Neville Francis, Michael Owyang, and Ozge Savascin, "An Endogenously Clustered Factor Approach to International Business Cycles", Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 32, No. 7, 2017, pp. 1261-1276. The two data files are ASCII files in DOS format. They are zipped in the file fos-data,zip. Unix/Linux users should use "unzip -a". The business cycle data used in this paper is the annual constant-price chain-weighted real GDP growth rate (computed as the difference in the log of real GDP) from the 6.3 version of the Penn World Tables (PWT) [Heston, Summers, and Aten (2009)] for the years between 1961 and 2007. See Penn World Tables 6.3 http://datacentre2.chass.utoronto.ca/pwt/ for details. The "gdp60.txt" file lists 'Year' (in 'YYYY' format) as the first column which is followed by the GDP growth rates for the 60 countries with abbreviated labels. The abbreviations can be found at the end of this document. The logistic prior covariate data introduces 7 variables that are saved in 'covariate.txt' in the following order: 1. Country Name (60 Countries used in the paper, abbreviations are provided below) 2. Openness 3. Investment share of GDP per capita 4. Collection Bounced Check 5. Ethno-linguistic Fraction 6. Dispersion World 7. Export Dispersion vs Export partners 8. Import Dispersion vs Import Partners The detailed description of these variables can be found below: 2. OPENNESS - Openness is measured in Constant Prices (percent in 2005 Constant Prices); Exports + Imports divided by Real GDP per capita and represents the total trade as a percentage of GDP. For each country the reported measure is the average values from 1960-2007 (1970-2007 for Germany due to missing data for the years 1960-1970). Source: Data taken from Penn World Table 6.3. Alan Heston, Robert Summers and Bettina Aten, Penn World Table Version 6.3, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, August 2009. 3. INVESTMENT SHARE OF GDP per CAPITA - Investment Share of Real GDP per capita is defined in 2005 constant prices (Constant Prices: Laspeyres). Real GDP chain per equivalent adult in 2005 constant prices computes output with weights of 1.0 to all persons over 15 and 0.5 for those under age 15. For each country the reported measure is the average values from 1960-2007 (1970-2007 for Germany due to missing data for the years 1960-1970). Source: Data taken from Penn World Table 6.3. Alan Heston, Robert Summers and Bettina Aten, Penn World Table Version 6.3, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, August 2009. 4. FORMALISM INDEX: COLLECTION OF CHECKS - Gives the ease with which the lower-level legal system affords collection of checks by landlords and the provision of remedies for bounced checks. The index is comprised of seven sub-indices which can be found in Table I of Djankov et al (2003). Source: "Courts" S. Djankov, R. La Porta, and F. Lopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 2003 Formalism index (As it applies to collection of checks and eviction of tenants): The index measures substantive and procedural statutory intervention in judicial cases at lower-level civil trial courts, and is formed by adding up the following indices: (i) professionals versus laymen, (ii) written versus oral elements, (iii) legal justification, (iv) statutory regulation of evidence, (v) control of superior review, (vi) engagement formalities, and (vii) independent procedural actions. The index ranges from zero to seven where seven means a higher level of control or intervention in the judicial process. (i) Index: professionals versus laymen The index measures whether the resolution of the case relies on the work of professional judges and attorneys, as opposed to other types of adjudicators and lay people. The index is the normalized sum of (i) general jurisdiction court, (ii) professional versus nonprofessional judge, and (iii) legal representation is mandatory. The index ranges from zero to one, where higher values mean more participation by professionals. (ii) Index: Written versus oral elements The index measures the written or oral nature of the actions involved in the procedure, from the filing of the complaint until the actual enforcement. The index is calculated as the number of stages carried out mostly in written form over the total number of applicable stages, and it ranges from zero to one, where higher values mean higher prevalence of written elements. (iii) Index: legal justification The index measures the level of legal justification required in the process. The index is formed by the normalized sum of (i) complaint must be legally justified, (ii) judgment must be legally justified, and (iii) judgment must be on law (not on equity). The index ranges from zero to one, where higher values mean a higher use of legal language or justification. (iv) Index: statutory regulation of evidence The index measures the level of statutory control or intervention of the administration, admissibility, evaluation, and recording of evidence. The index is formed by the normalized sum of the following variables: (i) judge cannot introduce evidence, (ii) judge cannot reject irrelevant evidence, (iii) out-of-court statements are inadmissible, (iv) mandatory prequalification of questions, (v) oral interrogation only by judge, (vi) only original documents and certified copies are admissible, (vii) authenticity and weight of evidence defined by law, and (viii) mandatory recording of evidence. The index ranges from zero to one, where higher values mean a higher