[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Nichols, Austin" <ANichols@ui.urban.org> |

To |
"'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
RE: st: RE: Multicollinerity test in IV regression |

Date |
Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:49:03 -0400 |

I think the issue of multicollinear X's (or Z's) is more complicated in IV, though I hate to contradict Nick on any point, since if you have two instrumental variables for two endogenous regressors, the problem is not merely high- variance coefficient estimates but is a matter of weak instruments as well. This applies a fortiori to conceptually collinear X's if you will, such as two measures of school quality, or what have you, that may appear by various measures not to be collinear, but are both measuring the same underlying variable with error (from other components for which the theoretical justification for IV may no longer apply). The Dufour and Taamouti reference provides a way to deal with X1-aX2(approx)=0 _and_ the Z1-bZ2(approx)=0 problems, though it is somewhat less satisfying than just dropping a regressor... -----Original Message----- From: Marcello Pagano [mailto:pagano@hsph.harvard.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:55 PM To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: Re: st: RE: Multicollinerity test in IV regression Oops. My apologies. That should read if X1-X2=0 , then drop both and introduce X1+X2. Of course, what Austin says is correct. What the argument here is, and I heard this from John Tukey, is if basically both X1 and X2 seem to be measuring the same thing based on this sample region, why be forced into a choice where you might choose the wrong one (as judged by future experimentation). m.p. Nichols, Austin wrote: >Um... if X1+X2=0 then the coefficient on (X1+X2) >must be indeterminate, no? > >See >_______________________________ >Dufour, J.-M. and M. Taamouti (2003), >"Projection-Based Statistical Inference in Linear >Structural Models with Possibly Weak Instruments", >Discussion Paper, C.R.D.E., Université de Montréal, 42 pages >_______________________________ >for another approach to possibly collinear X's > >-----Original Message----- >A better solution might be to replace all offending predictors >by (a) linear combination(s) that make sense. For example if >X1+X2=0, then drop both X1 and X2 and replace them with the >new variable X1+X2. You can extend this to the more general >situation. > >* >* For searches and help try: >* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html >* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq >* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ > > * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: -cf- problem with var named _merge** - Next by Date:
**st: Re: Rép. : st: RE: Non linear least squares program, Stata versions?** - Previous by thread:
**st: Problem of using XI** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: RE: Multicollinerity test in IV regression** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |