Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

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

From |
"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de> |

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

Subject |
st: AW: RE: re: question on XTOVERID |

Date |
Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:28:18 +0100 |

<> " Baltagi's textbook on panel data econometrics has a short exposition of the Hausman-Taylor model and includes a description of what the test of overidentifying restrictions after a H-T estimation actually tests." Yes, in sections 7.4 and 7.5, in particular page 135, around equation (7.46). Having worked with -xthtaylor- myself (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mohr/fa/2009/00000065/00000001/art000 06) I have to say that it is not an easily explored panel data command, because all sources in the literature use the same example, so additional literature does not yield much insight for beginners... HTH Martin -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von Schaffer, Mark E Gesendet: Montag, 22. März 2010 16:17 An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Betreff: st: RE: re: question on XTOVERID Apostolos, A quick addendum to what Kit has said: if I'm not mistaken, Baltagi's textbook on panel data econometrics has a short exposition of the Hausman-Taylor model and includes a description of what the test of overidentifying restrictions after a H-T estimation actually tests. Best wishes, Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Kit Baum > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:05 PM > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > Subject: st: re: question on XTOVERID > > <> > > I am interesting in performing a Hausman-Taylor estimation > in stata (using > > -xthtaylor command).However, as an attempt to test the > assumptions required > > to get consistent estimators (that the most, except from > the endogenous > > regressors, are not correlated with the time-invariant > error term), I did > > following: > > xtahylor y x z e f x, endog(z) /// note f, x and z time invariant > > variables > > estimates store xt > > xtreg y x e, fe > > estimates store fe > > hausman fe xt > > In other words, I test the differences between the > co-efficients from the > > two models. If the H0 of no systematic difference was not > rejected, the > > instrumentation of the z variable is sufficient to remove > any correlation > > between the time-ivariant error term and the remaining regressors. > > I am wondering what the -XTOVERID, after the -xtahylor > command, could > > exactly does? Reading the stata help file, I did not find > any specific > > reference for the case using the command after the xtahylor > (except from > > the calculation of the dof). > > There are two different sets of assumptions here. If you look > at the example in -help xthtaylor-, and rerun that model > as a FE model, the -hausman- test will not reject its null > there either. But that hausman test is run under the > maintained hypothesis that the FE model is consistent. If it > was consistent, why would you be using an instrumental > variables approach such as H-T? > The hausman test has no power if the maintained hypothesis > (that the first model is consistent under H0 and Ha) is violated. > > If you run the example in -help hausman- and then do > -xtoverid-, you get a strong rejection of the null that the > overidentifying > restrictions are satisfied. In the case of H-T, the > assumption is that some of the variables are correlated with the > individual effect (rendering RE inconsistent) but that this > can be dealt with using H-T. The second assumption is that ALL of the > variables are suitably independent of the idiosyncratic error > term. This is being tested by -xtoverid-, and the rejection > in this case > means, I believe, that the assumptions required for validity > of the H-T estimates are violated. That could be true for many > reasons, as in the usual IV case; e.g. omitted variables or > wrong functional form. If you apply -xtoverid- after a RE > model, for which the assumption is that X is indep of the > individual component, a rejection means that RE assumptions > do not hold. > I believe the inference here w.r.t. H-T is the same. > > Kit Baum | Boston College Economics & DIW Berlin | > http://ideas.repec.org/e/pba1.html > An Introduction to Stata > Programming | http://www.stata-press.com/books/isp.html > An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata | > http://www.stata-press.com/books/imeus.html > > > * > * For searches and help try: > * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search > * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq > * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ > -- Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278. * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: AW: RE: re: question on XTOVERID***From:*Davillas Apostolos <davillas@upatras.gr>

**References**:**st: re: question on XTOVERID***From:*Kit Baum <baum@bc.edu>

**st: RE: re: question on XTOVERID***From:*"Schaffer, Mark E" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: RE: Estimating a Log Periodic Power Law model with some constraints** - Next by Date:
**st: SV: RE: risk ratio** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: re: question on XTOVERID** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: AW: RE: re: question on XTOVERID** - Index(es):