2. 2
Estimation of Dynamic Causal
Effects (SW Chapter 15)
A dynamic causal effect is the effect on Y of a change in X over
time.
For example:
The effect of an increase in cigarette taxes on cigarette
consumption this year, next year, in 5 years;
The effect of a change in the Fed Funds rate on inflation, this
month, in 6 months, and 1 year;
The effect of a freeze in Florida on the price of orange juice
concentrate in 1 month, 2 months, 3 months…
3. 3
The Orange Juice Data
(SW Section 15.1)
Data
Monthly, Jan. 1950 – Dec. 2000 (T = 612)
Price = price of frozen OJ (a sub-component of the producer
price index; US Bureau of Labor Statistics)
%ChgP = percentage change in price at an annual rate, so
%ChgPt = 1200ln(Pricet)
FDD = number of freezing degree-days during the month,
recorded in Orlando FL
Example: If November has 2 days with lows < 32o
, one at
30o
and at 25o
, then FDDNov = 2 + 7 = 9
5. 5
Initial OJ regression
% t
ChgP = -.40 + .47FDDt
(.22) (.13)
Statistically significant positive relation
More freezing degree days price increase
Standard errors are heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation-
consistent (HAC) SE’s – more on this later
But what is the effect of FDD over time?
6. 6
Dynamic Causal Effects
(SW Section 15.2)
Example: What is the effect of fertilizer on tomato yield?
An ideal randomized controlled experiment
Fertilize some plots, not others (random assignment)
Measure yield over time – over repeated harvests – to
estimate causal effect of fertilizer on:
Yield in year 1 of expt
Yield in year 2, etc.
The result (in a large expt) is the causal effect of fertilizer on
yield k years later.
7. 7
Dynamic causal effects, ctd.
In time series applications, we can’t conduct this ideal
randomized controlled experiment:
We only have one US OJ market ….
We can’t randomly assign FDD to different replicates of the
US OJ market (?)
We can’t measure the average (across “subjects”) outcome at
different times – only one “subject”
So we can’t estimate the causal effect at different times using
the differences estimator
8. 8
Dynamic causal effects, ctd.
An alternative thought experiment:
Randomly give the same subject different treatments (FDDt)
at different times
Measure the outcome variable (%ChgPt)
The “population” of subjects consists of the same subject (OJ
market) but at different dates
If the “different subjects” are drawn from the same
distribution – that is, if Yt, Xt are stationary – then the
dynamic causal effect can be deduced by OLS regression of
Yt on lagged values of Xt.
This estimator (regression of Yt on Xt and lags of Xt) s called
the distributed lag estimator.
9. 9
Dynamic causal effects and the
distributed lag model
The distributed lag model is:
Yt = 0 + 1Xt + … + rXt–r + ut
1 = impact effect of change in X = effect of change in Xt on
Yt, holding past Xt constant
2 = 1-period dynamic multiplier = effect of change in Xt–1 on
Yt, holding constant Xt, Xt–2, Xt–3,…
3 = 2-period dynamic multiplier (etc.)= effect of change in Xt–
2 on Yt, holding constant Xt, Xt–1, Xt–3,…
Cumulative dynamic multipliers
Ex: the 2-period cumulative dynamic multiplier
= 1 + 2 + 3
10. 10
Exogeneity in time series regression
Exogeneity (past and present)
X is exogenous if E(ut|Xt,Xt–1,Xt–2,…) = 0.
Strict Exogeneity (past, present, and future)
X is strictly exogenous if E(ut|…,Xt+1,Xt,Xt–1, …) = 0
Strict exogeneity implies exogeneity
For now we suppose that X is exogenous – we’ll return
(briefly) to the case of strict exogeneity later.
If X is exogenous, then we can use OLS to estimate the
dynamic causal effect on Y of a change in X….
11. 11
Estimation of Dynamic Causal Effects
with Exogenous Regressors
(SW Section 15.3)
Distributed Lag Model:
Yt = 0 + 1Xt + … + r+1Xt–r + ut
The Distributed Lag Model Assumptions
1. E(ut|Xt,Xt–1,Xt–2,…) = 0 (X is exogenous)
2. (a) Y and X have stationary distributions;
(b) (Yt,Xt) and (Yt–j,Xt–j) become independent as j
gets large
3. Y and X have eight nonzero finite moments
4. There is no perfect multicollinearity.
12. 12
The distributed lag model, ctd.
