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 |
urbain thierry YOGO <[email protected]> |

To |
[email protected] |

Subject |
Re: st: selection equation Heckman |

Date |
Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:44:53 +0100 |

In the earlier version of the Wooldridge book you quoted(page 573, Wooldridge, 2002), Wooldridge said that if variables in the outcome equation are not strict subset of the ones in selected equation, the inverse Mills ratio can be approximated well by a linear function of variables (in the outcome equation). This could lead to a severe collinearity among regressors and large standards errors. In the same vein, if you add extra variable not included in the selection equation, remember that these variables are not used to build the inverse Mills ratio. Then if these variables could explain the selection variable, that means you face an omitted variable bias in the selection equation and consequently the selection bias could not be corrected in appropriate way. Finally, doing so do you introduce a kind of endogenous bias ? i am not sure. However Verbeek and Wooldridge are both right. 2012/10/15, Jan Wynen <[email protected]>: > Dear all, > > I am currently trying to estimate a Heckman model, whereby I have a > selection equation which includes socio- demographic variables and a unique > selection variable. The outcome equation also includes these socio- > demographic variables (minus the selection variable) but also includes extra > variables which are only visible if the selection equation equals one. > According to Wooldridge (Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel > Data, 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.2010, Chapter 19, pp.803-806) the > variables in the outcome equation should be a strict- subset of the ones in > the selection equation. However, according to Verbeek (A guide to modern > econometrics, 1st ed. Wiley.2000, Chapter 7, pp. 243) the inclusion of > extra variables in the outcome equation is no problem, if they have a zero > coefficient in the selection equation. > > Is estimating a model as indicated above impossible using the Heckman > procedure (will it lead to a problem with endogeneity)? Or is the inclusion > of extra variables (not appearing in the selection equation) in the outcome > equation OK, and if so does anybody have more references to literature > saying this practice is OK? I have found an earlier post on this, however > the references were wrong. > > I have already posted this question two weeks ago, my apologies if this is > regarded as being impatient. > > Best and many thanks, > > Jan > > > > > > * > * For searches and help try: > * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search > * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ > * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ > -- *Urbain Thierry YOGO Ph.D candidate in Economics* * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: selection equation Heckman***From:*Jan Wynen <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: R: st: intreg with control for sample selection and endogeneity bias** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: -save- a varlist** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: selection equation Heckman** - Next by thread:
**st: OLS and IV have opposite sign** - Index(es):