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

From |
Tinna <statalist@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Collinearity in 2SLS |

Date |
Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:45:21 -0400 |

I tried to rescale the endogenous variable... actually used your pick of numbers (1000). It sure did shrink the endogenous variables coefficient. However, it shrunk according to the scaling, so the interpretations stays the same. And the number is way to large to make sense in that context. The results are below. The first coefficient is the one of interest, and it did change as I mentioned before. However it only changed in number, but not in terms of the real effect DP1 has on the dependent variable. I tried rescaling the instrument also, but it didn't do anything either. Sorry if I am being slow here. My code is below. Tinna . generate dailysmoke1000= dailysmoke*1000 . ivreg hrstotal centage centagesq (DP1= dailysmoke1000 ) edu2 edu3 edu4 edu5 edu6 marr2 marr3 marr4 ch > ildren health if male==1 & empl3!=1 & empl5!=1 & empl7!=1 Instrumental variables (2SLS) regression Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 404 -------------+------------------------------ F( 13, 390) = 1.95 Model | -17608.5123 13 -1354.50095 Prob > F = 0.0235 Residual | 116855.128 390 299.628533 R-squared = . -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = . Total | 99246.6155 403 246.269517 Root MSE = 17.31 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ hrstotal | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- DP1 | 23.35439 9.64544 2.42 0.016 4.390822 42.31795 centage | .0961063 .1157894 0.83 0.407 -.1315433 .3237558 centagesq | -.0162521 .0053245 -3.05 0.002 -.0267204 -.0057839 edu2 | -3.520445 3.875886 -0.91 0.364 -11.14069 4.099799 edu3 | 1.202756 2.779328 0.43 0.665 -4.261585 6.667097 edu4 | -4.174515 2.603464 -1.60 0.110 -9.293094 .9440648 edu5 | -6.479983 3.118394 -2.08 0.038 -12.61095 -.3490167 edu6 | -5.05074 3.751378 -1.35 0.179 -12.4262 2.324715 marr2 | 1.79778 4.550819 0.40 0.693 -7.149427 10.74499 marr3 | 4.296739 4.445934 0.97 0.334 -4.444259 13.03774 marr4 | -8.389899 11.09344 -0.76 0.450 -30.20032 13.42052 children | .0359085 .7727457 0.05 0.963 -1.48336 1.555177 health | -3.022827 1.383256 -2.19 0.029 -5.742398 -.303256 _cons | 52.97049 5.593036 9.47 0.000 41.97421 63.96676 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Instrumented: DP1 Instruments: centage centagesq edu2 edu3 edu4 edu5 edu6 marr2 marr3 marr4 children health dailysmoke1000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . ivreg hrstotal centage centagesq (DP1000= dailysmoke ) edu2 edu3 edu4 edu5 edu6 marr2 marr3 marr4 chi > ldren health if male==1 & empl3!=1 & empl5!=1 & empl7!=1 Instrumental variables (2SLS) regression Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 404 -------------+------------------------------ F( 13, 390) = 1.95 Model | -17608.5123 13 -1354.50095 Prob > F = 0.0235 Residual | 116855.128 390 299.628533 R-squared = . -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = . Total | 99246.6155 403 246.269517 Root MSE = 17.31 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ hrstotal | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- DP1000 | .0233544 .0096454 2.42 0.016 .0043908 .042318 centage | .0961063 .1157894 0.83 0.407 -.1315433 .3237558 centagesq | -.0162521 .0053245 -3.05 0.002 -.0267204 -.0057839 edu2 | -3.520445 3.875886 -0.91 0.364 -11.14069 4.099799 edu3 | 1.202756 2.779328 0.43 0.665 -4.261585 6.667097 edu4 | -4.174515 2.603464 -1.60 0.110 -9.293094 .9440648 edu5 | -6.479983 3.118394 -2.08 0.038 -12.61095 -.3490167 edu6 | -5.05074 3.751378 -1.35 0.179 -12.4262 2.324715 marr2 | 1.79778 4.550819 0.40 0.693 -7.149427 10.74499 marr3 | 4.296739 4.445934 0.97 0.334 -4.444259 13.03774 marr4 | -8.389899 11.09344 -0.76 0.450 -30.20032 13.42052 children | .0359085 .7727457 0.05 0.963 -1.48336 1.555177 health | -3.022827 1.383256 -2.19 0.029 -5.742398 -.303256 _cons | 52.97049 5.593036 9.47 0.000 41.97421 63.96676 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Instrumented: DP1000 Instruments: centage centagesq edu2 edu3 edu4 edu5 edu6 marr2 marr3 marr4 children health dailysmoke ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 9/15/05, Tinna <statalist@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Mark, > I think you understood my problem right and I am going to try your > suggestions. It is very good to know what this problem is called. > > Tinna > > > > > On 9/15/05, Mark Schaffer <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk> wrote: > > Tinna, > > > > I don't think you have a collinearity problem, strictly speaking. Rather, > > it sounds like you have a scaling problem that could be causing you > > numerical problems with your estimator. > > > > When you say the instrumented coefficient in the second stage is "blowing > > up", do you mean that the estimated size of the coefficient is very large > > (several+ orders of magnitude) compared to the other coefficients? Then > > you could indeed have a scaling problem. > > > > The way to find out (and to deal with the problem, if it exists) is to > > rescale your endogenous variable. Just create a new variable that is 1000 > > or whatever times your original variable, and use it in the regression > > instead. Your excluded instruments and other variables might need > > rescaling too. It's easy enough to work out what to do once you see what > > is going on. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > Cheers, > > Mark > > > > > > > Dear Statalisters, > > > > > > I am running 2SLS estimations. The instrument used in the first stage > > > is quite good according to traditional standards and tests and its > > > coefficient in the first stage regression is highly significant. > > > HOWEVER, the coefficient although significant is very small. I think > > > this is causing collinearity (if it can be called that in this context > > > - makes sense to me). The instrumented coefficient in the second stage > > > is blowing up big time. However, it is significant and my > > > Durbin-Wu-Hausman test is indicating endogeneity, so that the 2SLS > > > would really be what is called for. > > > > > > 1. Someone told me that I could still trust the sign on the > > > instrumented coefficient, although it is blown up. This "someone" > > > says they read it "somewhere" but are not sure where. I have reached > > > the end of the Internet without finding much. Can I trust the sign of > > > the instrumented coefficient? > > > > > > 2. Can I trust my Durbin-Wu-Hausman test? > > > > > > 3. Any suggestion for what I should do? > > > > > > Tinna > > > > > > * > > > * 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/ > > > > > > > > > Prof. Mark Schaffer > > Director, CERT > > Department of Economics > > School of Management & Languages > > Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS > > tel +44-131-451-3494 / fax +44-131-451-3294 > > email: m.e.schaffer@hw.ac.uk > > web: http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/ecomes > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > > DISCLAIMER: > > > > This e-mail message is subject to http://www.hw.ac.uk/disclaim.htm > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > > * > > * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: Collinearity in 2SLS***From:*"Mark Schaffer" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk>

**References**:**st: Collinearity in 2SLS***From:*Tinna <statalist@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Collinearity in 2SLS***From:*"Mark Schaffer" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk>

**Re: st: Collinearity in 2SLS***From:*Tinna <statalist@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Collinearity in 2SLS** - Next by Date:
**st: collinearity in 2SLS** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Collinearity in 2SLS** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Collinearity in 2SLS** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |