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 |
Fernando Rios Avila <f.rios.a@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: To: Statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Date |
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:02:32 -0500 |

The problem is that you are not using any of the right options in the -oaxaca- command. For instance, what you are referring to is a two fold decomposition, whereas by default Oaxaca does a three fold decomposition (for more detail look at the paper and documentation). For instance, if you do : oaxaca y x, by(d) probit nodetail weight(0) you will have the results in the more traditional two fold way. (again, look at the documentation) HTH Fernando On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Dimitriy V. Masterov <dvmaster@gmail.com> wrote: > I am trying to make sense of the results of a Oxaca-Blinder > decomposition produced by Ben Jann's oaxaca command (version 4.0.5 > from ssc). I have a binary outcome y, a single continuous explanatory > variable x (0-100), and a binary group indicator d: > > oaxaca y x, by(d) probit nodetail > > Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition Number of obs = 2178524 > Model = probit > Group 1: DElectronics_1 = 0 N of obs 1 = 1612480 > Group 2: DElectronics_1 = 1 N of obs 2 = 566044 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > bbe_flag1 | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] > -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- > overall | > group_1 | .0617275 .0001892 326.25 0.000 .0613567 .0620983 > group_2 | .0698966 .0003379 206.85 0.000 .0692343 .0705589 > difference | -.0081692 .0003873 -21.09 0.000 -.0089282 -.0074101 > endowments | -.0135059 .0001323 -102.10 0.000 -.0137651 -.0132466 > coefficients | .0024407 .0004099 5.95 0.000 .0016374 .003244 > interaction | .002896 .0001549 18.69 0.000 .0025924 .0031996 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The rate for Group 2 is about 0.8 of a percent point higher. That can > be broken out as the sum: > (1) the difference due to different characteristics x (-1.35) > (2) the difference in the effect of x on y (+0.24) > (3) interaction (+0.3) > > In the draft version of Yun's 2004 paper (link below), I only see two > terms that correspond to (1) and (2) above in the probit example. The > interaction seems to be a sort of residual. Where does it come from? > > Finally, using the SJ version of Yun's mvdcmp command, also produces > only two terms. His difference due to coefficients seems to be the sum > of (2) and (3) from above. > > DVM > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fftp.iza.org%2Fdp877.pdf&ei=roWiUIjUB-TXigKfk4GYCg&usg=AFQjCNF6vZ3LumWLgT3tZE65rgxqSyoUSg&sig2=XNMCW_y-Cp_ZjdmNZnX64g&cad=rja > * > * For searches and help try: > * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search > * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/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/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: To: Statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>***From:*"Dimitriy V. Masterov" <dvmaster@gmail.com>

**References**:**st: To: Statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>***From:*"Dimitriy V. Masterov" <dvmaster@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: To: Statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: To: Statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>** - Previous by thread:
**st: To: Statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: To: Statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>** - Index(es):