Likelihood Ratio Based Test for the Exogeneity and the Relevance of Instrumental Variables
|
|
- Adrian Walker
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Likelihood Ratio Based est for the Exogeneity and the Relevance of Instrumental Variables Dukpa Kim y Yoonseok Lee z September [under revision] Abstract his paper develops a test for the exogeneity and the relevance of instrumental variables using Vuong s (989) model selection test. he test statistic is derived from the likelihood ratio of two competing models: one with exogenous and possibly relevant instruments and the other with irrelevant and even possibly endogenous instruments. he likelihood ratio is given as the di erence between the rst stage F test and the overidentifying restrictions test, which are commonly used tests for the relevance and the exogeneity of instrumental variables. he null hypothesis is that the second model is at least as close to the true distribution of the data as the rst model, while the alternative hypothesis is that the rst is strictly closer than the second. Hence, rejection of the proposed test implies that the given instruments are better described as relevant and exogenous than irrelvant and endogenous. It is also shown that when the instruments are irrelevant and exogenous, the true distribution is equally close to both models. However, the limiting distribution of the likelihood ratio is di erent from the one obtained by Vuong (989) because the rst model is not identi ed. Nonetheless, this limiting distribution is nuisance parameter free and the relevant quantiles are reported. Keywords: exogeneity, relevance, instrumental variables, likelihood ratio. JEL Classi cations: C; C3 First draft: March 9. y Department of Economics, University of Virginia, Monroe Hall, McCormick Rd., Charlottesville, VA 93; dukpa@virginia.edu z Department of Economics, University of Michigan, 6 appan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 489; yoolee@umich.edu
2 Introduction A set of instrumental variables is said to be relevant if they are correlated with the endogenous regressors and exogenous if uncorrelated with the errors. It is a common practice in empirical studies to check these two conditions since the standard inference results on the structural parameters hold only when these conditions hold. he overidentifying restrictions (OID) test (e.g., Anderson and Rubin, 949; Sargan, 958; Basmann, 96) is widely used for the exogeneity condition, and the rst stage F and Wald tests are typically used for the relevance condition (or for the weak instruments). Cragg and Donald (993), Hall, Rudebusch and Wilcox (996) and Stock and Yogo (5) are more recently developed relevance tests. While there is no test considering both conditions simultaneously to the best of our knowledge, it has not been discussed much in the econometrics literature how to combine and interpret these two types of tests, either. he null distribution of the OID test is approximated by the Chi-square distribution under the implicit assumption that the instruments are relevant and strong. As Staiger and Stock (997) point out, however, the Chi-square distribution is a good approximation only if the instruments are strongly correlated with the endogenous regressors. Without the knowledge of the relevance of the instruments, we cannot be sure about the legitimacy of the Chi-square approximation. One may consider a two-stage testing procedure testing for the relevance rst and continuing to test for the exogeneity if the rst stage relevance test rejects no or weak relevance. However, the distribution of the OID test conditional on the rejection of the relevance test can be quite di erent from the unconditional distribution and the literature has not gured out, even asymptotically, what the exact error probability is when we use the conventional critical values. We performed some Monte Carlo experiments to show the di culties arising when the relevance test and exogeneity test are used in the conventional manner. Let (^(k )) and min (G ) be the standard OID test and Stock and Yogo s (5) weak instruments test, respectively, where ^(k ) is the k-class estimator. he limit distributions of these statistics are given in Staiger and Stock (997) as (^(k )) d (z u (z V + C ) ()) (z u (z V + C ) ()) () + () () () min (G ) d g min ((z V + C ) (z V + C )). () ables.a and.b report the rejection probabilities of the OID test, which are conditional Recently, Moreira (3) among others, propose an inferential method that is robust to arbitrarily weak instruments. his weak instruments robust inference, however, requires exogenous instruments and the necessity to check the exogeneity of instruments still remains (e.g., Doko and Dufour, 8).
