Catherine,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of
> Catherine Guirkinger
> Sent: 13 June 2006 01:35
> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: st: RE: LIML excluding exogenous variables from
> "first stage"?
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> Thank you very much for your quick answer. I have two
> follow-up questions:
>
> I am estimating the following equation:
> Y= aX1 + bX2 + bT + cX2*T
> where T is an endogenous treatment, I have a set of
> instrument Z that I use for T, so I can use X2*Z as an
> instruments for X2*T.
>
> I follow your advice and use all the variables in X1 and X2
> in my "first stage" (although one of them is very much a
> function of the treatment). Here are my question:
>
> 1) Is it also OK to use X2 in the first stage when one
> regress X2*T on X2*Z and X1??
Since X2 is exogenous in the equation to be estimated, then the answer
is yes, by definition.
> 2) What about using ivreg in that case? By default, ivreg
> would also use X2*Z (along with Z and X2) in the
> "instrumentalization" of T. Even if the "first stage" does
> not have to be well specified, this procedure increases
> dramatically my number of instruments and I am worried about
> having too many (weak) instruments.
ivreg and ivreg2 don't differ here; they both estimate standard
single-equation IV. In both, the excluded instruments would be X2, Z
and X2*Z. Excluding X2 from the first-stage regression is just like
going from a single-equation estimation framework to a system framework.
You can if you want to, and then you get the standard tradeoff of
efficiency vs. robustness. As for weak instruments, going from 2->3
doesn't look like a dramatic increase, at least in this context. The
literature on this focuses on problems caused by scores (or even
hundreds) of instruments. You're a long way from there!
Cheers,
Mark
Prof. Mark Schaffer
Director, CERT
Department of Economics
School of Management & Languages
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
tel +44-131-451-3494 / fax +44-131-451-3296
email: m.e.schaffer@hw.ac.uk
web: http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/ecomes
> Thanks!
> Catherine
>
> ---- Original Message Follows -----
> From: "Schaffer, Mark E" <M.E.Schaffer@hw.ac.uk>
> To: <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
> Subject: st: RE: LIML excluding exogenous variables from
> "first stage"?
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:33:27 +0100
>
> > Catherine,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> > > [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of
> > > Catherine Guirkinger
> > > Sent: 12 June 2006 23:49
> > > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: st: LIML excluding exogenous variables from
> "first stage"?
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I am estimating a linear model that contains endogenous
> regressors
> > > (due to omitted variable problems). I first applied a
> 2SLS procedure
> > > using a set of instruments but my instruments seem to be
> week (low
> > > F in the first
> > > stage) and I would like to estimate the same model with Limited
> > > Information Maximum Likelihood.
> > > My problem is the following: When I estimate the first
> stage of the
> > > 2SLS, I exclude some exogenous regressors that are in the main
> > > equation (I exclude them because of problems of reverse
> causality
> > > in the first stage) and I am wondering whether I can
> apply a LIML
> > > method and NOT use all the exogenous variables from the main
> > > equation as explanatory variables of the endogenous
> > variables.
> >
> > This is a general IV issue that applies to 2SLS, LIML, GMM etc. It
> > also comes up on the list fairly regularly; see, e.g.,
> >
> >
> http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2005-11/msg00123.html
> >
> > and the FAQ on the Stata website,
> >
> > http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/ivreg.html
> >
> > Basically, you probably don't want to do it. Reverse
> causality in the
> > first stage is irrelevant to consistency of LIML (or 2SLS etc.).
> > These are single equation estimators, and the first-stage equation
> > (which you are probably thinking of as a "second equation")
> does not
> > have to be well-specified in the same way that the main
> equation does.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mark
> >
> > Prof. Mark Schaffer
> > Director, CERT
> > Department of Economics
> > School of Management & Languages
> > Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS tel
> +44-131-451-3494 / fax
> > +44-131-451-3296
> > email: m.e.schaffer@hw.ac.uk
> > web: http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/ecomes
> >
> > > I know that ivreg2 does not allow to do it, so I was prepare to
> > > compute the estimator "by hand" but when I look at the matrix
> > > algebra of computing the LIML (using the formula involving
> > > eigenvalue of a matrix of the data), I wonder whether it can be
> > > used when some exogenous regressors are excluded from the "first
> > > stage" (the derivation of this formula is very intense in matrix
> > > algebra and quite obscure to me). Does anybody have an
> answer? Has
> > > anybody seen an application
> > of LIML where not all exogenous variables are used to
> > > explain the endogenous variables?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help!
> > >
> > > Catherine
> > > *
> > > * 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/
> *
> * 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/