2
$\begingroup$

I'm experimenting with some data in R and I've found that though there is statistical significance between two variables, however their changes are not statistically significant.

I first ran a standard regression of revenue on price, adding a quadratic term to account for diminishing returns from increase in price. Giving us the formula:

$$y_{Revenue}=\beta_0+\beta_1Price+\beta_2Price^2$$

The results which were produced are:

> summary(lm(Wage~Price+I(Price^2)))

Call:
lm(formula = Wage ~ Price+ I(Price^2))

Residuals:
Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
-131.87  -87.77  -27.60   44.15  244.66 

Coefficients:
           Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)  -1.650e+03  2.645e+02  -6.238 5.44e-06 ***
Price         3.640e-01  3.640e-02   9.999 5.28e-09 ***
I(Price^2)   -1.026e-05  1.129e-06  -9.086 2.41e-08 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 116.9 on 19 degrees of freedom
  (7 observations deleted due to missingness)
Multiple R-squared:  0.8816,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.8691 
F-statistic: 70.72 on 2 and 19 DF,  p-value: 1.577e-09

The second regression I ran was a regression of the change in revenue on change in price. Giving the formula: $$\Delta y_{Revenue}=\alpha_0+\alpha_1 \Delta Price+\alpha_2 \Delta Price^2$$

Call:
lm(formula = diff(Revenue) ~ diff(Price) + diff(I(Price^2)))

Residuals:
   Min     1Q Median     3Q    Max 
-82.52 -42.55 -11.98  19.20 142.36 

Coefficients:
                     Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)   
(Intercept)         5.093e+01  2.649e+01   1.923  0.07046 . 
diff(Price)         1.343e-01  7.165e-02   1.874  0.07727 . 
diff(I(Price^2))   -4.987e-06  1.691e-06  -2.950  0.00857 **
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 62.29 on 18 degrees of freedom
  (7 observations deleted due to missingness)
Multiple R-squared:  0.4521,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.3912 
F-statistic: 7.426 on 2 and 18 DF,  p-value: 0.004449

Why do these variables lose their degree of statistical significance while in the regular regression they are significant on the 1% level and how do you interpret such results economically?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Spurious regression (relationship, correlation)? $\endgroup$ – Richard Hardy Aug 3 '17 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ @RichardHardy Honestly just messing around with the data. Im interested as to why change in these variables aren't as statistically significant when their actual state is significant on the 1% level. $\endgroup$ – EconJohn Aug 3 '17 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ @RichardHardy so you think it means nothing? $\endgroup$ – EconJohn Aug 3 '17 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ This was just an idea what could be going on. I cannot see whether your time series are integrated, but if they are, then this could be the case. $\endgroup$ – Richard Hardy Aug 4 '17 at 5:19
3
$\begingroup$

If the levels specification is deemed acceptable,

$$y_t = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_t + \beta_2 x_t^2$$

then it follows that the first-difference specification should not include a constant term in order to be methodologically consistent,

$$\Delta y_t = \beta_1\Delta x_t + \beta_2\Delta x_t^2$$

since $\Delta \beta_0 = \beta_0 -\beta_0 = 0$.

I suggest you run the specification of first-differences without intercept and see what happens.

Note: the slope coefficient estimates you should obtain in the first-difference specification without intercept should be close to the corresponding estimates you obtained in the levels-estimation. Otherwise, the maintained hypothesis of constant slope coefficients becomes questionable, or the model has other misspecification issues.

(this is not to be confused with the case where we run a regression without constant term but with the dependent variable and the regressors centered on their sample means -there we would obtain the exact same slope estimates with the levels specification that includes a constant term, as a matter of algebraic property of least-squares estimation).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is there an interpretation of such a regression? $\endgroup$ – EconJohn Aug 4 '17 at 15:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @EconJohn The first-difference you mean? $\endgroup$ – Alecos Papadopoulos Aug 4 '17 at 17:14
  • $\begingroup$ My bad I just looked up the terminology. I didn't know i was getting my feet wet in panel data methods. Thank you! $\endgroup$ – EconJohn Aug 4 '17 at 18:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @EconJohn, first-difference is not panel data term (AFAIK), it is a time series term for transforming $x_t$ into $\Delta x_t:=x_t-x_{t-1}$. $\endgroup$ – Richard Hardy Aug 5 '17 at 12:42
2
$\begingroup$

Let's explore this with a simple example. In the table below, the first 4 columns calculate $Y$ from $P$ using the model:

$$Y = \beta_0 + \beta_1P$$

with $\beta_0=5$ and $\beta_1=2$ (in the interests of simplicity there is no $P^2$ term).

enter image description here

Because of the way the $Y$-values have been calculated, $Y$ and $P$ are perfectly correlated, and a regression of $Y$ on a constant and $P$ estimates $\beta_1$ as exactly 2, with standard error zero.

Now we introduce greater realism by adding some random disturbances. The column headed $RND$ contains random numbers within the range $(-10,10)$, and $YRAND = Y + RND$. A regression of $YRAND$ on a constant and $P$ estimates $\beta_1$ as 1.85 with a standard error of 0.46 and p-value 0.004, ie significantly different from zero at even the 1% level.

Suppose now that we focus on the changes in variables shown in the last 3 columns of the above table. A regression of $\Delta Y$ on $\Delta P$ with, as Alecos Papadopoulos explains in his answer, no constant term, again estimates $\beta_1$ as exactly 2, with standard error zero.

So will the regression of $\Delta YRAND$ on $\Delta P$ yield the same results for $\beta_1$ as that of $YRAND$ on $P$? No, because the effect of the random disturbances on changes in $Y$ is much greater, proportionally, than their effect on the absolute values of $Y$. In fact, this regression estimates $\beta_1$ as 3.12, with a standard error of 2.31 and a p-value of 0.21, ie not significantly different from zero at the 5% significance level.

So a likely interpretation of the results is simply that this is normal behaviour when there is a degree of random variation in the dependent variable.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This explanation is excellent. Really like how you simulated a data set also. Thank you! $\endgroup$ – EconJohn Aug 4 '17 at 21:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.