Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

Re: st: mfx - conditional and unconditional elasticities


From   "Austin Nichols" <austinnichols@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: mfx - conditional and unconditional elasticities
Date   Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:40:54 -0500

Even Bergseng <even.bergseng@umb.no>:
I think not.  Predicting at some X=x is a way of
characterizing/interpreting the model's estimated coefficients;
selecting on the explanatory variables X in creating a subsample to
predict over (or to compute means of X at which to predict) is
unproblematic, and relatively easy to interpret for a simple selection
rule, e.g. X=(female, college).  Selecting on y seems like a bad idea
for all kinds of reasons.

On Dec 20, 2007 10:31 AM, Even Bergseng <even.bergseng@umb.no> wrote:
> I want to use -mfx- to compute elasiticities after -tobit/xttobit-. My interpretation is that the commands
>
> . mfx compute, eyex predict(ystar(0,.))
> . mfx compute, eyex predict(e(0,.))
>
> should produce respectively unconditional (all observations) and conditional (non-limit observations) elasticities. Am I correct?
>
> If so: Both elasticities are interpreted at the mean of all observations. Would it be logical to use mean values for the non-limit sample to produce the conditional elasticities? (i.e. add the option at(avg) to mfx where avg is means for the non-limit sample).
>
*
*   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/



© Copyright 1996–2022 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index