3 on the rejection of the rst stage weak-iv test (rej ) and unconditional (uncond). he cases of C C :5 and :8 correspond to somewhat weak instruments, while : to strong instruments. he rst observation in able.a is that the size distortion of increases (e.g., see the uncond columns) as the instruments get weaker, which shows the danger of applying the standard OID test without knowing the strength of the instruments. Note that the actual sizes vary from less than 4% to more than % when the instruments are weakly correlated with the endogenous variables. he second observation is that the sequential procedure creates more size distortion in that the rejection probabilities of conditional on the rejection of g is always greater than their unconditional counterparts. Also, the size of is very liberal near, while it is mildly conservative near. able.b reports the results obtained using the Fuller-k estimator instead of the SLS estimator. Overall, able.b exhibits a great deal of similarity to able.a and the general conclusions from able.a remain valid. he main goal of this paper is to develop a testing procedure considering the relevance and exogeneity conditions at the same time. We employ Vuong s (989) model selection test. From a structural equation and its associated reduced form equation, we consider two competing models: One imposing the instruments to be exogenous and the other imposing the instruments to be irrelevant. Assuming normality, we show that the likelihood ratio of these two models is equivalent to the di erence of the standard rst stage Wald statistic and the OID test statistic. he null hypothesis is that the second model is at least as close to the true distribution of the observations as the rst model and the alternative hypothesis is that the rst is strictly closer to the true distribution than the second. In Vuong s (989) model selection test, rejecting the null hypothesis in favor of one model does not imply that the true distribution belongs to the favored model. It only implies that the true distribution is closer to the favored model compared to the competing model. Similarly, rejection of our test in favor of the rst model implies that the given set of instruments are better described as relevant and exogenous than irrelevant and endogenous. Non-rejection is interpreted as lack of evidence supporting the view that the given set of instruments is relevant and exogenous. Among other things, Vuong (989) assumes that the expectation of the likelihood functions of the competing models under the true distribution are maximized at a unique value. We show that this condition is satis ed when the instruments are relevant and the test can be performed using the scaled likelihood ratio combined with the standard normal critical values. However, when the instruments are irrelevant, the rst model is not identi ed and thus Vuong s (989) condition does not hold. Nonetheless, we show that the scaled likelihood ratio is asymptotically pivotal under the null hypothesis, although the distribution is non-standard. We provide the critical values for this limiting distribution. Using the big-
4 ger of the critical value of this non-standard distribution and that of the standard normal distribution will control the size of the test. his paper is organized as follows. Section describes the model and the test. Section 3 presents the asymptotic results pertaining to the likelihood ratio test under the null and the alternative hypotheses. Section 4 concludes with some remarks. All the technical proofs and simulation results are provided in Appendix. Model and est We consider a structural equation with an associated reduced form equation given by y Y + " (3) Y Z + V, (4) where y is a vector, Y is a n matrix of n endogenous variables, and Z is a K matrix of (excluded) exogenous variables to be used as instruments. he number of instruments, K, satis es n < K < and it is assumed to be xed. " and V are, respectively, a vector and a n matrix of random disturbances. here is often a K matrix of (included) exogenous variables, say X, in both (3) and (4). We will consider, without loss