Bookmark and Share

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]

st: AW: RE: xtivreg2 and interaction terms


From   "Klien, Michael" <Michael.Klien@wu.ac.at>
To   "'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: AW: RE: xtivreg2 and interaction terms
Date   Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:21:08 +0200

Dear Mark,

Thanks for your comments. Just to be a little more specific, the matlab routine I used demeans all X,Y data except the dummy d, then interacts the demeaned spatial lag with d and then estimates. Is such an approach incorrect or how does the interpretation of the coefficients change compared to a typical xt,fe commands in stata, where I supply dummy-interacted variables?  

Best Wishes
Michael

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von Schaffer, Mark E
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. September 2010 23:00
An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Betreff: st: RE: xtivreg2 and interaction terms

Michael,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu 
> [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of 
> Klien, Michael
> Sent: 15 September 2010 16:14
> To: 'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'
> Subject: st: xtivreg2 and interaction terms
> 
> Dear statalist users,
> 
> I am estimating a spatial lag model with fixed effects by 
> IV/GMM using xtivreg2:
> xtivreg2 y x (wy = wx),fe
> This estimation is fine. The problem occurs when I estimate 
> the spatial lag with a dummy interaction (d):
> xtivreg2 y x (wy_d0 wy_d1 = wx_d0 wx_d1),fe The resulting 
> coefficient estimates for wy_d0 and wy_d1 are almost the 
> same, which is very different from my ML results in matlab. I 
> found out that the difference between the two is that the 
> matlab routine first demeans all data and then generates the 
> interaction terms. With xtivreg2 and similar commands I need 
> to input the interacted variable, which is only demeaned 
> afterwards. If I demean my data manually in stata and use 
> ivreg2 the IV results are much closer to the ML results.
> So my question is, what is the correct approach? First demean 
> the data and then interact or the other way round? I was 
> unable to find a reference for such a case.

If you want to use the "fixed effects" estimation, then as a matter of
definition you have to group-demean all your variables, whether or not
they are standard variables or interactions.

That said, how you define your interaction terms is up to you.  It's
common practice, for example, to define interactions around sample
means, i.e., you demean the variables before multiplying them together
to get the interaction term.

HTH,
Mark

> 
> Thanks very much in advance!
> Michael
> 
> *
> *   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/


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