I think that wooldridge (2001) textbook analyzes a similar case in his chapter
on self selection models.
hope this helps,
nico
Quoting Renzo Comolli <[email protected]>:
> Hi Danny
>
> >I have the following model.
> >Y1 = b0 + a1Y1 + a3X3 + e1 (Y1 is binary)
> >Y2 = b1 + a2Y2 + a4X4 + e2 (Y2 is observed but its truncated at 0)
>
> I really think there must still be one typo. I should read
> Y1 = b0 + a1Y2 + a3X3 + e1 (Y1 is binary)
> Y2 = b1 + a2Y1 + a4X4 + e2 (Y2 is observed but its truncated at 0)
>
>
> I undestand the intuitive idea you are shooting for. I have never seen what
> you propose.
> You have to check the validity of your procedure.
> Clearly you have the poblem that when you do one regression and compute the
> inverse mills ration you have the other endogenous variable in, and that
> does not bode well. But I am not sure, you have to check it.
>
> Good news now!!
> The technique that I would use to solve your problem (assuming your problem
> is in the way I wrote it) is just a modification of the technique which is
> reprogrammed in -reg3-
> . help reg3
>
> Study the logic of -reg3-, if you have the manuals read it in there. If you
> don't have the manuals read 3SLS (3 stages least squares on text books),
> then instead of using -reg3- do the 3 steps using the estimators that you
> need to take into account the nature of Y1 and Y2
>
> More good news!!
> As you know probit is preprogrammed
> . help probit
>
> Also tobit is preprogrammed!!!!!!!!!
> . help tobit
>
> I don't guarantee that the procedure I propose here, is a correct and valid
> one. That's what I would do if I had really little time to think about the
> problem.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Ciao
> Renzo
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
