Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Dynamic Spatial Interaction Models for a Resource Allocator's Decisions and Local Agents' Multiple Activities

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims a dynamic grant-allocation game between a benevolent federal allocator and states has a unique Markov perfect equilibrium, and that the equilibrium justifies a QML estimator of payoff parameters.

desk verdict A genuinely new structural model of endogenous federal grants in a dynamic spatial panel, but the empirical section never checks the paper's own uniqueness conditions, so the headline counterfactual is not yet fully supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13810 v2 pith:XYRB6D7L submitted 2024-11-21 econ.EM

Hanbat Jeong This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.EM MSC 91B7291A2562P20
keywords NetworkinteractionswithhierarchyResponsiveinterventionMultipleactivitiesSpatialdynamicpanelsimultaneousequationsQuasi-maximumlikelihoodestimationMarkovperfectNashequilibriumFederalgrantsStateexpenditurespillovers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper builds a dynamic spatial model of a central resource allocator—here, the U.S. federal government—that hands grants to local agents, the states, who spend the money on two activities: public welfare and housing/community development. The author's aim is to show that the allocator and the states can be described as playing a dynamic Stackelberg game whose linear-quadratic payoff structure yields a unique Markov perfect Nash equilibrium, and that this equilibrium supplies valid econometric estimating equations. On that basis the paper proposes a quasi-maximum likelihood estimator and proves its consistency and asymptotic normality. The empirical payoff is a set of concrete claims: federal grants raise both types of state spending, state spending spills across borders, and the two spending activities are complements within a state. The paper further claims that replacing automatic federal transfers with a responsive grant rule raises the welfare of the allocator by 7.27 percent.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the linear-quadratic payoff specification in Eqs. (1) and (5), combined with the two-stage dynamic Stackelberg timing. Local agent $i$'s payoff is linear in own activities times characteristics, grants, and neighbors' lagged and contemporaneous activities, minus quadratic adjustment and activity-level costs; the allocator's payoff is the sum of local payoffs plus an autonomous-transfer term minus quadratic grant costs. Under the equilibrium conditions $\mathcal{M} = \mathcal{I} \cap \mathcal{S}$—spectral norms of $T_{1:n}$ and $T_0$ below 1 for invertibility, and of $A_{1:n}$ and $A_0$ below 1 for stability—the value functions are linear-quadratic and the equilibrium decisions satisfy the system in Eq. (11): a structural VAR with a zero block that excludes contemporaneous feedback from activities to grants. This system is the estimating equation, and the QML estimator maximizes the concentrated Gaussian log-likelihood built from it.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to take the estimated model's predicted marginal effects—about $23–28 of public welfare spending and $0.05–0.14 of housing/community development spending per $1,000 of federal grant per capita—and compare them with reduced-form estimates from an exogenous grant shock using the same states and years; if the reduced-form effects fall outside the model's confidence intervals, the linear-quadratic equilibrium model is rejected. A second check is to verify the estimated parameters satisfy the uniqueness inequalities $\lVert T_{1:n}\rVert<1$, $\lVert T_0\rVert<1$, $\lVert A_{1:n}\rVert<1$, and $\lVert A_0\rVert<1$; violation would mean the equilibrium used for estimation is not the unique one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an equilibrium-econometric bridge: a two-stage, infinite-horizon game in which a benevolent allocator chooses grants first and forward-looking local agents then choose multiple activities has a unique Markov perfect Nash equilibrium whenever the spatial-dynamic influence matrices satisfy an invertibility condition and a stability condition. Because payoffs are linear-quadratic, the equilibrium value functions solve Riccati and Lyapunov equations, and the equilibrium decisions collapse to a structural vector autoregression that extends spatial dynamic panel simultaneous equations with an extra endogenous 'allocator intervention' variable. Identification follows from the exclusion restriction that grants affect activities but not vice versa within a period, plus variation in observed characteristics. The estimated model for 48 U.S. states over 1992–2018 finds positive effects of federal grants on both public welfare and housing/community development spending, significant interstate spillovers, and complementarity between the two activities. Counterfactual simulations show that a responsive grant scheme increases per-capita public welfare spending by $67.17 and housing/community development spending by $1.21 and raises allocator welfare by 7.27 percent, while a variance decomposition attributes 94.93 percent of grant variation to autonomous transfers and only 1.24 percent to responsive components.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every payoff is linear-quadratic, so that optimal activities are linear in grants, neighbors' actions, and characteristics; if the true payoffs deviate nonlinearly, the paper's own sensitivity analysis shows equilibrium activities can depart by up to roughly 15 percent, and the estimated grant effects and 7.27 percent welfare gain are not guaranteed to match the true counterfactual.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, federal grants are not exogenous to state spending: they are chosen by a forward-looking allocator, so reduced-form estimates that treat grants as exogenous are misspecified.
  • State public welfare spending exhibits positive spillovers to neighboring states' welfare spending, while housing/community development spending is a strategic substitute across neighbors.
  • Replacing autonomous transfers with grants that respond to state decisions raises per-capita public welfare spending by about $67 and housing/community development spending by about $1, and improves allocator welfare by 7.27 percent.
  • The estimated dominance of autonomous transfers (94.93 percent of grant variation) implies the federal government's current ability to correct interstate spillovers through grants is structurally limited.
  • The bias-corrected QML estimator performs reasonably in finite samples at the application's sample size, with coverage probabilities close to nominal levels after correction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same allocator–agent structure could be applied to other hierarchies—for example, a national government allocating funds to regions for infrastructure and social programs, or a headquarters allocating budgets to divisions—whenever the lower level has multiple observable activities.
  • Because the linear-quadratic payoff is an approximation rather than a proven truth, a natural extension is to estimate a semi-parametric or non-LQ payoff version and test whether the 7.27 percent welfare gain survives.
  • One could test the model's external validity by comparing its predicted marginal effects of grants with natural-experiment estimates from the public finance literature; large discrepancies would suggest the LQ and Markov-perfect-equilibrium structure misses important margins.
  • The variance decomposition suggests a policy experiment: increase the share of formula-based, state-decision-responsive grants and check whether the welfare gain exceeds 7.27 percent; the model predicts the direction but not the magnitude of such a redesign.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a dynamic spatial interaction model in which a benevolent resource allocator (the federal government) chooses grants to local agents (U.S. states) that then choose multiple activities (public welfare and housing/community development expenditures). Payoffs are linear-quadratic, so the Markov perfect Nash equilibrium is characterized by linear decision rules. The paper states sufficient conditions for a unique MPNE (the set M = I ∩ S), derives an estimating system that extends spatial dynamic panel simultaneous equations, proposes quasi-maximum likelihood estimation with consistency and asymptotic normality theorems, and reports Monte Carlo simulations. In the empirical application, the paper estimates the model using U.S. state data, finds positive effects of federal grants on both expenditures, evidence of spillovers and complementarity, and a counterfactual welfare gain of 7.27% from responsive intervention relative to autonomous transfers.

Significance. If the identification and uniqueness conditions are credible, the paper makes a useful structural extension of SDPSE models by providing explicit game-theoretic microfoundations and welfare-based counterfactuals. The paper clearly states the equilibrium conditions, provides a formal econometric framework, and includes Monte Carlo evidence, which are strengths. The empirical application addresses an important policy question about intergovernmental grants and state expenditure spillovers. However, the headline empirical claims currently rest on conditions that are not verified in the paper, and the counterfactual welfare figure is reported without uncertainty, so the contribution is not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3 and §6.2/Table 4] The estimated parameters in Table 4 are never checked against the sufficient conditions for Theorem 2.1, namely the four spectral inequalities defining M = I ∩ S: ∥T1:n∥2 < 1, ∥T0∥2 < 1, ∥A1:n∥2 < 1, and ∥A0∥2 < 1 (with explicit forms in Appendix B, Eqs. 23, 30, 21, 28). If any of these inequalities fails at the point estimates (or at other points in the parameter space over which the quasi-likelihood is maximized), the model may admit multiple equilibria or explosive dynamics. In that case, the concentrated quasi-likelihood (14) is not necessarily the likelihood of a unique MPNE, and the consistency proof in Theorem 4.1, which relies on uniform invertibility and stability in Assumption 4.5, does not apply. The paper should report the four norms at the estimated parameter vector and, ideally, verify that the optimization was restricted to the region M.
  2. [Appendix B and §6.3.2] The sensitivity analysis in Appendix B uses a simplified static two-stage game, not the dynamic game used for estimation, and the reported deviations at the maximal nonlinearity are not negligible: for Scenario 1 at ν = 1, dy(1) = 1.6393 relative to a mean activity of about 10.4993 (roughly 15.6%), and dg(1) = 0.4919. The text says these deviations are 'moderate' and that the LQ equilibrium 'closely approximate[s]' the non-LQ outcome, but the numbers support only a much more qualified statement. Because the 7.27% welfare gain is computed under the LQ specification, the paper should either extend the sensitivity analysis to the dynamic model or explicitly state that the counterfactual is conditional on the LQ payoff and discuss how nonlinearities of the magnitude reported could affect the welfare comparison.
  3. [§6.3.2/Table 5] The headline counterfactual results—∆PWE = $67.17, ∆HCDE = $1.21, and especially ∆Welfare = 7.27%—are reported without standard errors or confidence intervals, even though Section 3 states that the delta method can be used for equilibrium measures. Without uncertainty quantification, the reader cannot assess the statistical precision of the main empirical claim. The paper should report standard errors or bootstrap confidence intervals for the counterfactual quantities.
  4. [§4.3/Assumption 4.7] The identification argument rests on Assumption 4.7, which is a high-level sufficient condition rather than a condition derived from primitive restrictions on (θP, θE, δ, W). The intuitive explanation after equation (16) does not establish that the quadratic form in (16) is strictly positive for all (θP, β) ≠ (θP,0, β0), and condition (ii) is likewise stated as an assumption. Since Theorem 4.1 is a central theoretical claim, the paper should either prove primitive identification conditions for the LQ dynamic game or clearly delineate Assumption 4.7 as a maintained identifying assumption that is not verified in the application.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Theorem 2.1] In the statement of Theorem 2.1, 'M = I T S' should presumably be 'M = I ∩ S'; this typo is repeated in the surrounding text.
  2. [Abstract vs §6.3.1] The abstract reports that a $1,000 increase in state tax revenue per capita raises PWE by $61.28 and lowers HCDE by $2.96, and that $1,000 in federal grants raises PWE by $23.35 and HCDE by $0.05. Section 6.3.1 reports different numbers: a $58.10 direct increase in PWE, a $4.68 decrease in HCDE, and a $28.38 increase in PWE from grants with a $0.14 increase in HCDE. These discrepancies should be reconciled.
  3. [Table 3] The second panel of Table 3, 'STD of the two resources Level Level (demeaned)', is awkwardly formatted and the column headings are unclear; please restructure the table so that the level and demeaned standard deviations are clearly labeled.
  4. [§6.3.2] The table heading 'Scenario 1− ^Scenario 2' appears as a formatting artifact; the notation for the counterfactual differences should be made consistent and readable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the estimation and counterfactual machinery is internally derived from explicit LQ payoff assumptions; self-citations are peripheral.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 2.1 is proved in Appendix B from the LQ payoffs (Eqs. 1 and 5) and explicit spectral conditions (I and S), not imported from the author's prior work. The estimating system (11) is the unique MPNE outcome derived from those payoffs, and Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 are standard QML consistency and normality results resting on explicit Assumptions 4.1-4.9 and the Rothenberg information inequality; none of these assumptions define the target empirical claims in terms of themselves. The empirical findings (positive grant effects, spillovers, complementarity) are structural parameter estimates from the data, not renamed fitted quantities. The 7.27 percent welfare comparison is an in-sample counterfactual computed from the estimated model; although its sign is partly inherited from the assumed grant-benefit term (phi_l times g_i,t times y_i,t,l in Eq. 1) and the welfare definition (sum of payoffs in Eq. 5), the magnitude is a nonlinear function of the estimates and no equation reproduces a fitted parameter as a prediction. Self-citations (Jeong and Lee 2020, 2021, 2024) occur for normalization, endogenous-network caveats, and model-selection methodology, but none carries the load of Theorem 2.1 or the empirical claims. The skeptic's point that the estimated parameters are never checked against the set M = I intersect S is a correctness or robustness concern, not circularity: it means a sufficient condition is unverified, not that the argument reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities, but it postulates a benevolent allocator's payoff with an unobserved autonomous transfer factor. The estimation relies on the LQ payoff structure, linear Markov state dynamics, exogenous W, and high-level identification conditions. All substantive conclusions are conditional on these assumptions.

