The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Transformation of Variables in Econometrics

  • Paul Zarembka
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1882

Abstract

Economic theory usually fails to describe the functional relationship between variables (the CES production function being an exception). In econometrics, implications of simplistic choice of functional form include the danger of misspecification and its attendant biases in assessing magnitudes of effects and statistical significance of results. It is safe to say that when functional form is specified in a restrictive manner a priori before estimation, most empirical results that have been debated in the professional literature would have had a modified, even opposite, conclusion if the functional relationship had not been restrictive (see Zarembka 1968, p. 509, for an illustration; also, Spitzer 1976).

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

Bibliography

  1. Amemiya, T., and J.L. Powell. 1981. A comparison of the Box–Cox maximum likelihood estimator and the non-linear two-stage least squares estimator. Journal of Econometrics 17: 351–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, J.J., and V.E. Kane. 1984. Application of the power-shift transformation. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 19: 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaylock, J.R., and D.M. Smallwood. 1982. Analysis of income and food expenditure distributions: A flexible approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 64: 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Box, G.E.P., and D.R. Cox. 1964. An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 26: 211–243.Google Scholar
  5. Draper, N.R., and D.R. Cox. 1969. On distributions and their transformation to normality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 31: 472–476.Google Scholar
  6. Gaudry, M.J.I., and M.G. Dagenais. 1979. Heteroskedasticity and the use of Box-Cox transformations. Economics Letters 2: 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lahiri, K., and D. Egy. 1981. Joint estimation and testing for functional form and heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 15: 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Savin, N.E., and K.J. White. 1978. Estimation and testing for functional form and autocorrelation. Journal of Econometrics 8: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schlesselman, J. 1971. Power families: a note on the Box and Cox transformation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 33: 307–311.Google Scholar
  10. Seaks, T.G., and S.K. Layson. 1983. Box–Cox estimation with standard econometric problems. Review of Economics and Statistics 65: 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Spitzer, J.J. 1976. The demand for money, the liquidity trap, and functional forms. International Economic Review 17: 220–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Spitzer, J.J. 1982a. A primer on Box–Cox estimation. Review of Economics and Statistics 64: 307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Spitzer, J.J. 1982b. A fast and efficient algorithm for the estimation of parameters in models with the Box–Cox transformation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 77: 760–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tse, Y.K. 1984. Testing for linear and log-linear regressions with heteroskedasticity. Economics Letters 16: 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zarembka, P. 1968. Functional form in the demand for money. Journal of the American Statistical Association 63: 502–511.Google Scholar
  16. Zarembka, P. 1974. Transformation of variables in econometrics. In Frontiers in econometrics, ed. P. Zarembka. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Zarembka
    • 1
  1. 1.