of generality, a model without X, since it can always be projected out. he main interest is to devise a test procedure which provides statistical evidence supporting the view that the set of instrumental variables Z is uncorrelated with " while it is correlated with Y. In other words, we are looking for evidence that one zero moment condition holds while the other zero moment condition fails. Obviously, it is di cult to test such a hypothesis in the standard testing framework. he strategy used in this paper is the model selection test proposed by Vuong (989). We assume that the true distribution of (y t ; Y t ) satis es the following two conditions. Assumption he observed variables y and Y are generated by: y Y + Z + u (5) Y Z + V Assumption (u t ; V t ) jz t i:i:d:(; ), where uu uv V u with uv ( V u ) 6 and the partition is conformable with (u t; Vt ). 3
5 In this speci cation, the set of instrumental variables Z is exogenous if so that it is orthogonal to the structural error. Z is relevant if 6 or more precisely is of full column rank, and thus correlations between the instruments and the endogenous regressors are nonzero. A key idea of the Vuong (989) model selection test is to use the likelihood ratio between two competing models. We call these two models F and G respectively. he model F imposes a restriction that the instruments are exogenous though its relevance is left unspeci ed. Model F : ( y Y + u Y Z + V with (u t ; V t ) jz t i:i:n(; ): On the other hand, the model G imposes a restriction that the instruments are irrelevant and can be even endogenous. Model G : ( y Y ' + Z + u V Y V with (u V t ; V t ) jz t i:i:n ; Both models assume that the errors are normally distributed. Let f t () and g t () be the density function for each model conditional on the instruments Z, where (; ; ) and ('; ; ; ). Using Vuong s (989) notation, the model F is denoted as a collection of densities, ff t (); g and the model G as a collection of densities, fg t (); the parameter space and each model to be : g, where are compact sets. De ne and, pseudo true values for arg max E log f t () arg max E log g t () hen, each model s distance from the true density h(y t ; Y t ) is the minimum KLIC given by E log h(y t ; Y t ) E log f t ( ) and E log h(y t ; Y t ) E log g t ( ) where the expectation E is with respect to the true joint distribution of (y t ; Y t ). In Vuong s (989) model selection test, the null hypothesis is that the two models are 4
6 equally close to the true density so that H : E log f t ( ) E log g t ( ) and the alternative hypothesis is either the model F is closer to the true density than the model G, H f : E log f t ( ) > E log g t ( ) or the opposite H g : E log f t ( ) < E log g t ( ). he KLIC is not observed but can be consistently estimated by its sample analog and it is natural to use the likelihood ratio statistic for the testing problem just described. Let log F () P t log f t() and log G() P t log g t(), where we use the notation P t P t. he likelihood ratio between the models F and G is given by LR max log F () max log G() log I n + G log( + (^ LIML )), (6) where ^ LIML is the LIML estimator, G ^ Y P Z Y ^ and (^ LIML ) ^u P Z ^u ^u M Z ^u (7) with ^ Y M Z Y, ^u y Y ^ LIML. he detailed derivation of (6) is given in Appendix. Note that the rst component of (6), which is approximately tr (G ), is nothing but the Wald statistic from the reduced form equation in (4) testing for. commonly used rst stage F statistic is equivalent to this statistic when there is only one endogenous regressor; Hall, Rudebusch and Wilcox s (996), and Stock and Yogo s (5) statistics are its variants. On the other hand, the second component of (6), which is approximately (^ LIML ), is the standard overidentifying restrictions (OID) test statistic. For example, it is Anderson-Rubin (949) statistic when the true value of is used instead of ^ LIML and is the Basmann s (96) test when the two stage least squares estimator is used. It is an interesting point that the LR statistic can be interpreted as the di erence between a relevant instrument test statistic and the standard OID test statistic, and naturally our test procedure can be viewed as providing a formal way of interpreting the di erence between the two commonly used test statistics. In terms of Vuong s (989) terminology, the models F and G are overlapping. In this he 5
7 case, the null hypothesis should be further split into two cases: (i) log f t ( ) log g t ( ), (ii) log f t ( ) 6 log g t ( ) but E log f t ( ) E log g t ( ). He shows that LR O p () under (i) but O p ( ) under (ii). In order to discriminate (i) and (ii), he also proposes to use a sequential procedure. Let ^s " X t log f t(^) g t (^) # LR : hen, he shows ( ^s O p() under (i); ^s a:s: otherwise. Hence the sequential procedure is rst to test for the case (i) using ^s. Not rejecting the rst step test automatically implies the null hypothesis is not rejected and the test procedure ends. When the rst step test is rejected, Vuong (989) continues to test for the case (ii) above. If (ii) is true, Vuong (989) shows that LR q ^s d N(; ) One of the key assumptions that Vuong (989) makes is that the pseudo true values and are unique and in the interior of the parameter space. hen, it is well known that the maximum likelihood estimates are asymptotically normal around these values. his is the key ingredient in deriving the limiting distributions of the LR and the variance statistics. In the next section, we will focus on the four cases for the true distribution: (a) 6 and 6 (relevant but endogenous IVs), (b) 6 and (relevant and exogenous IVs), (c) and (irrelevant and exogenous IVs) and (d) and 6 (irrelevant and even endogenous IVs). We show that unique and exist for (a) and (b) and Vuong s (989) results directly apply. For (c) and (d), there is no unique due to the lack of identi cation in the model F while a unique exists. his means that Vuong s (989) results do not apply and the limiting distributions of the LR and the variance statistics are di erent from the ones obtained by Vuong (989). Lastly, note that distinguishing the model G from the null hypothesis is not important for our testing problem. hypothesis is We naturally consider only one directional test where the null H : E log f t ( ) E log g t ( ) (8) 6
8 and the alternative hypothesis is H : E log f t ( ) > E log g t ( ): (9) In other words, we only look for evidence supporting the view the model F is closer to the true density than the model G. It should be emphasized that rejecting the null in favor of a certain model never implies that the true density belongs to the favored model. It only implies that the favored model is closer to the true density compared to the competing model. Hence, in our case, rejecting H in favor of H does not imply that the instruments are relevant and exogenous. It only implies that the instruments are better described as relevant and exogenous than irrelevant and endogenous. 3 Main Results Recall that (; ; ) and ('; ; ; ). he true density h(y t ; Y t ) depends on ( ; ; ; ). In order to state the pseudo true values conveniently, we de ne E Z t Z t, ( ; ) ( ; ), b ( ) and J I n heorem (Relevant IVs) Suppose that Assumptions and hold with 6. For the model F, let k be the smallest eigenvalue of with respect to and b be the corresponding eigenvector with the rst element being normalized to unity. hen, the pseudo true values are given by + k k V u ( ; )b b b b J ( + k)b b ( + k)b J ( + k)j b J J + kj b (b b ) b J () and E log f t ( ; ; ) log( + k) log j j For the model G, the pseudo true values are given by n +. ' + ( ) V u uu uv ( ) V u + 7
9 and E log g t ' ; ; ; log log + n +. When the instruments are relevant ( 6 ), there exist pseudo true values for both models regardless of the exogeneity parameter ( ) in the interior of the parameter space and Vuong s (989) theory directly applies. Note that log f t ( ) 6 log g t ( ) and the scaled LR statistic can be used without pretesting the variance test. Also, the true densities that belong to the null hypothesis H in (8) are those satisfying log( + k) log I n + ( ) ( ). () When the true density yields exact equality in (), the scaled LR statistic converges in distribution to the standard normal distribution, and