free parameters (9)
  • Lambda (contemporaneous spatial spillover matrix) = λ11=0.0483, λ21=0.0000, λ12=-0.2828, λ22=-0.1633
    Estimated by QML; measures contemporaneous peer effects across states and activities.
  • Rho (dynamic spatial spillover matrix) = ρ11=0.2779, ρ21=-0.0200, ρ12=0.0004, ρ22=0.0000
    Estimated by QML; measures lagged neighbor effects in the dynamic system.
  • P (dynamic adjustment cost matrix) = p11=0.0841, p12=-0.0854, p22=0.9580
    Estimated by QML; drives persistence of the two activities.
  • Psi off-diagonal (cross-activity cost) = -0.0963
    Estimated by QML; the diagonal of Psi is normalized to one for identification.
  • Phi (grant sensitivity vector) = ϕ1=0.0361, ϕ2=0.0086
    Estimated by QML; represents the marginal effect of grants on each activity in the payoff.
  • Pi (characteristics coefficient matrix) = π11=0.2096, π21=0.0010, π31=-0.0489, π41=-0.0062, π12=-0.8614, π22=-0.0050, π32=0.2962, π42=0.0493
    Estimated by QML; effects of tax revenue, income growth, population growth, and inequality growth on the two expenditures.
  • Beta (cyclical output in autonomous transfers) = 1.2436
    Estimated by QML; captures procyclicality of the autonomous transfer component of grants.
  • Sigma and sigma squared (variance parameters) = [Σ]11=0.0312, [Σ]12=-0.0680, [Σ]22=0.7354, σ2=0.0041
    Estimated by QML; disturbance covariance in the equilibrium system.
  • Delta (discount factor) = 0.9862
    Calibrated from a consumption Euler equation and the 10-year Treasury yield; not estimated inside the model but enters all value functions and counterfactuals.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption W is time-invariant, strictly exogenous, nonnegative, zero-diagonal, and row-normalized.
    Assumption 4.1 and Section 2.1; if W is endogenous or time-varying, estimates would be biased. The paper acknowledges this in footnote 4.
  • domain assumption Local agents' payoffs are linear-quadratic as in Eq. (1); the paper states this is the only feasible functional form for dynamic network models.
    Eq. (1) and Appendix B sensitivity analysis; all closed-form equilibrium and likelihood results depend on LQ payoffs.
  • domain assumption Observable characteristics Xt evolve as stable linear first-order Markov processes with spatial lags.
    Assumption 2.1, Eq. (3); needed for agents to form conditional expectations and for the value functions to be quadratic.
  • domain assumption Allocator's payoff is the unweighted sum of local payoffs plus an autonomous transfer term and a quadratic cost.
    Eq. (5); defines the social welfare measure and the grant rule. If the federal objective differs, the welfare counterfactual changes.
  • domain assumption Tau_t follows Assumption 2.2 with mean-zero cyclical components and independent errors.
    Assumption 2.2; enables time fixed effects and keeps grants positive in expectation.
  • domain assumption MPNE uniqueness holds when the contraction and stability conditions M = I ∩ S are satisfied.
    Theorem 2.1 requires ‖T1:n‖2<1, ‖T0‖2<1, ‖A1:n‖2<1, and ‖A0‖2<1; the parameter space is restricted to this set.
  • domain assumption P + Ψ is positive definite and diagonally dominant.
    Section 2.3 and Theorem 2.1; required for strict concavity and invertibility of the best-response system.
  • domain assumption Error terms are independent with bounded moments as in Assumption 4.2.
    Assumption 4.2 and the consistency and asymptotic normality theorems rely on these moment conditions.
  • domain assumption State governments maximize the utility of representative residents and the federal government maximizes the sum of state payoffs.
    Section 6.1; this interpretation converts estimated payoff parameters into policy spillovers and welfare statements.
  • domain assumption The true network W is among the five candidates, selected by Akaike weight.
    Section 6.2; the adjacency matrix receives model probability 0.65 and the similarity matrix 0.35, so the choice is not decisive.
invented entities (1)
  • Autonomous transfer factor tau_t
    purpose: Models allocator incentives to transfer resources that are unrelated to local agents' decisions; it becomes the fixed-effect component of grants.
    Introduced in Assumption 2.2 as an unobserved allocator payoff shifter. It has no falsifiable handle outside the model; its mean and variance are estimated from grant data. The paper's conclusion that 94.93 percent of grant variance is autonomous is conditional on this latent structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Spatial Interaction Models for a Resource Allocator's Decisions and Local Agents' Multiple Activities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XYRB6D7L

@misc{pith2026241113810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Spatial Interaction Models for a Resource Allocator's Decisions and Local Agents' Multiple Activities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XYRB6D7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13810}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a novel spatial interaction model to explore the decision-making processes of a resource allocator and local agents, with central and local governments serving as empirical representations. The model captures two key features: (i) resource allocations from the allocator to local agents and the resulting strategic interactions, and (ii) local agents' multiple activities and their interactions. We develop a network game for the micro-foundations of these processes. In this game, local agents engage in multiple activities, while the allocator distributes resources by monitoring the externalities arising from their interactions. The game's unique Nash equilibrium establishes our econometric framework. To estimate the agent payoff parameters, we employ the quasi-maximum likelihood (QML) estimation method and examine the asymptotic properties of the QML estimator to ensure robust statistical inference. Empirically, we study interactions among U.S. states in public welfare and housing and community development expenditures, focusing on how federal grants influence these expenditures and the interdependencies among state governments. Our findings reveal significant spillovers across the states' two expenditures. Additionally, we detect positive effects of federal grants on both types of expenditures, inducing a responsive grant scheme based on states' decisions. Last, we compare state expenditures and social welfare through counterfactual simulations under two scenarios: (i) responsive intervention by monitoring states' decisions and (ii) autonomous transfers. We find that responsive intervention enhances social welfare by leading to an increase in the states' two expenditures. However, due to the heavy reliance on autonomous transfers, the magnitude of these improvements remains relatively small compared to the share of federal grants in total state revenues.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13810 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Basic description Resource allocator Local agent 1 Local agent 2 g1,t g2,t Activity 1 (y1,t,1) Activity 2 (y1,t,2) Activity 1 (y2,t,1) Activity 2 (y2,t,2) We begin by introducing the notation and basic setup, which is briefly summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agrawal, D., Hoyt, W., and Wilson, J. (2022). Local policy choice: T heory and empirics. Journal of Economic Literature , 60:1378--1455

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov, B.N., Csáki, F., (eds.), 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory . Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest

    work page 1973

  3. [3]

    Amba, M., Mbratana, T., and Le Gallo, J. (2003). Spatial panel simultaneous equations models with error components. Empirical Economics , 65:1149–1196

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Baicker, K. (2005). The spillover effects of state spending. Journal of Public Economics , 89(2):529--544

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Ballester, C., Calv o -Armengol, C., and Zenou, Y. (2006). Who’s who in networks. wanted: the key player. Econometrica , 74:1403--1417

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    and Deng, Y

    Baltagi, B. and Deng, Y. (2015). EC 3 SLS estimator for a simultaneous system of spatial autoregressive equations with random effects. Econometric Reviews , 34:659--694

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Barro, R. (1990). Government spending in a simple model of endogeneous growth. Journal of Political Economy , 98:103--125

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    and Deroïan, F

    Belhaj, M. and Deroïan, F. (2014). Competing activities in social networks. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy , 14(4):1431--1466

    work page 2014

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    and Case, A

    Besley, T. and Case, A. (1995). Incumbent behavior: Vote-seeking, tax-setting, and yardstick competition. The American Economic Review , 85(1):25--45

    1995

  2. [10]

    Centrality measures in networks

    Bloch, F., Jackson, M., and Tebaldi (2023). Centrality measures in networks. Social Choice and Welfare , 61:413–453

    2023

  3. [11]

    Blume, L., Brock, W., Durlauf, S., and Jayaraman, R. (2015). Linear social interactions models. Journal of Political Economy , 123:444--496

    2015

  4. [12]

    Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: a family of measures. American Journal of Sociology , 92:1170--1182

    1987

  5. [13]

    Boucher, V. (2016). Conformism and self-selection in social networks. Journal of Public Economics , 136:30--44

    2016

  6. [14]

    Bramoull\' e , Y., Djebbari, H., and Fortin, B. (2009). Identification of peer effects through social networks. Journal of Econometrics , 150:41--55

    2009

  7. [15]

    Bramoull\' e , Y., Kranton, R., and D'Amours, M. (2014). Strategic interaction and networks. American Economic Review , 104:898–930

    2014

  8. [16]

    Brueckner, J. K. (2003). Strategic interaction among governments: an overview of empirical studies. International Regional Science Review , 26:175--188

    2003

  9. [17]

    Calv o -Armengol, C., Patacchini, E., and Zenou, Y. (2009). Peer effects and social networks in education. Review of Economic Studies , 76:1239--1267

    2009

  10. [18]

    Case, A., Rosen, H., and Hines, J. (1993). Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence: evidence from the states. Journal of Public economics , 52:285--307

