Within and between Estimates in Random-Effects Models: Advantages and Drawbacks of Correlated Random Effects and Hybrid Models

442 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Do investors in Green Bond market pay a premium? Global evidence (2019, methodology): “This disadvantage can be overcome by employing the hybrid model (Allison 2009) as in Equation (5). yit ¼ αþ β1 xit xið Þ þ β2ci þ β3xi þ μi þ it (5) In deriving Equation (5), level 1 variables are decomposed into between ðxi ¼ n 1i Pni t¼1 xit) and cluster xit xið Þ components (Schunck 2013).”
Interactions in Fixed Effects Regression Models (2020, methodology): “Applied Examples In the introduction, we referred to several studies that use standard FE to test interactions of time-varying variables (Abendroth et al. 2014; Killewald and Gough 2013; Kühhirt 2012; Oesch and Lipps 2013; Schofer and Longhofer 2011; Schunck 2013).”
Adaptation to land constraints: Is Africa different? (2014, methodology): “A panel technique that still permits time-invariant variables, whilst still producing (potentially) unbiased within-cluster coefficients, is the correlated random effects model (see Schunck (2013) for a good description of this model in comparison to related panel models).”
The pricing of green bonds: external reviews and the shades of green (2020, unknown): “The estimate of the within-effects 1 is unbiased, regardless whether ui is correlated with ΔLit (Schunck 2013; Bell and Jones 2015).”