when it yields strict inequality in (), it diverges to negative in nity. Hence, the asymptotic size of the test is controlled by the standard normal critical values. On the other hand, when the true density does not satisfy the condition in (), the scaled LR statistic diverges to positive in nity. A leading case of this instance is a set of good instrumental variables, which are both relevant and exogenous (i.e., 6 and ). Given its importance, we present this case in the following corollary. Note that k when. Corollary (Good IVs) Suppose that Assumptions and hold with 6 and. hen, for the model F, the pseudo true values are given by and, therefore and E log f t ( ; ; ) > E log g t ' ; ; ; LR q ^s a:s: as. Now, we consider the case of irrelevant instrumental variables. De ne P () ( ) I 8
10 and () uu() uv () P () V u () uu V u uv P (). hen, for any given, it can be shown that log f t (; ; ()) log f t ( ; ; ) when, and the model F is not identi ed. We look at the model F conditional on and let () and () be the solution to the partial maximization problem for any given. max ; E log f t (; ; ) heorem 3 (Irrelevant and Exogenous IVs) Let be xed at an arbitrary value. Suppose that Assumptions and hold with and. hen, for the model F conditional on, the pseudo true values are given by () () () and, for the model G, the pseudo true values are given by ' + ( ) V u. herefore, log f t (; (); ()) log g t (' ; ; ; ). his theorem states that for any given, there exist pseudo true values for the model F conditional on and the model G, and the log likelihoods evaluated at the pseudo true values are exactly the same. Consequently, we also have max E log f t () max E log g t () which belongs to the null hypothesis in (8). However, the limiting distributions of the LR and the variance statistic under the null hypothesis obtained by Vuong (989) do not apply, 9
11 because there is no unique pseudo true value for the unconditional model F. For any, the maximized expectation of the log likelihood function is the same. We de ne the conditional likelihood, LR() by LR() max log F (; ; ) max ; log I n + G log G() log( + ()), and the variance estimator, ^s () by ^s () " # X log f t(; ^(); ^()) g t (^) LR() t o obtain the limiting distribution of these two statistics, we show that the conditional likelihood LR() is close to a quadratic form uniformly in B so that LR() h M()h + o p () where the middle matrix M() is a continuous function of and the vector h does not depend on and converges in distribution to a standard multivariate normal distribution. hen, the limiting distribution of ^ LIML is combined with this expression using the Continuous Mapping heorem. A similar argument applies to the variance statistic. Under Assumption, we have p (Z u; Z V ) d ( Zu; ZV ) as, where ( Zu; vec( ZV ) ) N(; ). De ne Gaussian random matrices z u Zu( uu) z V ZV ( ) so that (zu; vec(z V ) ) N ; I K with I n
12 where ( ) V u ( uu). hen, we let (z u z V ) p and we have (vec(z V ) ; ) N ; I (n+)k. We state the limiting distributions of the LR and variance statistics. heorem 4 (Irrelevant and Exogenous IVs) Suppose that Assumptions and hold with and. Let c (zv z V I) zv and be the smallest root satisfying j(; z V ) (; z V ) I n+ j. hen, LR d vec(z V ; ) Mvec(z V ; ) and where ^s d vec(z V ; ) M vec(z V ; ), M I n c( + c c) c ( + c c) c ( + c c) c I K. +c c hese limiting distributions are non-standard but free of nuisance parameters. able below presents the critical values for the scaled LR statistic. When there is only one endogenous regressor (n ), the critical values are smaller than those of the standard normal distribution. However, when there are multiple endogenous regressors (n ) except when n, K 5 with % asymptotic size, the critical values are bigger. In order to control the size of test properly, the bigger of the standard normal critical values and those in able should be used. Remark 5 he limiting distribution of LR can be written as LR d tr zv (I K z V (zv z z V I) z V ) V + zv (z V z V I) zv in which case the rst expression corresponds to the limiting distribution of the rst stage F statistic, G and the second expression to the OID statistic, (^ LIML ). he last case we consider is when and 6. Recall that and J are de ned in (). hey are.8,.65 and.3 for.9,.95 and.99 quantiles.