    1993

  11. [19]

    Chen, Y.-J., Zenou, Y., and Zhou, J. (2018). Multiple activities in networks. Americal Economic Journal: Microeconomics , 10(3):34--85

    2018

  12. [20]

    Cliff, A. D. and Ord, J. (1995). Spatial Autocorrelation . Pion Ltd, London

    1995

  13. [21]

    Cohen-Cole, E., Liu, X., and Zenou, Y. (2017). Multivariate choices and identification of social interactions. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 33:165--178

    2017

  14. [22]

    DATTA, B. N. (2004). Numerical Methods for Linear Control Systems . Academic Press

    2004

  15. [23]

    de Paula, A., Rasul, I., and Souza, P. (2024). Identifying network ties from panel data: theory and an application to tax competition. Review of Economic Studies , Forthcoming

    2024

  16. [24]

    and Revelli, F

    Di Porto, E. and Revelli, F. (2013). Tax-limited reaction functions. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 28:823--839

    2013

  17. [25]

    Drukker, D., Egger, P., and Prucha, I. (2023). Simultaneous equations models with higher-order spatial or social network interactions. Econometric Theory , 39:1154--1201

    2023

  18. [26]

    Díaz, C., Patacchini, E., Verdier, T., and Zenou, Y. (2021). Leaders in juvenile crime. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 192:638--667

    2021

  19. [27]

    Elhorst, J., Gross, M., and Tereanu, E. (2021). Cross-sectional dependence and spillovers in space and time: where spatial econometrics and global VAR models meet. Journal of Economic Surveys , 35:192--226

    2021

  20. [28]

    Figlio, D., Kolpin, V., and Reid, W. (1999). Do states play welfare games? Journal of Urban Economics , 46:437--454

    1999

  21. [29]

    Frank, M. (2009). Inequality and growth in the U nited S tates: evidence from a new state-level panel of income inequality measures. Economic Inquiry , 47:55--68

    2009

  22. [30]

    G., and Patacchini, E

    Gibbons, S., Overman, H. G., and Patacchini, E. (2015). Chapter 3 - spatial methods. In Duranton, G., Henderson, J. V., and Strange, W. C., editors, Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics , volume 5 of Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics , pages 115--168. Elsevier

    2015

  23. [31]

    and Lee, L

    Han, X. and Lee, L. (2016). Bayesian analysis of spatial panel autoregressive models with time-varying endogenous spatial weight matrices, common factors, and random coefficients. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics , 34:642--660

    2016

  24. [32]

    and Zenou, Y

    Helsley, R. and Zenou, Y. (2014). Social networks and interactions in cities. Journal of Economic Theory , 150:426--466

    2014

  25. [33]

    Holmes, T. J. and Sieg, H. (2015). Chapter 2 - structural estimation in urban economics. In Duranton, G., Henderson, J. V., and Strange, W. C., editors, Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics , volume 5 of Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics , pages 69--114. Elsevier

    2015

  26. [34]

    and Lin, X

    Hsieh, C. and Lin, X. (2021). Social interactions and social preferences in social networks. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 36:165--189

    2021

  27. [35]

    and Zenou, Y

    Jackson, O. and Zenou, Y. (2015). Games on network , volume 4. Handbook of Game Theory, Elsevier, Amsterdam

    2015

  28. [36]

    and Lee, L

    Jeong, H. and Lee, L. (2020). Spatial dynamic models with intertemporal optimization: specification and estimation. Journal of Econometrics , 218:82--104

    2020

  29. [37]

    and Lee, L

    Jeong, H. and Lee, L. (2021). Spatial dynamic game models for coevolution of intertemporal economic decision-making and spatial networks. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , 129:104186

    2021

  30. [38]

    and Lee, L

    Jeong, H. and Lee, L. (2024). Maximum likelihood estimation of a spatial autoregressive model for origin-destination flow variables. Journal of Econometrics , 242:105790

    2024

  31. [39]

    Katz, L. (1953). A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika , pages 39--43

    1953

  32. [40]

    and Prucha, I

    Kelejian, H. and Prucha, I. (2004). Estimation of simultaneous systems of spatially interrelated cross sectional equations. Journal of Econometrics , 118:27--50

    2004

  33. [41]

    Knight, B. (2002). Endogenous federal grants and crowd-out of state government spending: Theory and evidence from the federal highway aid program. The American Economic Review , 92(1):71--92

