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

st: RE: question on heckman

From   "Nick Cox" <>
To   <>
Subject   st: RE: question on heckman
Date   Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:06:10 -0000

Sorry, I have no idea, but I have one (predictable to some) small
detailed suggestion
for anyone in this territory. If anyone wishes to call it pedantic I am
happy with that. 

The ratio you refer to is named for one John P. Mills. There are various
defensible ways to use his name in referring to the ratio: Mills ratio,
Mills' ratio, Mills's ratio, but Mill's ratio and Mill ratio are both


I have a question on Mill's ratio and Heckman procedure. When I use Mill
ratio to take into account the possible endogeneity of one of my
explanatory variable, I get different result from what I get by using
regular IV. What can be the resaon (reasons) for that? The more basic
question is that what distinguishes using Mill ratio and regular IV?

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2023 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index