Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generalized spatial autocorrelation in a panel-probit model with an application to exporting in China

  • Published:
Empirical Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes a generalized spatial panel-data probit model with spatial autocorrelation of the dependent variable, the time-invariant individual shocks, and the remainder disturbances. It proposes its estimation with a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo procedure. Simulation results show that the proposed estimation method performs well in small- to medium-sized samples. This method is then applied to the analysis of export-market participation of 1451 Chinese firms between 2002 and 2006 in the prefecture-level city of Wenzhou in the province of Zhejiang. Empirical results show that two of the three forms of the hypothesized spatial autocorrelation are significant, namely the spatial lag for the dependent variable and the time-invariant firm-specific shocks, but not the time-variant shocks. Ignoring any of these significant spatial effects would lead to misspecification.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Without using a particular notation for it, it should be noted that any spatial lags of the observable explanatory variables would already be incorporated in the matrix X (Kelejian and Prucha 1999).

  2. Earlier contributions based on MCMC estimation of spatial probit models include: LeSage (2000) who proposed a cross-sectional spatial probit model with spatial correlation in the disturbances and the dependent variable; Smith and LeSage (2004) who allowed for a spatially correlated individual effect in their cross-sectional probit model; LeSage and Pace (2009) who considered spatial correlation in the dependent variable in cross-sectional univariate and multinomial probit models; Baltagi et al. (2017) who analyzed a bivariate panel-probit with spatial correlation in the dependent variable of both equations; Wang and Kockelmann (2009) who proposed a dynamic ordered probit model with spatial correlation in the individual-specific error term. While the aforementioned papers focus on some forms of spatial correlation, it is the goal of the current paper to propose a unified approach accounting for several forms of spatial correlation in the dependent variable and all components of the error term.

  3. After thinning and discarding burn-in draws, the sample of the MCMC draws is split into three parts. Then, the equality of the sample means based on the first 20% and the last 50% of the draws of the chain is tested.

  4. Others such as LeSage and Pace (2009), LeSage et al. (2011), or Elhorst et al. (2017) proposed calculating marginal average effects of covariates in spatial probit models as well.

  5. For the non-spatial model, we calculate the vector of total (which are the direct) effects \(\widehat{d}_{k}^{d}=\widehat{d}_{k}^{t}\) and use this in calculating the counterfactual \(\widetilde{y}\).

References

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arduini T (2016) Distribution free estimation of spatial autoregressive binary choice panel data models. Quaderni —Working Paper DSE no. 1052

  • Badinger H, Egger PH (2013) Estimation and testing of higher-order spatial autoregressive panel data error component models. J Geogr Syst 15(4):453–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badinger H, Egger PH (2015) Fixed effects and random effects estimation of higher-order spatial autoregressive models with spatial autoregressive and heteroscedastic disturbances. Spat Econ Anal 10(1):11–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi BH, Egger PH, Pfaffermayr M (2013) A generalized spatial panel data model with random effects. Econom Rev 32(5–6):650–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi BH, Egger PH, Kesina M (2016) Firm-level productivity spillovers in China’s chemical industry: a spatial Hausman–Taylor approach. J Appl Econom 31(1):214–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi BH, Egger PH, Kesina M (2017) Bayesian spatial bivariate panel probit estimation. In: Baltagi BH, LeSage JP, Pace RK (eds) Spatial econometrics: qualitative and limited dependent variables (advances in econometrics, vol 37). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 119–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Beron KJ, Vijverberg WP (2004) Probit in a spatial context: a Monte Carlo analysis. In: Anselin L, Florax RJGM, Rey SJ (eds) Advances in spatial econometrics. Advances in spatial science. Springer, Berlin, pp 169–195

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Billé AG, Arbia G (2013) Spatial discrete choice and spatial limited dependent variable models: a review with an emphasis on the use in regional health economics. Cornell University library working paper

  • Elhorst JP, Heijnen P, Samarina A, Jacobs JPAM (2017) Transitions at different moments in time: a spatial probit approach. J Appl Econom 32(2):422–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geweke J (1991) Efficient simulation from the multivariate normal and student t distributions subject to linear constraints. In: Keramidas E (ed) Computer science and statistics proceedings of the twenty-third symposium on the interface, Fairfax, Interface Foundation of North America, Inc., pp 571–578

  • Geweke J (1992) Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to calculating posterior moments. In: Bernardo JM, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Smith AFM (eds) Bayesian statistics 4. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 641–649

    Google Scholar 

  • Helpman E, Melitz MJ, Yeaple SR (2004) Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. Am Econ Rev 94(1):300–316

  • Kapoor M, Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2007) Panel data models with spatially correlated error components. J Econom 140(1):97–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (1998) A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. J Real Estate Finance Econ 17(1):99–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (1999) A generalized moments estimator for the autoregressive parameter in a spatial model. Int Econ Rev 40(2):509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2004) Estimation of simultaneous systems of spatially interrelated cross sectional equations. J Econom 118(1–2):27–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2007) HAC estimation in a spatial framework. J Econom 140(1):131–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2010) Specification and estimation of spatial autoregressive models with autoregressive and heteroskedastic disturbances. J Econom 157(1):53–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klier T, McMillen DP (2008) Clustering of auto supplier plants in the United States. J Bus Econ Stat 26(4):460–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kürsteiner GM, Prucha IR (2015) Dynamic spatial panel models: networks, common shocks, and sequential exogeneity. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Maryland

  • Lee LF (2003) Best spatial two-stage least squares estimators for a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. Econom Rev 22(4):307–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee LF (2004) Asymptotic distributions of quasi-maximum likelihood estimators for spatial autoregressive models. Econometrica 72(6):1899–1925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee LF (2007) GMM and 2SLS estimation of mixed regressive, spatial autoregressive models. J Econom 137(2):489–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee LF, Yu J (2010a) Some recent developments in spatial panel data models. Reg Sci Urban Econ 40(5):255–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee LF, Yu J (2010b) Estimation of spatial autoregressive panel data models with fixed effects. J Econom 154(2):165–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee LF, Yu J (2012) Spatial panels: random components versus fixed effects. Int Econ Rev 53(4):1369–1412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei J (2013) Smoothed spatial maximum score estimation of spatial autoregressive binary choice panel models. CentER discussion paper series no. 2013-061

  • LeSage JP (2000) Bayesian estimation of limited dependent variable spatial autoregressive models. Geogr Anal 32(1):19–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeSage JP, Pace RK (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • LeSage JP, Pace RK, Lam N, Campanella R, Liu X (2011) New Orleans business recovery in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. J R Stat Soc Ser A 174(4):1007–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu D (2010) Exceptional exporter performance? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Working paper

  • McMillen DP (1992) Probit with spatial autocorrelation. J Reg Sci 32(3):335–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melitz MJ (2003) The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71(6):1695–1725

  • Pinkse J, Slade ME (1998) Contracting in space: an application of spatial statistics to discrete-choice models. J Econom 85(1):125–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkse J, Slade ME, Shen L (2006) Dynamic spatial discrete choice using one-step GMM: an application to mine operating decisions. Spat Econ Anal 1(1):53–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith TE, LeSage JP (2004) A Bayesian probit model with spatial dependencies. In: LeSage JP, Pace RK (eds) Spatial and spatiotemporal econometrics (advances in econometrics, vol 18). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 127–160

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smirnov OA (2010) Modeling spatial discrete choice. Reg Sci Urban Econ 40(5):292–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Iglesias EM, Wooldridge JM (2013) Partial maximum likelihood estimation of spatial probit models. J Econ 172(1):77–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Kockelmann KM (2009) Bayesian inference for ordered response data with a dynamic spatial-ordered probit model. J Reg Sci 49(5):877–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244-1020, USA

    Badi H. Baltagi

  2. CEPR, CESifo, GEP, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Peter H. Egger

  3. ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Michaela Kesina

Authors
  1. Badi H. Baltagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter H. Egger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michaela Kesina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Badi H. Baltagi.

Additional information

This paper is prepared for the special issue of Empirical Economics, honoring the contributions of Ingmar R. Prucha in econometrics. We are grateful to the editor in charge (Giuseppe Arbia) and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baltagi, B.H., Egger, P.H. & Kesina, M. Generalized spatial autocorrelation in a panel-probit model with an application to exporting in China. Empir Econ 55, 193–211 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-017-1409-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-017-1409-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation