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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The specification can be generalized by introducing weighting matrices, W, and interaction parameters, \(\lambda \) and \(\rho \), different for each cross section.
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 \(H_{0}\).
Results for other configurations, with greater G, T or R, are available from the authors.
In fact, Angeriz et al. (2008) consider six different specifications for their regional productivity growth equation.
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.
We have used the predicted values of the productivity growth as proxies in the corresponding skedastic functions.
References
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
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
Anselin L (1988a) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Anselin L (1988b) A test for spatial autocorrelation in seemingly unrelated regressions. Econ Lett 28:335–341
Anselin L, Bera A, Florax R, Yoon M (1996) Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26:77–104
Arora S, Brown M (1977) Alternative approaches to spatial autocorrelation: an improvement over current practice. Int Reg Sci Rev 2:67–78
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
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
Baltagi B, Pirotte A (2011) Seemingly unrelated regressions with spatial error components. Empir Econ 40(1):5–49
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
Beenstock M, Felsenstein D (2007) Spatial vector autoregressions. Spat Econ Anal 2:167–196
Bera A, Yoon M (1993) Specification testing with locally misspecified alternatives. Econom Theor 9:649–658
Bernat A (1996) Does manufacturing matter? a spatial econometric view of Kaldor’s laws. J Reg Sci 36:463–477
Breusch T, Pagan A (1979) A simple test for heteroskedasticity and random coefficients variation. Econometrica 47:334–353
Breusch T, Pagan A (1980) The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 47:239–254
Brülhart M, Mathys N (2008) Sectoral agglomeration economies in a panel of European regions. Reg Sci Urban Econ 38:348–362
Burridge P (1981) Testing for a common factor in a spatial autoregression model. Environ Plan A13:795–800
Carlino G, DeFina R (1999) The differential regional effects of monetary policy: evidence from the U.S states. J Reg Sci 39:339–358
Dall’Erba S, Percoco M, Piras G (2008) The European regional growth process revisited. Spat Econ Anal 3:7–25
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
Driscoll J, Kraay A (1998) Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Rev Econ Stat 80:549–560
Egger P, Pfaffermayr M (2004) Distance, trade and FDI: a Hausman–Taylor SUR approach. J Appl Econom 16:227–246
Elhorst P (2003) Specification and estimation of spatial panel data models. Int Reg Sci Rev 26:244–268
Elhorst P (2010) Applied spatial econometrics: raising the bar. Spat Econ Anal 5:9–28
Fingleton B (2000) Spatial econometrics, economic geography, dynamics and equilibrium: a third way? Environ Plan 32:1481–1498
Fingleton B (2007) Multi-equation spatial econometric model, with application to EU manufacturing productivity growth. J Geogr Syst 9:119–144
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
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
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
Güçlü M (2013) Manufacturing and regional economic growth in Turkey: a spatial econometric view of Kaldor’s laws. Eur Plan Stud 21:854–866
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
Hordijk L, Nijkamp P (1977) Dynamic models of spatial autocorrelation. Environ Plan A 9:505–519
Kelejian H, Prucha I (2004) Estimation of simultaneous systems of spatially interrelated cross sectional equations. J Econom 118:27–50
Lauridsen J, Bech M, López F, Maté M (2010) A spatiotemporal analysis of public pharmaceutical expenditures. Ann Reg Sci 44:299–314
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
Le Gallo J, Chasco C (2008) Spatial analysis of urban growth in Spain, 1900–2001. Empir Econ 34:59–80
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
Lesage J, Pace K (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton
Malinvaud E (1970) Statistical methods of econometrics. North-Holland Publishing Co, Amsterdam
Mur J, Angulo A (2009) Model selection strategies in a spatial setting: some additional results. Reg Sci Urban Econ 39:200–213
Mur J, López F, Herrera M (2010) Testing for spatial effects in seemingly unrelated regressions. Spat Econ Anal 5:399–440
Piras G, Postiglione P, Aroca P (2012) Specialization, R&D and productivity growth: evidence from EU regions. Ann Reg Sci 49:35–51
Pons-Novell J, Viladecans-Marsal E (1999) Kaldor’s laws and spatial dependence: evidence for the European regions. Reg Stud 33:443–451
Ramsey J (1969) Test for specification error in classical linear least squares regression analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser B 31:350–371
Rey S, Montouri B (1999) US regional income convergence: a spatial econometrics perspective. Reg Stud 33:143–156
Shukur G (2002) Dynamic specification and misspecification in systems of demand equations: a testing strategy for model selection. Appl Econ 34:709–725
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
Theil H (1971) Principles of econometrics. Wiley, New York
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
White E, Hewings G (1982) Space-time employment modeling: some results using seemingly unrelated regression estimators. J Reg Sci 22:283–302
Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and test of aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 57:348–368
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
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-014-0624-2