Finishing the Job
After a couple of (more) weeks of struggle I finalized my second ASP paper with a bang, this being that I used some LaTeX to type it in. Regardless of the fact that I am a novice in that and I couldn't find the perfect shell for my taste, the paper looks great and I am pleased also by the content:))..In this one, I compare the contribution of embodied versus disembodied spillovers of knowledge from abroad on transitional countries from Central and Eastern Europe, as well as former Soviet states from Central Asia. The results reveal trade (in intermediate and in direct technology purchases) to be the most important channel, while foreign direct investment and patenting are significant carriers of technology but with lesser impacts.

Off to publication: Where? Why?

I guess is hard to know when exactly is your paper ready to take a life of its own into the pages of a journal. Moreover, which journal and how to optimize your submission. These are pretty tough questions, one needs to answer on its own. What I personally did to try in figuring out which journal to target is to answer to the questions below and then fine-tune your search accordingly:
1. What kind of CONTRIBUTION you make (theory/empirics) (major/minor) etc?
2. What is the TOP JOURNAL for your field?
3. Where do most of your references come from?
4. Decide between "diversify" or stick with your "pack" of the literature?
5. Inter-temporal trade-offs: Do you have 1-2 years to publish in a top 20 journal or you need a publication faster?
6. Ask people around (although you may easily get "no convergence" between answers and even a huge dispersion, pending on the other person's background, preferences, abilities and aim).
Good luck!

Back Again

I started working on a second ASP working paper which due to time constraints will be shorter and probably more theoretical. The point would be to criticize & improve the existing weighting schemes used in the literature, and empirically, to explore direct technology diffusion via patenting. However, the patenting data is quite bad thus, I am a bit dissapointed since I will have to put in about 50 hrs of work just for the data. And that's not nice if nothing worthwhile comes out, especially since it is not one's fault.

First time - always special

I finally made today the big step of sending a paper for publication. Indeed, it is a big step, especially if one finds him/herself alone in this process, which is highly bureaucratic (at least from all the guidelines et al. - we still have to check that in practice -) and demanding. After revising your paper for a couple of good times and presenting it in various conferences, there is no way back. At least for me. I felt like I need to do it now. Especially, if one thinks about the lag between submission and actual publication. We are young...but maybe not that eager to wait. March the 7th, hopefully under a good sign. And a good journal (Research Policy) which has drawn me from the start and is exactly representative for this field.

There is nothing like a bit of spam

Today I had to clean this blog of all comments, since I guess they were all spam. Anyways, it would be nice to have a tool that doesn't allow people to leave links in the comments section.

Revision for Submission

I started today to revise my first thesis essay. It is time for it to fly somewhere more official that on my hard drive. Moreover, I think I have reached the limits of the tiny dataset and problems associated with transitional countries. Finally, I opted for a FGLS estimator and included the 2007 patent data as well. With this occasion I have noticed two things: 1)how fast I have adapted and improved my writing style (I think my second paper is far better written and structured than the 1st) 2)how fast we forget things we've worked for ages.(it is really hard to get back into it and do it again, and do it better). However, somebody has to do it. Also it would be nice as an outcome a publication in a good journal over the next year. howgh!

Robustness is the buzzword

This last weekend I have spended all my time and energy to perform one more robustness check..the ultimate one that is. It just consists of re-doing all the spillover variables using a different weighting scheme. Initially, I have used the original Coe and Helpman (1995) ones. This time around the Lichtenberg and Van Pottelsberghe (1998) weights were applied to the international R&D stocks in order to tease out the spillovers arising via trade and FDI. With relief and pleasure one finds out that the results hold and are very similar. Triple stars around your estimates are always welcomed.

Another (the last) one bites the dust

The last course, that is. International Banking and Finance. Was not a great display of econometric skills (deh, that's the value of this literature just like in some strains of business administration) but at least it was a chill, thanks to the instructor: Dr. Degryse from KU Leuven and Tilburg. "Plenty" of time now to get to business and figure out a topic for the next paper and take care of a zillion other administrative stuff.

The next step: Powerpoint Presentation

After working hard on it, it is only natural that you get to present your creation in public. This week is just the ASP conference paper, but a good rehersal for things to come (e.g. the next DIMETIC session in Strasbourg). Anyways, I am (again) really pleased with both the content and the look of my presentation, which is really strange:))..knowing how peaky I am, but good overall.

Finally, I almost forgot. A friendly and funny reminder with what and how NOT to do a presentation. Enjoy!

