Statalist


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

st: RE: question on heckman


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: question on heckman
Date   Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:06:10 -0000

Sorry, I have no idea, but I have one (predictable to some) small
detailed suggestion
for anyone in this territory. If anyone wishes to call it pedantic I am
happy with that. 

The ratio you refer to is named for one John P. Mills. There are various
defensible ways to use his name in referring to the ratio: Mills ratio,
Mills' ratio, Mills's ratio, but Mill's ratio and Mill ratio are both
incorrect. 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

rghaz046@uottawa.ca

I have a question on Mill's ratio and Heckman procedure. When I use Mill
ratio to take into account the possible endogeneity of one of my
explanatory variable, I get different result from what I get by using
regular IV. What can be the resaon (reasons) for that? The more basic
question is that what distinguishes using Mill ratio and regular IV?

*
*   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/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index