4.7 Article

Spatiotemporal Econometrics Models for Old Age Mortality in Europe

期刊

MATHEMATICS
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math9091061

关键词

panel data; spatiotemporal models; European mortality

资金

  1. Mapfre (ayudas a la investigacion Ignacio H. de Larramendi 2017 Seguro y Prevision Social)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares estimation techniques between MATLAB and R software in fitting mortality data of the aged population in European countries. The results show spatial dependence among European countries due not only to differences in health systems but also supra-national developments.
In the past decade, panel data models using time-series observations of several geographical units have become popular due to the availability of software able to implement them. The aim of this study is an updated comparison of estimation techniques between the implementations of spatiotemporal panel data models across MATLAB and R softwares in order to fit real mortality data. The case study used concerns the male and female mortality of the aged population of European countries. Mortality is quantified with the Comparative Mortality Figure, which is the most suitable statistic for comparing mortality by sex over space when detailed specific mortality is available for each studied population. The spatial dependence between the 26 European countries and their neighbors during 1995-2012 was confirmed through the Global Moran Index and the spatiotemporal panel data models. For this reason, it can be said that mortality in European population aging not only depends on differences in the health systems, which are subject to national discretion but also on supra-national developments. Finally, we conclude that although both programs seem similar, there are some differences in the estimation of parameters and goodness of fit measures being more reliable MATLAB. These differences have been justified by detailing the advantages and disadvantages of using each of them.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据