Cluster standard errors stata
![cluster standard errors stata cluster standard errors stata](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/af3d53_b27de8a39e5641b9a22a63a497131a51~mv2_d_2660_2660_s_4_2.png)
Great - standard errors get bigger, problem solved, right? To deal with this problem, we generally cluster our standard errors. Thanks to a super influential paper, Bertrand, Duflo, and Mullainathan (2004), whenever applied microeconometricians like me have multiple observations per individual, we're terrified that OLS standard errors will be biased towards zero. Watch out - things are about to get a little bit technical.
#Cluster standard errors stata software#
Or, rather, Stata who don't know exactly what their fancy software is doing. It's hard to publish or get a job with results that aren't statistically significant, so if a simple test of a main hypothesis doesn't come up with stars, chances are that project ends up tabled (cabineted? drawered and quartered?).īut what if too many papers are ending up in the file drawer? Let's set aside broader issues surrounding publishing statistically insignificant results - it turns out that Stata* might be contributing to our file drawer problem. I suspect that lots of projects die as a result of t < 1.96.
![cluster standard errors stata cluster standard errors stata](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Kfv83B4DnwQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
Are the papers that end up in journals just the lucky 5%? Do green jelly beans really cause cancer if a journal tells me so?! Killing projects without telling anybody about it is bad for science - both because it likely leads to duplicate work, and because it makes it hard to know how much we should trust published findings.
![cluster standard errors stata cluster standard errors stata](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/b93zY8MjQSQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
We've all got one - a "file drawer" of project ideas that we got a little way into and abandoned, never to see the light of day.