13 heorem 6 (Irrelevant and Endogenous IVs) Let be xed at an arbitrary value. Suppose that Assumptions and hold with and 6. Let s b b with b ( ) hen, for the model F conditional on, the pseudo true values are given by. () b b b J () ( + s)b b ( + s)b J ( + s)j b J J + sj b (b b) b J and E log f t (; (); ()) log( + s) log j j For the model G, the pseudo true values are given by n +. ' + ( ) V u. herefore, and E log g t (' ; ; ; ) log j j n + E log f t (; (); ()) < E log g t (' ; ; ; ). For any xed, the true distribution with and 6 is closer to the model G than the model F, and it belongs to the set of null distributions. In fact, the true distribution with and 6 belongs to the model G. he distance between the true density and the model F is measured by the value s. Note that the maximizer of E log f t is on the boundary of B, and Vuong s (989) results do not apply again. Since the maximizer is on the boundary, s can be made arbitrarily small as can be arbitrarily large. Indeed, it can be shown that ^LIML O p, which means that the distance between the model F and the true density collapses to zero. As a result the scaled LR statistic does not diverge to negative in nity, but its distribution shifts left from the distribution obtained when and, and the asymptotic size
14 of our test remains at the controlled level. 4 Concluding Remark A test for the relevance and the exogeneity conditions is proposed using Vuong s (989) model selection test. In particular, the test statistic is derived from two competing models: one imposing the instruments to be exogenous and the other imposing the instruments to be irrelevant. he likelihood ratio of these two models is the di erence of the standard rst stage Wald statistic and the OID test statistic. When the instruments are relevant, it is shown that Vuong s (989) regularity conditions are satis ed and the scaled likelihood ratio is asymptotically standard normal under the null hypothesis that the true distribution is at least as close to the second model as the rst model. When the instruments are irrelevant, it is shown that Vuong s (989) result do not apply. Nonetheless, it is further shown that the test is asymptotically pivotal under the null hypothesis. he critical values of this asymptotic distribution is reported. Using the bigger of the standard normal critical values and those we report in this paper will control the size of the test. 3
15 Appendix: Mathematical Proofs Derivation of the Likelihood Ratio (6) model F as First, write the log-likelihood function of the log F () log j uuj u() u() uu log V ju h tr V ju Y Z u() Y Z u() i, where u() y Y, V u uu and V ju V u uv uu. Let ^u y Y ^ LIML. From the rst order conditions, we obtain ^ uu ^u ^u, and ^ Y Z ^ ^u(^u^u) Y M Z ^u(^u M Z ^u) ^ (Z Z) Z (Y ^u ^) (Z Z) Z (Y ^u^u M Z Y (^u M Z ^u) ) ^ V ju Y Z ^ ^u^ Y Z ^ ^u^ Y M Z Y Y M Z ^u(^u M Z ^u) ^u M Z Y. Note that ^V ju n ^ Y M Z Y ^ ^u M Z ^u n Y M Z Y ^u M Z ^u, where ^ ^ LIML I n. We then have max log F () log j^ uu j ^ V ju (n + ) ^u^u log Y ^u M Z ^u n+ M ZY (n + ) log( + (^ LIML )) log Y M ZY (n + ) Now, write the log-likelihood function of the model G as log G() log (y Z Y ') (y Z Y ') log j j tr Y Y. 4
16 Similarly as the rst case, we have ^ Y Y ^ (Z Z) Z (y Y ^') (Z Z) Z y Y (Y M Z Y ) Y M Z y ^' (Y Y ) Y (y Z ^) (Y M Z Y ) Y M Z y ^ (y Z ^ Y ^') (y Z ^ Y ^') y M Z y y M Z Y (Y M Z Y ) Y M Z y Y M ZY jy M Z Y j. Moreover, ^ n Y Y n Y M Z Y + Y P Z Y n n (Y M Z Y ) (I n + G )(Y M Z Y ) I n + G Y M Z Y, which yields max log G() ^ log ^ log Y M ZY (n + ) log I n + G (n + ). herefore, the LR statistic is derived as Proof of heorem LR max log F () max log G() log I n + G log( + (^ LIML )) First, the log likelihood of the model F is " log f t () log jj tr y t Yt Y t Z t y t Y Y t t Z t # 5
