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 |
Robert Davidson <rhd773@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: ivreg2 questions |

Date |
Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:58:02 -0400 |

Yes, I see now what it says in Section 8.10. I was referring to section 8.1 where it states the correlation between the two variables must be high (before footnoting section 8.10) and I was asking if this was a simplification. Further, section 8.1 goes on to state that you can test the potential strength of an instrument by simply regressing the endogenous regressor on the proposed instrument. However, the example described earlier in that section did not have any control variables in it, and later I realized after reading through the chapter that it is only appropriate to do that when there are no other variables in the model. Theoretically, I find it hard to motivate an instrument that has extremely weak correlation with the endogenous regressor even though its partial correlation is strong when other variables are included in the model. But, that is not an econometric issue I suppose but rather a rhetorical one. On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert Davidson <rhd773@gmail.com>: > Can you quote the exact text you are reading? IMEUS section 8.10 > makes quite clear that partial correlations are at issue (cf footnote > 25), as do Angrist and Pischke. The excluded instruments are always > judged in the context of a larger regression; instruments that look > good with one set of controls can look terrible with another set, > either on the basis of weak instruments or overidentification tests, > or both. > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Robert Davidson <rhd773@gmail.com> wrote: >> Mark, >> >> Sorry for what is purely an econometric question at this point >> (removed from Stata) but there is still one thing that I am >> misunderstanding. In every text I can read, it basically says the >> instrument must be correlated with the endogenous regressor (including >> Mostly Harmless Econometrics and an Introduction to Modern >> Econometrics Using Stata to name 2 - the latter stating the instrument >> must be highly correlated). These texts do not state that the >> instrument must have a high correlation with the endogenous regressor >> with the effect of a set of controlling variables removed (partial >> correlation). Is this just a simplification on the part of these >> texts or again is there something I am missing? And does this >> basically mean that the validity of an instrument is conditional on >> the other independent variables included in the primary model and not >> just the dependent variable and the endogenous regressor? >> >> Thank you again, >> Rob > > * > * 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/

**References**:**st: ivreg2 questions***From:*Robert Davidson <rhd773@gmail.com>

**st: RE: ivreg2 questions***From:*"Schaffer, Mark E" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk>

**Re: st: RE: ivreg2 questions***From:*Robert Davidson <rhd773@gmail.com>

**RE: st: RE: ivreg2 questions***From:*"Schaffer, Mark E" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk>

**Re: st: RE: ivreg2 questions***From:*Robert Davidson <rhd773@gmail.com>

**Re: st: RE: ivreg2 questions***From:*Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: -qenv- package posted on SSC** - Next by Date:
**st: matrix correlation from stata to excel** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: RE: ivreg2 questions** - Next by thread:
**st: xtmelogit_ 3200 conformability error** - Index(es):