An outside view of (these cynical) Economists

A nice article about it in NY Times

Endogenous growth course

This week the reason for taking on this ASP program will reveal itself to me. Innovation and Growth (taught by Dr. Zilibotti of University of Zurich)is basically what made me choose this program which overall it has a very good one anyways.

Akward Mobile office

For the last hours in the Budapest airport, I had to beat down the fatigue through work. It's a funny feeling though to work while hundreds of people pass you by. Loud music helps as always. Some future ideas and conference applications have been successfully born in the time spent here.

Finishing touch

Yes, I finally called it off. After a couple of robustness checks and sensitivity analysis, which in the end I have decided to not report even, due to the lack of space, I decided that is enough. Thus, I did a reading proof and attached the JEL codes to my abstract and my brand new paper is done. The result resembles me much like a Huf house, meaning exquisite, clean and robust, so I am quite excited about it and I will probably submit it somewhere before this summer.

Tweaks & tests on my first essay - revisions

The Breusch-Pagan Lagrange multiplier test for random effects tests if variances of groups are zero. The BP LM values reject the null only in the first and second model, suggesting that random effects should be used in these cases against an OLS estimator.
Using a likelihood-ratio test, homoskedasticity is rejected firmly in all models. Thus I take this into account by using White cross-sectional standard errors which are robust. Beyond this, serial correlation could be biasing the estimates so I use the test described by Wooldridge (2002) and implemented in Stata. However, the null of no serial correlation can be rejected at 5 percent significance lavels in all relevant models, proving that this is not an issue for these estimations.
To make sure that my regressions are not spurious, I perform the most common two panel unit root tests involving regressions on lagged difference: Levin Lin and Chu (2002) which assumes a cross-sectional common unit root and Im, Pesaran and Shin (2003) that allow for individual unit root processes across sections.

Satisfaction of a good job

I have just finished writing my paper last Friday. After a dog-week period when I worked around the clock to write it and do all the necessary analysis, the result looks promising and the paper very professional. In the end, I included various cointergration tests (e.g. Pedroni and Kao) plus all the relevant panel unit-root tests (Levin Liu and Chu, Breitung, Im Peshran and Shin, Breitung and Hadri). Eviews gives all that almost for free. Naturally, nobody knows the true spec so one includes everything (trend, itercept etc) and hopes for the best (I(1) that is). Happily for me it worked like a charm. On top of that, besides the usual OLS fixed effects model, I also managed to get some DOLS estimates which seem to outperform both OLS and FMOLS in small samples. So , everything looks good and healthy around here. Just need to finish the fine tunings and additions and send it to some journal.:)

Writing is the name of the game

I have started to write up the paper yesterday. Although I have bits and pieces already, it is not that easy to put them all together, and I would really like to avoid duplicative efforts. On the other hand, it's just a first draft (from not more, hopefully than two or three) so perfection should come second.

Updating...some older paper

I have started to update my previous paper analyzing patenting activities and determinants of national innovation systems in the transitional Eastern European space. Well, as always..the good the bad and the ugly features and issues are there. After all it is not like writing the whole paper again...but it takes a lot of time (too much) as well. So...I keep my fingers crossed

Forced Break from my Research

This week I cannot work almost anything since I have to attend and pass the course in Monetary Policy by Mr. Eichenbaum from NorthWestern, which is a funny/smart/etc teachers...but there is a problem: these huge macro models especially monetary ones are not my thing. at all. so, hopefully it will not be too painful.

Eviews 6 - Small is Beautiful

When I first ran anything on Eviews this Autumn I was quite skeptic about its true power. But when you think about it, this program knows an amazing amount of stuff for its size. And now with version 6 it gets even better (than Stata? - in some issues yes).

Not so small after its latest makeover it features some amazing new things, some of which are not available in Stata not even via the ssc channel.
See for yourself.

The things that got me jabbering was panel cointegration tests: of Pedroni (1999) up till now was the RATS's turf or Kao (2000) requiring Matlab or Gauss platforms.

Seems I was right about Stata10

Unfortunately, it looks like indeed Stata10 has some serious bugs. The thing that I hate the most is running a do file with multiple specs regressions and get an error in the middle of the program because one of the variables has magically dissapeared. Sometimes is a transformation var only which can be re-done manually from the command line, but when the base variable is gone...not much one can do but clear and reload the data. Perhaps a 9.2 downgrade is not that bad after all.
Other people had the same problems.