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 |
Brent Gibbons <brent.gibbons@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: Question on Wooldridge's Procedure 18.1 |

Date |
Wed, 8 Aug 2012 19:00:28 -0400 |

Hopefully the list server will recognize this response in the correct thread. I was trying to use nabble (and only get the digest) but it wasn't allowing me to respond. In case it doesn't recognize it correctly, the last 2 threads are below. Austin, thanks for your response. Let me see if I can explain a bit better. I was partly trying to ask why exactly you have stated weak instrument tests for proc. 18.1 are problematic. You mention that "weak instrument diagnostics should come from straight IV, not procedure 18.1--note that procedure 18.1 would go through if Z was pure noise, and the predicted value of your endogenous variable could be very highly correlated with the endogenous variable, leading you to think you had very strong instruments." As I understand the 18.1 procedure, mainly coming from Wooldridge (2002), you have an extra component in the predicted probabilities besides what is specified in the probit model, which Wooldridge says allows for identification in the subsequent 2SLS even if there are no instruments (p. 624). The extra component comes from the probit estimator's "nonlinear function of x" - which is what I figured you were referring to with 'pure noise'. Hence my first question - is it this reason alone that the weak instrument tests are problematic? My second question relates to a scenario where you have both strong instruments and this same component from above, that is also highly correlated with the endogenous variable. So you can test the strength of the instruments with the linear 2SLS. But is there any reason to worry that this extra component could bias the result? I don't think so, but I'm having trouble explaining why to myself. Thanks again for all comments, Brent Below posted Aug. 7, 2012 B.Gibbons <brent.gibbons@gmail.com>: This question is not clear to me--the point is that weak IV diagnostics work fine for the linear probability model but not Procedure 18.1, as evidenced by a thought experiment (or simulation) using white noise variables as excluded instruments as in my 2010 post. When you say "can't test the exclusion restriction" you are apparently confusing several tests of quality of inference in instrumental variables. I have no idea what you mean by "the non-linearity in the probit may be correlated with..." (did you mean some component of the error? a generalized residual?) Below posted Aug. 2, 2012 Hi Austin, I'm currently using the 18.1 method in a project and have seen your warnings about using tests of instrument strength through the 18.1 method. My 1st question is whether those warnings are solely because of the potential that the non-linearity in the probit may be correlated with the binary endogenous variable - and falsely show good instrument strength. 2nd - what if there is both strong correlation between the non-linearity in the probit AND strong instruments in the model: is there reason to worry about this non-linearity as having a potential bias, especially since you can't test the exclusion restriction for that? Thanks for any comments, Brent * * 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: Question on Wooldridge's Procedure 18.1***From:*Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: Syntax error with Syntax itself** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: Syntax error with Syntax itself** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Question on Wooldridge's Procedure 18.1** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Question on Wooldridge's Procedure 18.1** - Index(es):