Assumptions 1 and 4 are familiar
Assumption 3 is familiar, except for 8 (not four) finite
moments – this has to do with HAC estimators
Assumption 2 is different – before it was (Xi, Yi) are i.i.d. – this
now becomes more complicated.
2. (a) Y and X have stationary distributions;
If so, the coefficients don’t change within the sample
(internal validity);
and the results can be extrapolated outside the sample
(external validity).
This is the time series counterpart of the “identically
distributed” part of i.i.d.
13. 13
The distributed lag model, ctd.
2. (b) (Yt,Xt) and (Yt–j, Xt–j) become independent as j
gets large
Intuitively, this says that we have separate experiments
for time periods that are widely separated.
In cross-sectional data, we assumed that Y and X were
i.i.d., a consequence of simple random sampling – this
led to the CLT.
A version of the CLT holds for time series variables that
become independent as their temporal separation
increases – assumption 2(b) is the time series
counterpart of the “independently distributed” part of
i.i.d.
14. 14
Under the Distributed Lag Model
Assumptions:
OLS yields consistent* estimators of 1, 2,…,r (of the
dynamic multipliers) (*consistent but possibly biased!)
The sampling distribution of 1
ˆ
, etc., is normal
BUT the formula for the variance of this sampling
distribution is not the usual one from cross-sectional (i.i.d.)
data, because ut is not i.i.d. – ut can be serially correlated!
This means that the usual OLS standard errors (usual STATA
printout) are wrong!
We need to use, instead, SEs that are robust to autocorrelation
as well as to heteroskedasticity…
15. 15
Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation-
Consistent (HAC) Standard Errors
(SW Section 15.4)
When ut is serially correlated, the variance of the sampling
distribution of the OLS estimator is different.
Consequently, we need to use a different formula for the
standard errors.
This is easy to do using STATA and most (but not all) other
statistical software.
We encountered this before in panel data – we solved the
problem using cluster(state).
The “cluster” approach required n > 1– so clustered
standard errors are only for panel data
in TS data, n = 1 so we need a different method…
16. 16
HAC standard errors, ctd.
Yt = 0 + 1Xt + ut
The OLS estimator: From SW, App. 4.3,
1
ˆ
– 1 = 1
2
1
1
( )
1
( )
T
t t
t
T
t
t
X X u
T
X X
T
1
2
1 T
t
t
X
v
T
(in large samples)
where vt = (Xt – X )ut.
17. 17
HAC standard errors, ctd.
Thus, in large samples,
var( 1
ˆ
) =
1
1
var
T
t
t
v
T
/ 2 2
( )
X
= 2
1 1
1
cov( , )
T T
t s
t s
v v
T
/ 2 2
( )
X
(still SW App. 4.3)
In i.i.d. cross sectional data, cov(vt, vs) = 0 for t s, so
var( 1
ˆ
) = 2
1
1
var( )
T
t
t
v
T
)/ 2 2
( )
X
=
2
2 2
( )
v
x
T
This is our usual cross-sectional result (SW App. 4.3).
18. 18
HAC standard errors, ctd.
But in time series data, cov(vt, vs) 0 in general.
Consider T = 2:
1
1
var
T
t
t
v
T
= var[½(v1+v2)]
= ¼[var(v1) + var(v2) + 2cov(v1,v2)]
= ½ 2
v
+ ½1
2
v
(1 = corr(v1,v2))
= ½ 2
v
f2, where f2 = (1+1)
In i.i.d. data, 1 = 0 so f2 = 1, yielding the usual formula
In time series data, if 1 0 then var( 1
ˆ
) is not given by the
usual formula.
19. 19
Expression for var(), general T
1
1
var
T
t
t
v
T
=
2
v
T
fT
so var( 1
ˆ
) =
2
2 2
1
( )
v
X
T
fT
where
fT =
1
1
1 2
T
j
j
T j
T
(SW, eq. (15.13))
Conventional OLS SE’s are wrong when ut is serially
correlated (STATA printout is wrong).
The OLS SEs are off by the factor fT
We need to use a different SE formula!!!
20. 20
HAC Standard Errors
Conventional OLS SEs (heteroskedasticity-robust or not) are
wrong when ut is autocorrelated
So, we need a new formula that produces SEs that are robust to
autocorrelation as well as heteroskedasticity
We need Heteroskedasticity- and Autocorrelation-
Consistent (HAC) standard errors
If we knew the factor fT, we could just make the adjustment.
In panel data, the factor fT is (implicitly) estimated by
using “cluster” – but “cluster” requires n large.
In time series data, we need a different formula – we must
estimate fT explicitly
21. 21
HAC SEs, ctd.
var( 1
ˆ
) =
2
2 2
1
( )
v
X
T
fT , where fT =
1
1
1 2
T
j
j
T j
T
The most commonly used estimator of fT is:
ˆ
T
f =
1
1
1 2
m
j
j
m j
m
(Newey-West)
j
is an estimator of j
This is the “Newey-West” HAC SE estimator
m is called the truncation parameter
Why not just set m = T?
Then how should you choose m?
Use the Goldilocks method
Or, use the rule of thumb, m = 0.75T1/3
22. 22
Example: OJ and HAC estimators in
STATA
. gen l0fdd = fdd; generate lag #0
. gen l1fdd = L1.fdd; generate lag #1
. gen l2fdd = L2.fdd; generate lag #2
. gen l3fdd = L3.fdd; .
. gen l4fdd = L4.fdd; .
. gen l5fdd = L5.fdd; .
. gen l6fdd = L6.fdd;
. reg dlpoj fdd if tin(1950m1,2000m12), r; NOT HAC SEs
Linear regression Number of obs = 612
F( 1, 610) = 12.12
Prob > F = 0.0005
R-squared = 0.0937
Root MSE = 4.8261
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Robust
dlpoj | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
fdd | .4662182 .1339293 3.48 0.001 .2031998 .7292367
_cons | -.4022562 .1893712 -2.12 0.034 -.7741549 -.0303575
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. 23
Example: OJ and HAC estimators in
STATA, ctd
Rerun this regression, but with Newey-West SEs:
. newey dlpoj fdd if tin(1950m1,2000m12), lag(7);
Regression with Newey-West standard errors Number of obs = 612
maximum lag: 7 F( 1, 610) = 12.23
Prob > F = 0.0005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Newey-West
dlpoj | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
fdd | .4662182 .1333142 3.50 0.001 .2044077 .7280288
_cons | -.4022562 .2159802 -1.86 0.063 -.8264112 .0218987
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uses autocorrelations up to m = 7 to compute the SEs
rule-of-thumb: 0.75*(6121/3
) = 6.4 7, rounded up a little.
OK, in this case the difference in SEs is small, but not always so!
24. 24
Example: OJ and HAC estimators in
STATA, ctd.
. global lfdd6 "fdd l1fdd l2fdd l3fdd l4fdd l5fdd l6fdd";
. newey dlpoj $lfdd6 if tin(1950m1,2000m12), lag(7);
Regression with Newey-West standard errors Number of obs = 612
maximum lag : 7 F( 7, 604) = 3.56
Prob > F = 0.0009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Newey-West
dlpoj | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
fdd | .4693121 .1359686 3.45 0.001 .2022834 .7363407
l1fdd | .1430512 .0837047 1.71 0.088 -.0213364 .3074388
l2fdd | .0564234 .0561724 1.00 0.316 -.0538936 .1667404
l3fdd | .0722595 .0468776 1.54 0.124 -.0198033 .1643223
l4fdd | .0343244 .0295141 1.16 0.245 -.0236383 .0922871
l5fdd | .0468222 .0308791 1.52 0.130 -.0138212 .1074657
l6fdd | .0481115 .0446404 1.08 0.282 -.0395577 .1357807
_cons | -.6505183 .2336986 -2.78 0.006 -1.109479 -.1915578
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
global lfdd6 defines a string which is all the additional lags
What are the estimated dynamic multipliers (dynamic effects)?
25. 25
FAQ: Do I need to use HAC SEs when I
estimate an AR or an ADL model?
A: NO.
The problem to which HAC SEs are the solution only arises
when ut is serially correlated: if ut is serially uncorrelated, then
OLS SE’s are fine
In AR and ADL models, the errors are serially uncorrelated if
you have included enough lags of Y
If you include enough lags of Y, then the error term can’t
be predicted using past Y, or equivalently by past u – so u
is serially uncorrelated
26. 26
Estimation of Dynamic Causal Effects
with Strictly Exogenous Regressors
(SW Section 15.5)
X is strictly exogenous if E(ut|…,Xt+1,Xt,Xt–1, …) = 0
If X is strictly exogenous, there are more efficient ways to
estimate dynamic causal effects than by a distributed lag
regression:
Generalized Least Squares (GLS) estimation
Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ADL) estimation
But the condition of strict exogeneity is very strong, so this
condition is rarely plausible in practice – not even in the
weather/OJ example (why?).
So we won’t cover GLS or ADL estimation of dynamic
causal effects – for details, see SW
27. 27
Analysis of the OJ Price Data
(SW Section 15.6)
What is the dynamic causal effect (what are the dynamic
multipliers) of a unit increase in FDD on OJ prices?
%ChgPt = 0 + 1FDDt + … + r+1FDDt–r + ut
What r to use?
How about 18? (Goldilocks method)
What m (Newey-West truncation parameter) to use?
m = .75 6121/3
= 6.4 7
28. 28
Digression: Computation of cumulative
multipliers and their standard errors
The cumulative multipliers can be computed by estimating the
distributed lag model, then adding up the coefficients. However,
you should also compute standard errors for the cumulative
multipliers and while this can be done directly from the
distributed lag model it requires some modifications.
One easy way to compute cumulative multipliers and standard
errors of cumulative multipliers is to realize that cumulative
multipliers are linear combinations of regression coefficients –
so the methods of Section 7.3 can be applied to compute their
standard errors.
29. 29
Computing cumulative multipliers,
ctd.
The trick of Section 7.3 is to rewrite the regression so that the
coefficients in the rewritten regression are the coefficients of
interest – here, the cumulative multipliers.
Example: Rewrite the distributed lag model with 1 lag:
Yt = 0 + 1Xt + 2Xt–1 + ut
= 0 + 1Xt – 1Xt–1 + 1Xt–1 + 2Xt–1 + ut
= 0 + 1(Xt –Xt–1) + (1 + 2)Xt–1 + ut
or
Yt = 0 + 1Xt + (1+2) Xt–1 + ut
30. 30
Computing cumulative multipliers,
ctd.
So, let W1t = Xt and W2t = Xt–1 and estimate the regression,
Yt = 0 + 1 W1t + 2W2t + ui
Then
1 = 1 = impact effect
2 = 1 + 2 = the first cumulative multiplier
and the (HAC) standard errors on 1 and 2 are the standard
errors for the two cumulative multipliers.
31. 31
Computing cumulative multipliers,
ctd.
In general, the ADL model can be rewritten as,
Yt = 0 + 1Xt + 2Xt–1 + … + q–1Xt–q+1 + qXt–q + ut
where
1 = 1
2 = 1 + 2
3 = 1 + 2 + 3
…
q = 1 + 2 + … + q
Cumulative multipliers and their HAC SEs can be computed
directly using this transformed regression
35. 35
Are the OJ dynamic effects stable?
Recall from Section 14.7 that we can test for stability of time
series regression coefficients using the QLR statistic. So, we can
compute QLR for regression (1) in Table 15.1:
Do you need HAC SEs? Why or why not?
How specifically would you compute the Chow statistic?
How would you compute the QLR statistic?
What are the d.f. q of the Chow and QLR statistics?
Result: QLR = 21.19.
Is this significant? (see Table 14.6)
At what significance level?
How to interpret the result substantively? Estimate the
dynamic multipliers on subsamples and see how they have
changed over time…
38. 38
When Can You Estimate Dynamic
Causal Effects? That is, When is
Exogeneity Plausible? (SW Section 15.7)
If X is exogenous (and assumptions #2-4 hold), then a distributed
lag model provides consistent estimators of dynamic causal
effects.
As in multiple regression with cross-sectional data, you must
think critically about whether X is exogenous in any application:
is X exogenous, i.e. E(ut|Xt,Xt–1, …) = 0?
is X strictly exogenous, i.e. E(ut|…,Xt+1,Xt,Xt–1, …) = 0?
39. 39
Is exogeneity (or strict exogeneity)
plausible? Examples:
1. Y = OJ prices, X = FDD in Orlando
2. Y = Australian exports, X = US GDP (effect of US income on
demand for Australian exports)
3. Y = EU exports, X = US GDP (effect of US income on
demand for EU exports)
4. Y = US rate of inflation, X = percentage change in world oil
prices (as set by OPEC) (effect of OPEC oil price increase on
inflation)
5. Y = GDP growth, X =Federal Funds rate (the effect of
monetary policy on output growth)
6. Y = change in the rate of inflation, X = unemployment rate on
inflation (the Phillips curve)
40. 40
Exogeneity, ctd.
You must evaluate exogeneity and strict exogeneity on a case
by case basis
Exogeneity is often not plausible in time series data because
of simultaneous causality
Strict exogeneity is rarely plausible in time series data
because of feedback.
41. 41
Estimation of Dynamic Causal
Effects: Summary (SW Section 15.8)
Dynamic causal effects are measurable in theory using a
randomized controlled experiment with repeated
measurements over time.
When X is exogenous, you can estimate dynamic causal
effects using a distributed lag regression
If u is serially correlated, conventional OLS SEs are
incorrect; you must use HAC SEs
To decide whether X is exogenous, think hard!
![18
HAC standard errors, ctd.
But in time series data, cov(vt, vs) 0 in general.
Consider T = 2:
1
1
var
T
t
t
v
T
= var[½(v1+v2)]
= ¼[var(v1) + var(v2) + 2cov(v1,v2)]
= ½ 2
v
+ ½1
2
v
(1 = corr(v1,v2))
= ½ 2
v
f2, where f2 = (1+1)
In i.i.d. data, 1 = 0 so f2 = 1, yielding the usual formula
In time series data, if 1 0 then var( 1
ˆ
) is not given by the
usual formula.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ch15-250315132430-dd5f19b5/85/Estimation-of-Dynamic-Causal-Effects-Introduction-to-Economics-18-320.jpg)
![22
Example: OJ and HAC estimators in
STATA
. gen l0fdd = fdd; generate lag #0
. gen l1fdd = L1.fdd; generate lag #1
. gen l2fdd = L2.fdd; generate lag #2
. gen l3fdd = L3.fdd; .
. gen l4fdd = L4.fdd; .
. gen l5fdd = L5.fdd; .
. gen l6fdd = L6.fdd;
. reg dlpoj fdd if tin(1950m1,2000m12), r; NOT HAC SEs
Linear regression Number of obs = 612
F( 1, 610) = 12.12
Prob > F = 0.0005
R-squared = 0.0937
Root MSE = 4.8261
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Robust
dlpoj | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
fdd | .4662182 .1339293 3.48 0.001 .2031998 .7292367
_cons | -.4022562 .1893712 -2.12 0.034 -.7741549 -.0303575
------------------------------------------------------------------------------](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ch15-250315132430-dd5f19b5/85/Estimation-of-Dynamic-Causal-Effects-Introduction-to-Economics-22-320.jpg)
![23
Example: OJ and HAC estimators in
STATA, ctd
Rerun this regression, but with Newey-West SEs:
. newey dlpoj fdd if tin(1950m1,2000m12), lag(7);
Regression with Newey-West standard errors Number of obs = 612
maximum lag: 7 F( 1, 610) = 12.23
Prob > F = 0.0005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Newey-West
dlpoj | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
fdd | .4662182 .1333142 3.50 0.001 .2044077 .7280288
_cons | -.4022562 .2159802 -1.86 0.063 -.8264112 .0218987
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uses autocorrelations up to m = 7 to compute the SEs
rule-of-thumb: 0.75*(6121/3
) = 6.4 7, rounded up a little.
OK, in this case the difference in SEs is small, but not always so!](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ch15-250315132430-dd5f19b5/85/Estimation-of-Dynamic-Causal-Effects-Introduction-to-Economics-23-320.jpg)
![24
Example: OJ and HAC estimators in
STATA, ctd.
. global lfdd6 "fdd l1fdd l2fdd l3fdd l4fdd l5fdd l6fdd";
. newey dlpoj $lfdd6 if tin(1950m1,2000m12), lag(7);
Regression with Newey-West standard errors Number of obs = 612
maximum lag : 7 F( 7, 604) = 3.56
Prob > F = 0.0009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Newey-West
dlpoj | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
fdd | .4693121 .1359686 3.45 0.001 .2022834 .7363407
l1fdd | .1430512 .0837047 1.71 0.088 -.0213364 .3074388
l2fdd | .0564234 .0561724 1.00 0.316 -.0538936 .1667404
l3fdd | .0722595 .0468776 1.54 0.124 -.0198033 .1643223
l4fdd | .0343244 .0295141 1.16 0.245 -.0236383 .0922871
l5fdd | .0468222 .0308791 1.52 0.130 -.0138212 .1074657
l6fdd | .0481115 .0446404 1.08 0.282 -.0395577 .1357807
_cons | -.6505183 .2336986 -2.78 0.006 -1.109479 -.1915578
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
global lfdd6 defines a string which is all the additional lags
What are the estimated dynamic multipliers (dynamic effects)?](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ch15-250315132430-dd5f19b5/85/Estimation-of-Dynamic-Causal-Effects-Introduction-to-Economics-24-320.jpg)
