Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Nick Cox <[email protected]> |

To |
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> |

Subject |
Re: st: Polynomial Fitting and RD Design |

Date |
Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:57:16 +0100 |

This is Stata 7 syntax. It will work in later versions with the prefix version 7: Nick On 10 Sep 2011, at 11:46, Alex Olssen <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi, I have a question. It's not quite on this topic, but it is related to the replication of Lee, Moretti, and Butler. In the do-files found in the links in the original post are the following lines of code graph meanY100 fit1 fit2 int1U int1L int2U int2L dembin , l1(" ") l2("ADA Score, time t") b1(" ") t1(" ") t2(" ") b2("Democrat Vote Share, time t-1") xlabel(0,.5,1) ylabel (0,.5,1) title(" ") xline(.5) c(.lll[-]l[-]l[-]l[-]) s(oiiii) sort saving(`1'_reduced.gph, replace); translate `1'_reduced.gph `1'_reduced.eps, replace; I can't get this to work. I have never seen the graph command used like this before - I always used graph twoway, etc. In any case, the error I get is: "meanY100graph_g.new fit1 fit2 int1U int1L int2U int2L dembin ,: class member function not found" Can anyone help me with this? Cheers, Alex On 6 September 2011 07:40, Patrick Button <[email protected]> wrote:Thank you for the feedback everyone. It has been extremely usefuland nowI am not freaking out as much.First, i've changed x to x - 0.5 as per Austin Nichols' suggestion.Thismakes interpretation easier. I should have done this earlier.I was thinking that my replication was going to involve critiqueNick Cox,and I agree with you and others that the 4th order polynomials are somewhat fishy. The weird thing about the paper is that the authors say that they are using 4th degree polynomials on either side of the discontinuity, buttheir graphs and/or code indicate that they are just using onepolynomialto fit the entire thing. Not sure why that is... So in trying to dothe4th degree polynomial for each side on my own, i’ve run into thisissue ofresults being weird. Now that I understand why it makes perfectsense.As for if the 4th degree polynomial is ideal, I would agree withall ofyou that it probably is not. If one is going to go withpolynomials, theideal degree depends on the bandwidth you use. Ariel Lindendescribed thisreally well earlier.Larger bandwidths mean more precision, but more bias. Smallerbandwidths(say only using data within +/- 2 percentage points of 50%) lead totheopposite. Lee and Lemieux (2010)(http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/tlemieux/papers/RD_JEL.pdf) discussthat theoptimal polynomial degree is a function of the bandwidth.The ideal degree is determined by the Akaike Information Criterion(AIC).I'm going to stick with the 4th degree polynomial (and the entiredataset), then i'll try other polynomials and bandwidths, and thenkernelafter that. I need to do the replication first, THEN I willcritique thatby going with something more realistic. The -rd- package should bereallyuseful for that. Thanks so much for all the discussion about a morerealistic model. The key thing is that results should be robust toseveraldifferent types of fitting and bandwidths, so long as they arerealisticin the first place.As for using orthog/orthpoly to generate orthogonal polynomials, Igavethat a shot. Thank you very much for the suggestion Martin Buis.I've done the orthogonalization two different ways. Both givedifferentresults, neither of which mirror the results where I create the polynomials in the regular fashion. I'm not sure which method is"correct". I'm also unsure why the results are significantlydifferent.Any suggestions would be very helpful.Orthpoly # 1 uses orthpoly separately on each side of thediscontinuity. #2 does it for all the data. The code and output are below: ***** drop if demvoteshare==. keep if realincome~=. drop demvs2 demvs3 demvs4 gen double x = demvoteshare - 0.5 gen D = 1 if x >= 0 replace D = 0 if x < 0 *Orthpoly #1 *Creating orthogonal polynomials separately for each side. orthpoly x if x < 0, deg(4) generate(demvsa demvs2a demvs3a demvs4a) orthpoly x if x >= 0, deg(4) generate(demvsb demvs2b demvs3b demvs4b) replace demvsa = 0 if demvsa==. replace demvsb = 0 if demvsb==. replace demvs2a = 0 if demvs2a==. replace demvs2b = 0 if demvs2b==. replace demvs3a = 0 if demvs3a==. replace demvs3b = 0 if demvs3b==. replace demvs4a = 0 if demvs4a==. replace demvs4b = 0 if demvs4b==. replace demvsa = (1-D)*demvsa replace demvs2a = (1-D)*demvs2a replace demvs3a = (1-D)*demvs3a replace demvs4a = (1-D)*demvs4a replace demvsb = D*demvsb replace demvs2b = D*demvs2b replace demvs3b = D*demvs3b replace demvs4b = D*demvs4bregress realincome D demvsa demvs2a demvs3a demvs4a demvsb demvs2bdemvs3bdemvs4b *Orthpoly #2 orthpoly x, deg(4) generate (demvs demvs2 demvs3 demvs4) replace demvsa = (1-D)*demvs replace demvs2a = (1-D)*demvs2 replace demvs3a = (1-D)*demvs3 replace demvs4a = (1-D)*demvs4 replace demvsb = D*demvs replace demvs2b = D*demvs2 replace demvs3b = D*demvs3 replace demvs4b = D*demvs4regress realincome D demvsa demvs2a demvs3a demvs4a demvsb demvs2bdemvs3bdemvs4b ***** And the results are: Orthpoly # 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------realincome | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------D | -2597.064 140.5829 -18.47 0.000 -2872.626 -2321.502 demvsa | -853.4396 109.0927 -7.82 0.000 -1067.277 -639.6025 demvs2a | -941.1276 109.0927 -8.63 0.000 -1154.965 -727.2905 demvs3a | 593.9881 109.0927 5.44 0.000 380.151 807.8252 demvs4a | 121.7433 109.0927 1.12 0.264 -92.09384 335.5804 demvsb | -2006.552 88.66978 -22.63 0.000 -2180.357 -1832.747 demvs2b | -620.1632 88.66978 -6.99 0.000 -793.9685 -446.3579 demvs3b | -134.2237 88.66978 -1.51 0.130 -308.029 39.58156 demvs4b | 457.7355 88.66978 5.16 0.000 283.9302 631.5407 _cons | 32210.1 109.0927 295.25 0.000 31996.26 32423.93------------------------------------------------------------------------------Orthpoly # 2------------------------------------------------------------------------------realincome | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------D | -15904.18 22026.78 -0.72 0.470 -59079.79 27271.42 demvsa | 56141.35 33816.59 1.66 0.097 -10143.95 122426.6 demvs2a | 42328.68 25413.63 1.67 0.096 -7485.616 92142.98 demvs3a | 19367.81 11950.96 1.62 0.105 -4057.754 42793.37 demvs4a | 3038.492 2722.757 1.12 0.264 -2298.496 8375.481 demvsb | -40636.36 7469.378 -5.44 0.000 -55277.4 -25995.32 demvs2b | 47190.86 9181.907 5.14 0.000 29193.03 65188.7 demvs3b | -33596.74 6331.021 -5.31 0.000 -46006.43 -21187.04 demvs4b | 7983.823 1546.578 5.16 0.000 4952.31 11015.33 _cons | 68128.44 21623.63 3.15 0.002 25743.08 110513.8------------------------------------------------------------------------------The results using the earlier method (generating polynomialsnormally)gives the following after I change x to x - 0.5:------------------------------------------------------------------------------realincome | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+--------------------------------------------------

* * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: Polynomial Fitting and RD Design***From:*Alex Olssen <[email protected]>

**References**:**Re: Re: st: Polynomial Fitting and RD Design***From:*"Patrick Button" <[email protected]>

**Re: Re: st: Polynomial Fitting and RD Design***From:*Alex Olssen <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**st: level of measurement for instrumental variable** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Polynomial Fitting and RD Design** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: st: Polynomial Fitting and RD Design** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Polynomial Fitting and RD Design** - Index(es):