This review evaluates spatial model tests in common-factor scenarios, indicating considerations for empirical accuracy.
I address the empirical properties of the popular robust LM tests of Anselin et al. (1996) for the specification of spatial models when employed in a scenario characterized by unobserved common factors with idiosyncratic loadings. I describe the small-sample behavior by way of simulation, without deriving any analytical results. I build upon the analysis in Millo (2025), extending it from homogeneous time effects to common factors with heterogeneous loadings, a very common setting, e.g., in empirical macroeconometrics. As in the former paper, I document severe distortions in the empirical size and power of the spatial tests when omitting the common factors. Then, I evaluate the strategy of controlling for the heterogeneity by augmentation, including simple (TFE) or interactive fixed effects (IFE) in the test specification. Unlike the homogeneous cases, I find that the correction to the test power may come at a non-negligible cost in terms of size distortion: for some combinations of sample sizes, in particular for short panels, IFE-corrected tests can be severely over-rejecting. This is traced back to a well-known incidental parameter problem. TFE-corrected tests can instead suffer from low power. Nevertheless, either form of augmentation is preferable to ignoring time effects when potentially present.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giovanni Millo (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: