GS—a prolific writer “with an ability to cut through the
technical superstructure to essential detail only” without of course, losing
the nerve center of the methods being explained—“is a teacher in the best sense
of the word”.
**
“No
economist engaged in econometric research fails to study one or the other books
of GS Maddala”, said a professor once on the sidelines of a seminar. He went on
to say that it is his extraordinary ability to synthesize and exposit “complex
methodological results in simple intuitive terms” in his numerous books and
articles that made GS Maddala one of the most distinguished econometricians of
our time. Thus getting curious of him, as I googled a little, I realized that
we would be remiss if we do not read about his inspiring role as a teacher,
ardent econometrician, and his very remarkable life … and hence this story.
Gangadharrao
Soundalyarao Maddala, universally known as ‘GS’, was born in India on May 21,
1933 in a family of very modest means. He obtained a BA in Mathematics from
Andhra University in 1957 and MA in Statistics from Bombay University in 1960.
He went to the US as Fulbright scholar and joined the Department of Economics
at the University of Chicago from where he obtained his PhD in 1963 by writing
his dissertation on the topic “Technological Change in the Bituminous Coal
Industry, 1919-1954” under the supervision of Prof. Zvi Griliches.
After obtaining his PhD
from Chicago, GS wrote 110 articles and authored 12 books covering almost every
emerging area of econometrics. He made extraordinary and pioneering
contribution in almost all areas of econometrics: distributed lags, generalized
least squares, panel data, simultaneous equations, errors in variables, income
distribution, switching regressions, disequilibrium models, qualitative and
limited dependent variable models, outliers and bootstrap methods, unit roots
and cointegration methods and Bayesian econometrics, and many other areas of
econometrics. He had, of course, not limited himself to just pure methodology.
He had also examined estimates of production function and liquid asset demands,
returns to education and discrimination in loan markets, and the meaning and
issues in estimation of rational expectations models.
So immense was his span
of work, yet in his typical Indian philosophical style, GS used to say that he
never made any hard decision to do anything in particular in life, rather he
had stumbled onto them. Though he said that in his usual self-deprecating
style—an attitude that he perhaps cultivated being influenced by Indian
philosophy that “nothing matters”—a peek into his early background and his
journey through econometrics as indeed narrated by him in one of the
interviews, reveals that he had nevertheless, put his best effort to make
whatever that he had tumbled upon meaningful and fruitful. And that is what
encourages us to read his journey.
When he was eight years
old, his worried mother sent him with her brother to Bombay to get GS educated
from a good school. He took him to King George school. As he scored zero in the
admission tests conducted for fifth grade and second grade, they denied him
admission. He therefore returned home. Staying at home for three years he
worked on maths, reading and writing. Later at the age of 11 he joined high
school. At the age 14, he passed high school examination but failed to get the
Sanskrit scholarship that he aspired for to join college. Then joined a college
in Bombay but due to ill health returned home. In 1948, his mother died. On her
death, his father quitting his job moved to their native town in South India.
There GS helped his father in his tutorial school. He was also reading history
and Indian philosophy books by borrowing from the local library.
In 1953, a friend told
him that one could get a 2-year college degree at Ajmer—a town 1000 miles away
from his home—without going to college by simply writing an exam in three
subjects. Lured by the possibility of
getting a teacher’s job with that degree, he and his friend prepared for the
exam. Due to his friend’s father’s death, he had to go alone for the exam.
Purchasing a third-class railway pass for 30 that permitted him to travel
unlimited for one month, he went to Bezawada railway station from Kakinada (his
home town) to board Grand Trunk Express bound for Delhi. But in Bezawada, he
could not get into the train for it was jam-packed with people blocking doors
and windows. And if he did not get in, he would miss the exam but that is not
what bothered him most: as the train started, it was his missing the
opportunity to visit the railway exhibition in Delhi and his 30 rupees railway
pass going waste that bothered him most. However, to his luck, a porter
approached him proposing to put him in the train if he paid half a rupee. He
agreed and as promised the porter lifted him with his bag, all weighing around
115 pounds, and threw him inside the moving train through a window that had no
grill in those days. Thus, he went to Ajmer and wrote the exam. He passed the
exam standing first and won a gold medal too. Then he joined a local college to
major in Maths. In 1955, he completed BA standing university first and also won
two gold medals. Then as a professor advised him about bright prospects for job
with an advanced degree in statistics vis-à-vis Maths, he went to Bombay to do
his Masters in Statistics, which he finished in 1957 with a first class.
As everyone in his class
of statistics went to United States for PhD, GS too decided to follow them and
he did get an assistantship at the University of California at Berkeley but
could not avail it, for he had no money to travel to the US. Then hearing that
Fulbright scholarship also provides assistance for travel to the US, he wrote
its competitive examination and got selected. Thus as he was getting ready to
go to Berkeley to do his PhD in Statistics, the then director of School of
Economics, Bombay, advised him to do PhD in economics arguing that India is
already flooded with too many theoretical statisticians because of which he may
at best get a lecturer post with even a PhD from Berkeley. Further, promising
him professorship if he returns within three years with a PhD in economics, he
advised him to go to University of Chicago instead of University of California,
Berkeley. Encouraged by the offer, GS came to University of Chicago in 1960 and
enrolled for PhD in economics without knowing anything of economics. After
passing the qualifying examination he went to Robert Basmann for a thesis
topic. But learning that the topic suggested by him—“Non-Existence of Moments
for GCL Estimators”—being difficult, would take 3-4 years, and as he was
interested in going back to India at least by 63 to capture the offer of
Professorship, he approached Zvi Griliches and finally wrote his thesis on
productivity and technical change in the US bituminous coal
industry—interestingly using horsepower as a proxy for capital—and obtained his
PhD in 1963.
After
obtaining PhD, GS joined Stanford University in 1963 as Assistant Professor.
One day, while having a drink at the Top of the Mark in San Fransisco,
reflecting on how his life had changed in a decade—in 1953 he was a college
dropout and in 1963 he was an Assistant Professor in Stanford
University—wondered what his mother, had she been alive, would have thought
about her son going to America and what his life would have been had that
porter in Bezawada not dumped him into the GT Express in 1953 for half a rupee.
At Stanford, he met Paul
Baran, a Marxist economist who advised him to work on important problems of
Indian economy instead of wasting his youth on spectral analysis. As fate would
have it, on the next day when GS went to see Baran for a discussion on growth
topics for undertaking research, it was said that he died of heart attack the
previous day. “Thereafter, I had given up Indian philosophy and Indian economic
development and tumbled into econometrics”, said GS.
Once
he entered econometrics, there was no looking back. Talking about his work on
production functions, he said that his thesis had not much of econometrics, for
it simply estimated Cobb-Douglas functions by OLS. Later, watching the usage of
different functional forms (CES and others) for computation of production
functions, he argued in his paper, “A Note on the Form of the Production
Function and Productivity” (1979), that it did not make much difference what
functional form was used. Subsequently, watching the developments in the area
of frontier production functions, he, depicting his unique capacity for utter
candor, voiced his skepticism about it in his paper, “Technical Change, Frontier
Productions and Efficiency Measurement” (1979), which was of course “largely
ignored”.
Enthused by the
popularity of Koyck model, he, turning his attention to distributed lags,
worked on Jorgenson’s rational lag model and estimation of the distributed lag
models in the distributed lag and autoregressive forms. Later entering into
panel data analysis, he offered clarification regarding the usage of variance
components models in panel data. Realizing that all the literature on panel
data is (based on pooling the information in the different cross-section units)
silent about the question: whether or not to pool, he had discussed this issue
in one of his papers in 1991. Later in a 1997 paper, he offered a discussion of
all the different methods, viz., classical, empirical Bayesian and Bayesian
methods used in pooling in panel data analysis. Later, looking at the growing
work on panel data unit root tests, he voiced his criticism about the purpose of
these tests that involved a lot of algebra and less about purpose of using
these tests in his book Unit Roots, Cointegration and Structural Change.
Reflecting
on his interest in the area of Bayesian inference, he once said that being
discouraged by the fact that his paper “Weak Priors and Sharp Posteriors”
(1972)—in which he argued that the Geisser noninformative prior had the
consequence of producing neat, nice posterior in underidentified systems—took
four years for getting published in Econometrica, he did not do any more
work in that area. But revisiting it in the 90s and believing that the
controversy between Bayesian and classical econometricians is largely
unnecessary, he reviewed the Bayesian approach to unit roots in his book Unit
Roots, Cointegration and Structural Change.
He once said that though he is “not a die-hard Bayesian”, he still
“like[s] to think about the Bayesian solution to each econometric problem.”
Observing that Bayesian approach is not a religion for him, GS, in his
characteristic sense of wit and humor, quoting what someone once said,
“Bayesians are like Hare Krishna people. If you get too close to them, you
become one of them”, stated that kept himself away.
