[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: Fixed effects regressions with probability weights

From   Austin Nichols <>
Subject   Re: st: Fixed effects regressions with probability weights
Date   Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:18:20 -0400

Leah K. Nelson <>:

You can switch to -areg- which allows pweights that vary within
village, and produces identical results to using -regress- and
including a dummy for each village (but one).  How many villages are
there?  You may want to cluster at the village level:

areg y x [pw=weight_household], a(village) cl(village)

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Leah K. Nelson <> wrote:
> I currently trying to run a regression with fixed effects using
> probability weights.  The data is in a cross section.  The unit of
> observation is household, and I am running fixed effects at the village
> level.  Sampling (probability) weights are assigned at the household
> level.
> When I use the command
> xtreg y x [pw=weight_household], fe i(village)
> I get an error that says probability weights must be constant within each
> village.
> Is this a limitation of Stata, or is there an underlying econometric issue
> with using household-level probability weights and village-level fixed
> effects?  If this is simply a Stata issue, is there a way to get around
> this restriction using the xtreg command?
> I have already constructed village dummy variables and run the regression
> including the dummy variables as follows:
> xi i.village
> reg y x _I* [pw=weight_household]
> but I want to make sure that this method (including the fixed effects at
> the village-level and the probability weights at the household-level) does
> not yield biased or inconsistent estimates.  Does anyone have any insight
> on this?

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2015 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index