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

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

From |
"Filippos Petroulakis" <petroulakis@econ.umd.edu> |

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

Subject |
RE: st: RE: First stage of panel IV |

Date |
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:14:38 -0400 |

Hi Mark, 1) I have version 01.0.13 for xtivreg2, 03.0.08 for ivreg2, and 01.3.01 for ranktest 2) I get the exact same results. In fact I run both and create a variable equal to e(sample) for each and they are identifcal 3) You write >It sounds like that's because the instrumenting of either w or q is >weak. But that's what the Angrist-Pischke F-stats are for. If the AP >F-stat for the regressor of interest is respectable, then you're OK. But I'm not instrumenting for them. The problem arises when I merely put them in the regression so they are included in the first stage of x on z and the other covariates (so that they become included instruments). Thanks again, Filippos >>> "Schaffer, Mark E" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk> 06/12/12 4:36 AM >>> Filippos, > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of > Filippos Petroulakis > Sent: 12 June 2012 04:11 > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: st: RE: First stage of panel IV > > Hi Mark and thanks for your response. I am using Stata 11 and > the up to date version of xtivreg2. Can you check/report to us your versions of xtivreg2, ivreg2 and ranktest? > I'll start another list > as it's getting too crowded > > 1) I was probably mistaken about this. Just to make sure, is > running OLS on a panel with all variables differenced > identical to running first differences? Should be the case. > 2) About xtivreg versus xtivreg2, I am certain and to make > sure I run xtivreg2 and then copy the code and then just > remove the 2. For xtivreg2 the first stage output is > > > . > . xtivreg2 y ( x =z) /// > l.bzo ln_tunder15 ln_t15to24 ln_t25to44 ln_t45to64 > ln_t65plus ln_fraction_male ln_pop_hisp_all > ln_pop_nh_black ln_pop_nh_white, fd small first robust > > FIRST DIFFERENCES ESTIMATION > ---------------------------- > Number of groups = 1026 Obs per > group: min = 1 > > avg = 1.9 > > max = 2 > > First-stage regressions > ----------------------- > > First-stage regression of D.ln_stim_forfd: > > OLS estimation > -------------- > > Estimates efficient for homoskedasticity only Statistics > robust to heteroskedasticity > > Number > of obs = 1928 > F( 11, > 1916) = 53.82 > Prob > > F = 0.0000 > Total (centered) SS = 1631.878852 > Centered R2 = 0.2035 > Total (uncentered) SS = 59641.31821 > Uncentered R2 = 0.9782 > Residual SS = 1299.720342 Root > MSE = .8236 > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > D. | Robust > x | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] > -------------+------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > -------------+------ > ln_bzo | > LD. | -.1256429 .0767888 -1.64 0.102 > -.2762413 .0249555 > | > ln_tunder15 | > D1. | 5.698369 3.323788 1.71 0.087 > -.8202531 12.21699 > | > ln_t15to24 | > D1. | 6.831107 2.217364 3.08 0.002 > 2.482406 11.17981 > | > ln_t25to44 | > D1. | 32.90151 3.672888 8.96 0.000 > 25.69823 40.10479 > | > ln_t45to64 | > D1. | 8.227723 3.417776 2.41 0.016 > 1.524771 14.93068 > | > ln_t65plus | > D1. | 4.88607 2.705773 1.81 0.071 > -.4205002 10.19264 > | > ln_fractio~e | > D1. | -3.86913 9.62245 -0.40 0.688 > -22.74071 15.00245 > | > ln_pop_his~l | > D1. | -6.352615 1.729689 -3.67 0.000 > -9.744887 -2.960343 > | > ln_pop_nh_~k | > D1. | 7.426661 3.028961 2.45 0.014 > 1.486254 13.36707 > | > ln_pop_nh_~e | > D1. | -5.481275 3.728017 -1.47 0.142 > -12.79267 1.830123 > | > z | > D1. | 3.404714 .2067276 16.47 0.000 > 2.999279 3.810149 > | > _cons | 5.682521 .0508073 111.84 0.000 > 5.582877 5.782164 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > > With xtivreg it is > > > . xtivreg y ( x =z) /// > l.ln_crime ln_tunder15 ln_t15to24 ln_t25to44 ln_t45to64 > ln_t65plus ln_fraction_male ln_pop_hisp_all > ln_pop_nh_black ln_pop_nh_white, fd small first > > First-stage first-differenced regression > > Source | SS df MS Number > of obs = 901 > -------------+------------------------------ F( 11, > 889) = 17.42 > Model | 58.4561519 11 5.31419563 Prob > > F = 0.0000 > Residual | 271.136523 889 .304990465 > R-squared = 0.1774 > -------------+------------------------------ Adj > R-squared = 0.1672 > Total | 329.592675 900 .366214084 Root > MSE = .55226 > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > D. | > x | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] > -------------+------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > -------------+------ > ln_bzo | > LD. | -.0553261 .0661387 -0.84 0.403 > -.1851322 .0744801 > | > ln_tunder15 | > D1. | 14.637 2.988974 4.90 0.000 > 8.770729 20.50326 > | > ln_t15to24 | > D1. | 12.06724 2.274707 5.30 0.000 > 7.602818 16.53166 > | > ln_t25to44 | > D1. | 28.67612 3.411086 8.41 0.000 > 21.9814 35.37084 > | > ln_t45to64 | > D1. | 9.750316 3.753647 2.60 0.010 > 2.383274 17.11736 > | > ln_t65plus | > D1. | 9.117776 2.449422 3.72 0.000 > 4.310454 13.9251 > | > ln_fractio~e | > D1. | 20.81802 9.297503 2.24 0.025 > 2.570409 39.06564 > | > ln_pop_his~l | > D1. | -3.244084 1.379805 -2.35 0.019 > -5.95214 -.5360282 > | > ln_pop_nh_~k | > D1. | -2.669608 2.386585 -1.12 0.264 > -7.353605 2.01439 > | > ln_pop_nh_~e | > D1. | -18.12162 4.160963 -4.36 0.000 > -26.28808 -9.955169 > | > z | > D1. | -1.102999 .2832308 -3.89 0.000 > -1.658877 -.5471196 > | > _cons | 6.306457 .0505186 124.83 0.000 > 6.207308 6.405607 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > > > The sample size is less than half in xtivreg. What is > particularly odd is the fact that the 2nd stage coefficients > are very close and the reported observations and groups are > now 1926 and 1025 for xtivreg, so just one group less than > xtivreg. Is it perhaps some reporting issue? I really don't > understand this. Just so I'm clear, the large difference, > especially in the coefficient of the instrument is in the > first stage, while the second stages are very similar. This is curious. I am just about to travel but I will look into it. One thing that comes to mind is that xtivreg2 with FDs may be reporting N=the entire sample including the singletons (group size=1) that drop out. Perhaps try running -xtivreg,fd- and then -xtivreg2,fd if e(sample)- so that they use the same sample. Do you get the same results? > 3) > > >This is confusing. Do you mean that w_it and q_it are > correlated with > >x_it? That's not a problem. The key requirement is that in > > > >y_it=b_0+b_1 x_it + b_k demographic_covariates + w_it + q_it + e_it , > > > >w_it and q_it should be uncorrelated with e_it. > > Yes, w_it and q_it are correlated with x_it and with e_it. To repeat, correlation with x_it is not a problem, but correlation with e_it is. > >If they are correlated, with e_it (sorry) > then you have two options: (1) Add w > and q to > >your list of endogenous variables. But as you say, you will need > >instruments for them. And if you aren't interested in a causal > >interpretation, then maybe you shouldn't bother. (2) > Instead of using > >w and q as regressors and instrumenting them, insert the > instruments as (exogenous) regressors. > > I am not interested in instrumenting, just conditioning, but > my problem is that once I add them the previously very high > F-stat in the first stage goes down to the point of > indicating weak instruments. It sounds like that's because the instrumenting of either w or q is weak. But that's what the Angrist-Pischke F-stats are for. If the AP F-stat for the regressor of interest is respectable, then you're OK. > That is basically my concern. > Concerning your second advice, do you mean that I should just > drop w and q from the model and replace them with instruments? Yes, exactly. You'll be estimating a semi-reduced form. --Mark > Thanks again for your help, it is very much appreciated. > > Best, > > Filippos > > >>> "Schaffer, Mark E" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk> 06/11/12 7:02 AM >>> > Filippos, > > You need to tell us more - what versions of software you are > using, what the actual output is (or the relevant pieces of > the output), etc. > > More comments below. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > > [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Filippos > > Petroulakis > > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 11:59 PM > > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu > > Subject: st: First stage of panel IV > > > > Hi all, > > > > I am running a panel first differences (fixed effects) model. > > My regression is of the sort > > > > y_it=b_0+b_1 x_it + b_k demographic_covariates + e_it > > > > x_it is endogenous so I have an instrument z_it. > > > > I essentially have 3 issues and I list them in descending order of > > importance. > > > > 1) xtivreg2 is running the first stage of x_it on z_it and the > > exogenous demographic covariates as OLS instead of fixed effects or > > first differences. > > I doubt it very much (having programmed -xtivreg2-, I think > I'm well placed to say this!). -xtivreg2- follows the > standard procedure of transforming the full set of variables > used in the same say, i.e., the within or between > transformation is applied to all variables. > > > I honestly do not know whether > > this is due to theory but it seems to be very odd, especially given > > the fixed effects is definitely the correct specification for the > > model as a whole, and so I would think it has to be the > case for the > > first stage as well. I can do the 2 stages manually and correct the > > errors using the process outlined here > > (http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/ivreg.html) and I > presume the > > fact that I have a panel doesn't change much, but my issue is > > basically whether this is the correct thing to do. > > > > 2) xtivreg and xtivreg2 give me pretty different results, > which is due > > to the fact that xtivreg drops about half of the > observations in the > > first stage. I checked and the variable that is causing the > dropping > > (for whatever reason) is the dependent variable. I am thus positive > > that xtivreg is the wrong one but am still worried. Anyone > knows why > > this happens? > > Again, I doubt the problem is the one you suspect. My guess > is that Most likely you are using different estimators, e.g., > fixed effects with > -xtivreg2- and random effects with -xtivreg-. But you need > to show us the output. > > > 3) Finally, at some point I will need to include a further two > > variables, call them w_it and q_it, which are surely endogenous. I > > don't care about instrumenting for them as I am not interested in a > > causal interpretation, but the problem is that they are also > > endogenous to x_it. So my first stage will be regression x_it on > > variables that are endogenous to itself and to y_it. Is > that an issue > > I should be concerned about? > > This is confusing. Do you mean that w_it and q_it are > correlated with x_it? That's not a problem. The key > requirement is that in > > y_it=b_0+b_1 x_it + b_k demographic_covariates + w_it + q_it + e_it , > > w_it and q_it should be uncorrelated with e_it. If they are > correlated, then you have two options: (1) Add w and q to > your list of endogenous variables. But as you say, you will > need instruments for them. And if you aren't interested in a > causal interpretation, then maybe you shouldn't bother. (2) > Instead of using w and q as regressors and instrumenting > them, insert the instruments as (exogenous) regressors. > > HTH, > Mark > > > Thank you very much in advance - answers to any or all of > those issues > > will be immensely appreciated. > > > > Best, > > > > Filippos Petroulakis > > > > * > > * 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 the Sunday Times Scottish > University of the Year 2011-2012 > > 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/ > -- Heriot-Watt University is the Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2012 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: RE: First stage of panel IV***From:*"Schaffer, Mark E" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: RE: RE: RE: RE: Combining multiple observations by an ID variable** - Next by Date:
**st: getting Stata to read a bizarre sequence of dates** - Previous by thread:
**RE: st: RE: First stage of panel IV** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: RE: First stage of panel IV** - Index(es):