically discuss 12 limitations of fixed‑effects models for panel data. They analyze these limitations by reviewing methodological concerns such as omission culture, low power, external validity, time restrictions, measurement error, time invariance, undefined variables, unobserved heterogeneity, erroneous causal inference, imprecise coefficient interpretation, imprudent comparisons, and questionable contributions. The authors argue that while fixed‑effects models have strengths, their key deficiencies—Type II errors, biased coefficients, imprecise standard errors, misleading p‑values, misguided causal claims, and theoretical concerns—must be weighed against the presence of unobserved heterogeneity in other models, and that better communication of these pitfalls is needed.
Although fixed-effects models for panel data are now widely recognized as powerful tools for longitudinal data analysis, the limitations of these models are not well known. We provide a critical discussion of 12 limitations, including a culture of omission, low statistical power, limited external validity, restricted time periods, measurement error, time invariance, undefined variables, unobserved heterogeneity, erroneous causal inferences, imprecise interpretations of coefficients, imprudent comparisons with cross-sectional models, and questionable contributions vis-à-vis previous work. Instead of discouraging the use of fixed-effects models, we encourage more critical applications of this rigorous and promising methodology. The most important deficiencies—Type II errors, biased coefficients and imprecise standard errors, misleading p values, misguided causal claims, and various theoretical concerns—should be weighed against the likely presence of unobserved heterogeneity in other regression models. Ultimately, we must do a better job of communicating the pitfalls of fixed-effects models to our colleagues and students.
8
Specification Tests in Econometrics
Jerry A. Hausman · Econometrica · 1978 · 18.4K citations
Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects
Stephen Nickell · Econometrica · 1981 · 8.6K citations
Benefits and limitations of panel data
Chêng Hsiao · Econometric Reviews · 1985 · 382 citations