When
asked about his interest in limited dependent variables, he said it is more
owing to Forrest Nelson and Lung-Fei Lee who did their PhD dissertation under
him in the area of limited dependent variable models and two-stage estimation
methods, respectively. He along with Nelson published a paper on disequilibrium
models and wrote another paper jointly with Nelson on specification errors in
limited dependent variable models, but somehow never published, though it was
cited in a number of publications. And all this finally culminated into his
writing an influential textbook on the subject in 1981: Limited Dependent
and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics—which is now regarded as a
classic and seminal text for advanced studies in econometrics—the manuscript of
which was turned down by many publishers stating that it has no demand, but
finally published by Cambridge University Press in 1983.
Drawing our attention to
his paper, “Pseudo Data: Problems of Design and Statistical Analysis” of 1982,
in which he discussed what to simulate, why to simulate and how to simulate, he
offered a subtle advise to fellow researchers: “One should step back and think
why we are doing what we are doing” that merits every researcher’s attention
even today.
Moving onto time series,
GS, though worked in this area as early as in the 1960s, once again gave credit
for his involvement in time series work to his students at Florida University.
Although he authored the book, Unit Roots, Cointegration and Structural
Change (Cambridge, 1998) with In-Moo Kim, GS appeared to have been unhappy
at his “missing all three revolutions in time series: the unit root revolution,
the cointegration revolution and the ARCH revolution.”
Books of G S Maddala
1. Econometrics. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1977. (Spanish edition, 1985).
2. Econometric Studies in Energy Demand and
Supply (edited). Praeger Special Studies. New York: Praeger Publishers,
1978.
3. Limited Dependent and Qualitative
Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
4. Introduction to Econometrics. New
York: Macmillan, 1988 (Second edition, 1991; Japanese edition, 1992).
5. Microeconomics: Theory and Applications.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988 (Spanish edition, 1990).
6. Econometrics of Panel Data (edited).
Vols. 1 and II. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar, 1992.
7. Handbook of Statistics. Vol. 11: Econometrics.
(Co-editors). Amsterdam; North-Holland, 1993.
8. Econometric Methods and Applications:
Selected Papers of G. S. Maddala. Vols. I and II. Aldershot, UK:
Edward Elgar, 1994.
9. Statistical Methods of Econometrics and
Quantitative Economics. (Co-editor). Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
10.With
C.R. Rao. Handbook of Statistics. Vol. 14: Statistics Methods and
Finance. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
1996.
11.With
C.R. Rao. Handbook of Statistics. Vol. 15: Robust Inference.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997.
12.With
I.-M. Kim. Unit Roots, Cointegration and Structural Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
It
was again initiated by his students that GS had worked on bootstrap methods and
published two papers with his student, Jinook Jeong: “A Perspective on
Application of Bootstrap Methods in Econometrics” in 1993 and “Testing the
Rationality of Survey Data Using the Weighted Double-Bootstraped Method of
Moments” in 1996. Later, from Ohio, he continued his work in this area of
bootstrap methods for cointegrated systems with his student Hongyi Li and
published four papers with him. He also aired the hope that future research in
bootstrap methods will throw more light on small sample inference.
Having
thus worked in almost every area of econometrics and having written influential
textbooks, GS had indeed become a veritable textbook himself for the students
of econometrics. He had been “a mentor and a source of inspiration” to more
than 50 doctoral students whom he had supervised over the years. As a true
teacher who is supposed to be a seeker of truth, he never hesitated “to go
against the tide of the profession.” His students consider him as a teacher in
the best sense of the word. This ardent practitioner of econometrics, who once
said that he was greatly influenced by one of Tolstoy’s short stories, “What
Men Live By”, ever remained conscious of the question: “Are the questions being
answered are worth asking?” And this philosophy well reflects in his advice to
young researchers: “Think first why you are doing what you are doing before
attacking the problem with all of the technical arsenal you have and churning
out a paper that may be mathematically imposing but of limited practical use”,
which holds well even today and why, even for ever.
GS—who
had been one of the top five most cited econometricians during each of the
years 1988-93; who talked about econometrics with his all-pervading humor:
sometimes the solution offered [by econometric research] is what I would call a
Laurel and Hardy solution: as in the case of panel data unit root tests we
witness the initial question is transformed into an entirely different question
and a solution offered—though states that “he never made any hard decision to
do anything in life, he just tumbled onto them”, his life journey clearly
testifies that no matter on what you tumble on, if only one makes use of it
with all sincerity, one is sure to be of value to himself/herself and to the
people around. And that is the take home for us from the saga of his life.
Thanks for the illustration on GS Sir.
ReplyDeleteThanks Prasad garu...
ReplyDelete