    2002

  34. [42]

    Lee, L. (2004). Asymptotic distributions of quasi-maximum likelihood estimators for spatial econometric models. Econometrica , 72:1899--1925

    2004

  35. [43]

    and Yu, J

    Lee, L. and Yu, J. (2010). A spatial dynamic panel data model with both time and individual fixed effects. Econometric Theory , 26:564--597

    2010

  36. [44]

    and Yu, J

    Lee, L. and Yu, J. (2016). Identification of spatial durbin panel models. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 31:133--162

    2016

  37. [45]

    LeSage, J.and Pace, R. (2008). Introduction to Spatial Econometrics . Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL

    2008

  38. [46]

    Liu, X. (2014). Identification and efficient estimation of simultaneous equations network models. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics , 32:516--536

    2014

  39. [47]

    and Saraiva, P

    Liu, X. and Saraiva, P. (2019). Gmm estimation of spatial autoregressive models in a system of simultaneous equations with heteroskedasticity. Econometric Reviews , 38(4):359--385

    2019

  40. [48]

    and Sargent, T

    Ljungqvist, L. and Sargent, T. (2012). Recursive Macroeconomic Theory . Third edition, The MIT Press

    2012

  41. [49]

    Lu, L. (2023). Simultaneous spatial panel data models with common shocks. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics , 41:608--623

    2023

  42. [50]

    Manski, C. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: T he reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies , 60:531--542

    1993

  43. [51]

    Moffitt, R. (2001). Policy interventions low-level equilibria, and social interactions , volume In: Durlauf, Steven, Young, Peyton (Eds)., Social Dynamics. MIT Press

    2001

  44. [52]

    Ord, J. (1975). Estimation methods for models of spatial interaction. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 70:120--126

    1975

  45. [53]

    Revelli, F. (2003). Reaction or interaction? spatial process identification in multi-tiered government structures. Journal of Urban Economics , 53(1):29--53

    2003

  46. [54]

    Revelli, F. (2005). On spatial public finance empirics. International Tax and Public Finance , 12:475--492

    2005

  47. [55]

    Rothenberg, T. J. (1971). Identification in parametric models. Econometrica , 39:577--591

    1971

  48. [56]

    Solé-Ollé, A. (2006). Expenditure spillovers and fiscal interactions: Empirical evidence from local governments in spain. Journal of Urban Economics , 59(1):32--53

    2006

  49. [57]

    Tauchen, G. (1985). Finite state markov-chain approximations to univariate and vector autoregressions. Economics Letters , 20:177--181

    1985

  50. [58]

    Todd, P. E. and Wolpin, K. I. (2003). On the specification and estimation of the production function for cognitive achievement. The Economic Journal , 113(485):F3--F33

    2003

  51. [59]

    Wang, J. (2018). Strategic interaction and economic development incentives policy: Evidence from u.s. states. Regional Science and Urban Economics , 68:249--259

    2018

  52. [60]

    and Lee, L

    Xu, X. and Lee, L. (2015). A spatial autoregressive model with a nonlinear transformation of the dependent variable. Journal of Econometrics , 186:1--18

    2015

  53. [61]

    and Lee, L

    Yang, K. and Lee, L. (2017). Identification and QML estimation of multivariate and simultaneous equations spatial autoregressive models. Journal of Econometrics , 196:196--214

    2017

  54. [62]

    and Lee, L

    Yang, K. and Lee, L. (2019). Identification and estimation of spatial dynamic panel simultaneous equations models. Regional Science and Urban Economics , 76:32--46

    2019

  55. [63]

    and Lee, L

    Yang, K. and Lee, L. (2021). Estimation of dynamic panel spatial vector autoregression: Stability and spatial multivariate cointegration. Journal of Econometrics , 221:337--367

    2021

  56. [64]

    Yu, J., de Jong, R., and Lee, L. (2008). Quasi-maximum likelihood estimators for spatial dynamic panel data with fixed effects when both n and T are large. Journal of Econometrics , 146:118--134

    2008

  57. [65]

    and Yu, J

    Zhang, X. and Yu, J. (2018). Spatial weights matrix selection and model averaging for spatial autoregressive models. Journal of Econometrics , 203:1--18

    2018

  58. [66]

    Zhu, X., Huang, D., Pan, R., and Wang, H. (2020). Multivariate spatial autoregressive model for large scale social networks. Journal of Econometrics , 215:519--606

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.