statutory control or intervention. (v) Index: control of superior review The index measures the level of control or intervention of the appellate court's review of the first-instance judgment. The index is formed by the normalized sum of the following variables: (i) enforcement of judgment is automatically suspended until resolution of appeal, (ii) comprehensive review in appeal, and (iii) interlocutory appeals are allowed. The index ranges from zero to one, where higher values mean higher control or intervention. (vi) Index: engagement formalities The index measures the formalities required to engage someone in the procedure or to hold him/her accountable of the judgment. The index is formed by the normalized sum of the following variables: (i) mandatory pretrial conciliation, (ii) service of process by judicial officer required, and (iii) notification of judgment by judicial officer required. The index ranges from zero to one, where higher values mean a higher statutory control or intervention in the judicial process. (vii) Index: independent procedural actions An independent procedural action is defined as a step of the procedure, mandated by law or court regulation that demands interaction between the parties or between them and the judge or court officer (e.g., filing a motion, attending a hearing, mailing a letter, or seizing some goods). We also count as an independent procedural action every judicial or administrative writ or resolution (e.g., issuing judgment or entering a writ of execution) which is legally required to advance the proceedings until the enforcement of judgment. Actions are always assumed to be simultaneous if possible, so procedural events that may be fulfilled in the same day and place are only counted as one action. To form the index, we (1) add the minimum number of independent procedural actions required to complete all the stages of the process (from filing of lawsuit to enforcement of judgment); and (2) normalize this number to fall between zero and one using the minimum and the maximum number of independent procedural actions among the countries in the sample. The index takes a value of zero for the country with the minimum number of independent procedural actions, and a value of one for the country with the maximum number of independent procedural actions. 5. ETHNOLINGUISTIC FRACTIONALIZATION - Gives a measure of linguistic diversity within a country. Note the measure is diversity as shown below. Source: "The Quality of Government", R. La Porta, F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1999 Ethno-linguistic fractionalization: Average value of five different indices of ethno-linguistic fractionalization. Its value ranges from 0 to 1. The five component indices are: (1) Index of ethno-linguistic fractionalization in 1960, which measures the probability that two randomly selected people from a given country will not belong to the same ethno-linguistic group (the index is based on the number and size of the population groups as distinguished by their ethnic and linguistic status). (2) Probability of two randomly selected individuals speaking different languages. (3) Probability of two randomly selected individuals do not speak the same language. (4) Percent of the population not speaking the official language. (5) Percent of the population not speaking the most widely used language. See Easterly and Levine (1997). 6.DISPERSION WORLD - Measures country i's dispersion from the rest of the world. Single measure is reported for each country. Source: Baxter, M., & Kouparitsas, M. (2003). Trade Structure, Industrial Structure, and International Business Cycles. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 51-56 See page 52 of Baxter and Kouparitsas (2003) for equation. 7.EXPORT DISPERSION vs EXPORT PARTNERS - It captures the extent to which country i's production structure differs from its export partners. Single measure is reported for each country. Source: Baxter, M., & Kouparitsas, M. (2003). Trade Structure, Industrial Structure, and International Business Cycles. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 51-56 See page 52 of Baxter and Kouparitsas (2003) for equation. 8.IMPORT DISPERSION vs IMPORT PARTNERS - It captures the extent to which country i's production structure differs from its import partners. Single measure is reported for each country. Source: Baxter, M., & Kouparitsas, M. (2003). Trade Structure, Industrial Structure, and International Business Cycles. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 51-56 See page 52 of Baxter and Kouparitsas (2003) for equation. Country Abbreviations: ARG: Argentina AUS: Australia AUT: Austria BGD: Bangladesh BEL: Belgium BOL: Bolivia BRA: Brazil CMR: Cameroon CAN: Canada CHL: Chile COL: Colombia CRI: Costa Rica CIV: Cote d'Ivoire DNK: Denmark DOM: Dominican Republic ECU: Ecuador SLV: El Salvador FIN: Finland FRA: France GER: Germany GRC: Greece GTM: Guatemala HND: Honduras HKG: Hong Kong ISL: Iceland IND: India IDN: Indonesia IRL: Ireland ITA: Italy JAM: Jamaica JPN: Japan KEN: Kenya KOR: Korea, Republic of LUX: Luxembourg MYS: Malaysia MEX: Mexico MAR: Morocco NLD: Netherlands NZL: New Zealand NOR: Norway PAK: Pakistan PAN: Panama PRY: Paraguay PER: Peru PHL: Philippines PRT: Portugal SEN: Senegal SGP: Singapore ZAF: South Africa ESP: Spain LKA: Sri Lanka SWE: Sweden CHE: Switzerland THA: Thailand TTO: Trinidad &Tobago GBR: United Kingdom USA: United States URY: Uruguay VEN: Venezuela ZWE: Zimbabwe Ozge Savascin savascn [AT] gmail.com