Spatial model selection strategies in a SUR framework. The case of regional productivity in EU

The Annals of Regional Science volume 53, pages197–220(2014)Cite this article

Abstract

The purpose of the paper was to compare two well-known model selection strategies, the so-called Specific-to-General, Stge, and General-to-Specific, Gets, in a context of spatial SUR models. The two strategies use a battery of misspecification tests obtained in a maximum likelihood framework. The robust tests to local misspecification errors in the alternative hypothesis and the common factor test have been developed with this purpose. The paper includes a Monte Carlo experiment to compare their performance in a situation of small sample sizes. The results are mixed: Both alternatives work well under ideal conditions, but their efficiency deteriorates for different departures such as non-normality or endogeneity. All in all, Stge appears to be slightly preferable although our impression is that the two are complementary and can be used in common. The paper finishes with an application to the case of productivity for a large set of European regions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The specification can be generalized by introducing weighting matrices, W, and interaction parameters, \(\lambda \) and \(\rho \), different for each cross section.

  2. 2.

    In what follows, we will use a compact standard notation:

    $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{LM}=\left[ {\mathbf{g}(\theta )_{\left| { H_0 } \right. } } \right] {^\prime } {\left[ {\mathbf{I}(\theta )_{\left| { H_0 } \right. } } \right] }^{-1} \left[ {\mathbf{g}(\theta )_{\left| { H_0 } \right. } } \right] {\mathop {\sim }\limits _{as}} \chi ^2 (df) \end{aligned}$$

    where \(\mathbf{g}(\theta )\) is the score (vector of first derivatives of the likelihood function), \(\mathbf{I}(\theta )\) the information matrix, df means degrees of freedom and ‘\({\vert }H_{0}\)’ means evaluated under the hypothesis \(H_{0}\).

  3. 3.

    Results for other configurations, with greater G, T or R, are available from the authors.

  4. 4.

    In fact, Angeriz et al. (2008) consider six different specifications for their regional productivity growth equation.

  5. 5.

    Data on production and employment by regions and sectors of activity are obtained from EUROSTAT. Data on human capital proceed from EUROSTAT and from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

  6. 6.

    We have used the predicted values of the productivity growth as proxies in the corresponding skedastic functions.

References

  1. Alexiadis S, Tsagdis D (2006) Reassessing the validity of Verdoorn’s law under conditions of spatial dependence: a case of study of the Greek regions. J Post Keynes Econ 29(1):149–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Angeriz A, McCombie J, Roberts M (2008) New estimates of returns to scale and spatial spillovers for EU regional manufacturing, 1986–2002. Int Reg Sci Rev 31:62–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anselin L (1988a) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anselin L (1988b) A test for spatial autocorrelation in seemingly unrelated regressions. Econ Lett 28:335–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anselin L, Bera A, Florax R, Yoon M (1996) Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26:77–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Arora S, Brown M (1977) Alternative approaches to spatial autocorrelation: an improvement over current practice. Int Reg Sci Rev 2:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Badinger H, Müller W, Tondl G (2004) Regional convergence in the European Union, 1985–1999: a spatial dynamic panel analysis. Reg Stud 38:241–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baltagi B, Bresson G (2011) Maximum likelihood estimation and Lagrange multiplier tests for panel seemingly unrelated regressions with spatial lag and spatial errors: an application to hedonic housing prices in Paris. J Urban Econ 69(1):24–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baltagi B, Pirotte A (2011) Seemingly unrelated regressions with spatial error components. Empir Econ 40(1):5–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beck M, Hansen M, Lauridsen J, Kronborg C (2012) Can the municipalities prevent medication of mental diseases? J Mental Health Policy Econ 15:53–60

  11. Beenstock M, Felsenstein D (2007) Spatial vector autoregressions. Spat Econ Anal 2:167–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bera A, Yoon M (1993) Specification testing with locally misspecified alternatives. Econom Theor 9:649–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernat A (1996) Does manufacturing matter? a spatial econometric view of Kaldor’s laws. J Reg Sci 36:463–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Breusch T, Pagan A (1979) A simple test for heteroskedasticity and random coefficients variation. Econometrica 47:334–353

    Google Scholar 

  15. Breusch T, Pagan A (1980) The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 47:239–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brülhart M, Mathys N (2008) Sectoral agglomeration economies in a panel of European regions. Reg Sci Urban Econ 38:348–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Burridge P (1981) Testing for a common factor in a spatial autoregression model. Environ Plan A13:795–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carlino G, DeFina R (1999) The differential regional effects of monetary policy: evidence from the U.S states. J Reg Sci 39:339–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dall’Erba S, Percoco M, Piras G (2008) The European regional growth process revisited. Spat Econ Anal 3:7–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Di Giacinto V (2006) A generalized space-time model with an application to regional unemployment analysis in Italy. Int Reg Sci Rev 29:159–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Driscoll J, Kraay A (1998) Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Rev Econ Stat 80:549–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Egger P, Pfaffermayr M (2004) Distance, trade and FDI: a Hausman–Taylor SUR approach. J Appl Econom 16:227–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Elhorst P (2003) Specification and estimation of spatial panel data models. Int Reg Sci Rev 26:244–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elhorst P (2010) Applied spatial econometrics: raising the bar. Spat Econ Anal 5:9–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fingleton B (2000) Spatial econometrics, economic geography, dynamics and equilibrium: a third way? Environ Plan 32:1481–1498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fingleton B (2007) Multi-equation spatial econometric model, with application to EU manufacturing productivity growth. J Geogr Syst 9:119–144

  27. Fingleton B, López-Bazo E (2003) Explaining the distribution of manufacturing productivity in the EU regions. In: Fingleton B (ed) European regional growth. Springer, Berlin, pp 375–410

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fingleton B, McCombie J (1998) Increasing returns and economic growth: some evidence for manufacturing from the European Union regions. Oxf Econ Pap 80:89–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Florax R, Folmer H, Rey S (2003) Specification searches in spatial econometrics: the relevance of Hendry’s methodology. Reg Sci Urban Econ 33:557–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Güçlü M (2013) Manufacturing and regional economic growth in Turkey: a spatial econometric view of Kaldor’s laws. Eur Plan Stud 21:854–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Guo D, Dall’erba S, Le Gallo J (2013) The leading role of manufacturing in China’s regional economic growth a spatial econometric approach of Kaldor’s laws. Int Reg Sci Rev 36:139–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hordijk L, Nijkamp P (1977) Dynamic models of spatial autocorrelation. Environ Plan A 9:505–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kelejian H, Prucha I (2004) Estimation of simultaneous systems of spatially interrelated cross sectional equations. J Econom 118:27–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lauridsen J, Bech M, López F, Maté M (2010) A spatiotemporal analysis of public pharmaceutical expenditures. Ann Reg Sci 44:299–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Le Gallo J, Kamarianakis Y (2011) The evolution of regional productivity disparities in the European Union from 1975 to 2002: a combination of shift-share and spatial econometrics. Reg Stud 45:123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Le Gallo J, Chasco C (2008) Spatial analysis of urban growth in Spain, 1900–2001. Empir Econ 34:59–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Le Gallo J, Dall’erba S (2006) Evaluating the temporal and spatial heterogeneity of the European convergence process: 1980–1999. J Reg Sci 46:269–288

  38. Lesage J, Pace K (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  39. Malinvaud E (1970) Statistical methods of econometrics. North-Holland Publishing Co, Amsterdam

  40. Mur J, Angulo A (2009) Model selection strategies in a spatial setting: some additional results. Reg Sci Urban Econ 39:200–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mur J, López F, Herrera M (2010) Testing for spatial effects in seemingly unrelated regressions. Spat Econ Anal 5:399–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Piras G, Postiglione P, Aroca P (2012) Specialization, R&D and productivity growth: evidence from EU regions. Ann Reg Sci 49:35–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pons-Novell J, Viladecans-Marsal E (1999) Kaldor’s laws and spatial dependence: evidence for the European regions. Reg Stud 33:443–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ramsey J (1969) Test for specification error in classical linear least squares regression analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser B 31:350–371

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rey S, Montouri B (1999) US regional income convergence: a spatial econometrics perspective. Reg Stud 33:143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shukur G (2002) Dynamic specification and misspecification in systems of demand equations: a testing strategy for model selection. Appl Econ 34:709–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Shukur G, Edgerton D (2002) The small sample properties of the RESET test as applied to systems of equations. J Stat Comput Simul 72:909–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Theil H (1971) Principles of econometrics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wang X, Kockelman K (2007) Specification and estimation of a spatially and temporally autocorrelated seemingly unrelated regression model: application to crash rates in China. Transportation 34:281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. White E, Hewings G (1982) Space-time employment modeling: some results using seemingly unrelated regression estimators. J Reg Sci 22:283–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and test of aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 57:348–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support of the Spanish Government’s Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (ECO2012-36032-C03-01) and the Aragon Government’s Regional Ministry of Industry and Innovation.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Quantitative Methods and Computing, Technical University of Cartagena, Cartagena, Spain

    Fernando A. López

  2. Department of Economic Analysis, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

    Jesús Mur & Ana Angulo

Authors
  1. Fernando A. López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jesús Mur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Angulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesús Mur.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1 DOC 496 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

López, F.A., Mur, J. & Angulo, A. Spatial model selection strategies in a SUR framework. The case of regional productivity in EU. Ann Reg Sci 53, 197–220 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-014-0624-2

Download citation

JEL Classification

  • C21
  • C50
  • R15