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, is already up and running.

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

RE: st: OLS and IV have opposite sign

From   Sun Yutao <>
To   <>
Subject   RE: st: OLS and IV have opposite sign
Date   Mon, 15 Oct 2012 22:40:54 +0200

You mean you get the same value but different signs? 

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Shikha Sinha
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: st: OLS and IV have opposite sign

I am estimating the effect of family size (no of children) on probability of work by mother. The endogenous variable is no of children and I instrument this by gender of first born. If the first child is female then family size should be greater.

I understand that IV correct the bias and OLS coeff may be upward or downward biased. One can sign the bias (+) or (-) by examining the correlation between the omited variable and endogenous, but What I do not understand why the sign would change and what determines the opposite sign. I get a negative OLS while a positive IV coeff.


On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Austin Nichols <> wrote:
> Shikha Sinha <>:
> The econometric reason is simple if you believe the exclusion 
> restriction.  Tell us what the endog var is, what the excluded 
> instruments are, and someone on the list will provide a (verbal) 
> description of the bias producing a negative OLS coef estimate 
> (evidently no longer visible in the consistent IV estimate).  Then 
> someone else will weigh in on whether the exclusion restriction makes 
> sense, probably...
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Shikha Sinha <> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I am estimating an Ordinary least square (OLS) and Instrument 
>> variable
>> (IV) model, however the signs are opposite to each other. The OLS 
>> coeff is negative, while the IV coeff is positive. Could anyone 
>> explain what the signs in these two models are different- is there 
>> any econometric reason for this?
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *
> *
> *
*   For searches and help try:

*   For searches and help try:

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