17 for each t. Let and. Rewrite y t Y Y t t Z t t ( ) + Zt + u t ( ) Z t + V t Y Vt + Zt( ) + u t Z t + V t V t + u t V t I n u t V t + ( ) Z t Z t + ( ) Z t. It follows that E log f t (; ; ) log jj tr 6 4 I n + ( ) I n ( ) 3 C7 A5. he rst order condition gives that + ( ) I n I n ( ) b b b J J b J + b ( ; ) ( ; )b b ( ; ) J ( ; )b b ( + )b b ( J ( ; ) ) (J ( ; ))b J J +, where ( ; ) ( ; ), b and J. I n Note that log j j b log ( + )b b ( J ( ; ) ) (J ( ; ))b J J + log b ( + )b J J + + log (J ( ; )) b (b ( + )b ) b ( J ( ; ) ). 6
18 Now, taking di erential with respect to yields d E log f t (; ; ) d J J + log (J ( ; )) b (b ( + )b ) b ( J ( ; ) ) h h tr + (J ( ; ))b b i i ( + )b b ( ; ) d V ju or herefore, Also, let then ( ; )b b b b b J b. J b b b b ( ; ). s b b b b, j b j ( + )b b ( J ( ; ) ) (J ( ; ))b J J + ( + s)b b ( + s)b J ( + s)j b J J + sj b (b b ) b J ( + s) b J J + sj b (b b b ) b J ( + s)j b (b b ) b J ( + s) b b J J J b b b b J (b ( + s) b ) b J J b J J ( + s) I n I n ( + s) j j. (A.) his shows that E log f t (; ; ) log n + j j log( + s) log j j n + and b is chosen to minimize s. From the de nition of s, b is an eigenvector corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue of with respect to with the rst element being normalized 7
19 to unity. Let k be the smallest root. hen, by de nition, k uu k uv k V u k and thus k k V u. he proof for the model G is relatively straightforward and omitted. Proof of heorem 3 Proof of heorem 4 [o be added] We work with the concentrated likelihood functions given by log F (; ) log ^ uu ^ uu u() u() log ^V ju (n + ) ^ V ju (Y Z) M u() (Y Z) u() y Y M u() I u()(u() u()) u() and log G() log ^ ^ (y Z) M Y (y Z) ^ Y Y M Y I Y (Y Y ) Y. log ^ (n + ) Note log F (; ) S F (; ) V ju I K vec Z M u() (Y Z) H F (; log F (; ^ V ju Z M u() Z + o p log G() S G () Z M Y (y ^ H G log ^ Z M Y Z + o p () 8
20 and the maximum likelihood estimates from the two models are ^() Z M u() Z Z M u() Y and Recall that we de ne u t () V t ^ Z M Y Z Z M Y y. ( ) I u t V t P () u t V t and uu () V u () uv () P () uu V u uv P (). Let whose second moments are given by hen, uniformly in B, u V t () u t () Vt V u() Vt u () V t u t () V u ()uu () () uu () uv () V u(), V ju () V u ()uu () uv (). ^() p ^ p. Furthermore, p S F ( ; ) p S G ( ) V ju () I K vec p Z V u () + o p () Z u V ( ) + o p () and H F ( ; ) V ju () + o p () H G ( ) + o p(), where o p () is uniformly in B. 9
21 he likelihood ratio statistic is given by and we rst analyze LR(). Note that LR log F (^(^ LIML ); ^ LIML ) log G(^) h i max log F (^(); ) log G(^) max LR() log F ( ; ) log F (^(); ) + (vec^) H F ( ; )vec^ + o p () log G( ) log G(^) + ^ H G ( )^ + o p (), where o p () is uniformly in B. Hence, LR() log F (^(); ) log G(^) log F ( ; ) log G( ) (vec ^()) H F ( ; )vec ^() + ^ H G ( )^ + o p () vec^() ^ V ju () vec ^() + o p () ^ because log F ( ; ) log G( ) log u() u() log Y M u() Y log u() u() u() Y Y u() Y (n + ) Y log y y y Y I n Y y Y Y I n log y y y Y Y y Y (n + ), Y log y M Y y log Y Y (n + ) log y y y Y Y y Y (n + ). Y (n + ) (n + )
22 he aylor expansion of the scores gives, uniformly in B, p S F ( ; ) + H F ( ; ) p vec^() + o p () p S G ( ) + H G ( ) p ^ + o p (). Hence, p " vec^() ^ H F ( ; ) H G( ) # V ju () S F ( ; ) p S G ( ) S F ( ; ) p S G ( ) + o p () + o p () " # " V ju () V ju () # I K I n+ vec p Z [V u (); u V ( )] + o p () h I n+ i vec p Z [V u (); u V ( )] + o p () " () # vec p Z [V; u V ( )] because vec vec p Z [V u (); u V ( )] " p Z [V; u V ( )] () # I K vec p Z [V; u V ( )] vec p Z [V u (); u V ( )] + o p () (), where () I n V u I n + ( ) uv ()uu () V u uv ()uu. ()
23 Now, it follows that with LR() h " vec ^ ^ V ju () h vec () V ju () p Z [V; u V ( )] vec^ + o p () ^ () # I K h + o p (). his expression shows that the LR() statistic is uniformly close to a continuous function of h and. Hence, the limiting distribution of the LR statistic can be obtained using the continuous mapping theorem. h does not depend on and follows the Central Limit heorem: h d vec(z V ) N ; I (n+)k. Now, we consider the eigenvalues of the middle matrix: " () V ju () () # I K. Note that where ^ LIML d uu (), hen, it can also be shown that () + ( ) c c (z V z V I) z V. uu (^ LIML ) d uu ( )( + c c) V u (^ LIML ) d uu ( ) c V ju (^ LIML ) d I n c( + c c) c.
24 Hence, after some algebra, and nally (^ LIML ) V ju () d I n c( + c c) c ( + c c) c ( + c c) c +c c (^ LIML ) LR d vec(z V ; ) Mvec(z V ; ) tr z (I K z V (zv V z z V I) z V ) V + zv (z V z V I) zv, where M I n c( + c c) c ( + c c) c ( + c c) c I K. +c c Similarly, we nd the variance statistic is close to the following quadratic from uniformly in B, and ^s () vec^ ^ V ju () V ju () V u()uu () uv () V ju () uu () ^s d vec(z V ; ) M vec(z V ; ). vec ^ + o p () ^ Proof of heorem 6 [o be added] 3
25 able.a. Rejection Probabilities of the Overidentifying Restrictions est (SLS) n K 3 K 9 C C min rej uncond rej uncond C C min rej uncond rej uncond C C min rej uncond rej uncond Note: n is the number of endogenous regressors; K is the number of instruments; represents the degree of endogeneity; C C corresponds to the weak limit of the concentration matrix (i.e., Z Z p C C); and min is the boundary value of the minimum eigenvalue for the weak instruments set based on the % SLS bias. he column rej shows P( > K n;:5 jg rejects) and uncond P( > K n;:5 ). he rst-stage weak IV tests using () are based on the % SLS/Fuller-k bias (see Stock and Yogo, 5, for the precise de nition) at the 5% signi cance level. he second-stage OID tests using () are based on the Chi-square distribution. 4
26 able.b. Rejection Probabilities of the Overidentifying Restrictions est (Fuller-k) n K 3 K 9 C C min rej uncond rej uncond C C min rej uncond rej uncond C C min rej uncond rej uncond Note: n is the number of endogenous regressors; K is the number of instruments; represents the degree of endogeneity; C C corresponds to the weak limit of the concentration matrix (i.e., Z Z p C C); and min is the boundary value of the minimum eigenvalue for the weak instruments set based on the % SLS bias. he column rej shows P( > K n;:5 jg rejects) and uncond P( > K n;:5 ). he rst-stage weak IV tests using () are based on the % SLS/Fuller-k bias (see Stock and Yogo, 5, for the precise de nition) at the 5% signi cance level. he second-stage OID tests using () are based on the Chi-square distribution. 5
27 q able. Critical Values for LR ^s test ( and ) n n n 3 :9 :95 :99 :9 :95 :99 :9 :95 :99 K Note: n is the number of endogenous regressors; K is the number of instruments. 6
28 References [] Anderson,. W. and H. Rubin (949). Estimation of the Parameters of a Single Equation in a Complete System of Stochastic Equations, Annals of Mathematical Statistics,, [] Basmann, R. L. (96). On Finite Sample Distributions of Generalized Classical Linear Identi ability est Statistics, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55, [3] Cragg, J. G. and S. G. Donald (993). esting Identi ability and Speci cation in Instrumental Variable Models, Econometric heory, 9, -4. [4] Doko, F. and J-M. Dufour (8). Instrumental Endogeneity and Identi cation-robust ests: Some Analytical Results, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 38, [5] Hall, A. R., G. D. Rudebusch and D. W. Wilcox (996). Judging Instrument Relevance in Instrumental Variables Estimation, International Economic Review, 37, [6] Lee, Y. and R. Okui (9). Speci cation est for Instrumental Variables Regression with Many Instruments, mimeo. [7] Moreira, M. J. (3). A Conditional Likelihood Ratio est for Structural Models, Econometrica, 7, [8] Newey, W. K. (985). Maximum likelihood speci cation testing and conditional moment tests, Econometrica, 53, [9] Sargan, J. D. (958). he estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables, Econometrica, 6, [] Staiger, D. and J. H. Stock (997). Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments, Econometrica, 65, [] Stock, J. H. and M. Yogo (5). esting for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression, in Identi cation and Inference for Econometric Models, Essays in Honor of homas Rothenberg, ed. by D. W. K. Andrews and J. H. Stock, 8-7. [] Vuong, Q. H. (989). Likelihood Ratio ests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses, Econometrica, 57,
Likelihood Ratio based Joint Test for the Exogeneity and. the Relevance of Instrumental Variables
Likelihood Ratio based Joint Test for the Exogeneity and the Relevance of Instrumental Variables Dukpa Kim Yoonseok Lee March 12, 2009 Abstract This paper develops a joint test for the exogeneity and the
More informationChapter 1. GMM: Basic Concepts
Chapter 1. GMM: Basic Concepts Contents 1 Motivating Examples 1 1.1 Instrumental variable estimator....................... 1 1.2 Estimating parameters in monetary policy rules.............. 2 1.3 Estimating
More informationAsymptotic Distributions of Instrumental Variables Statistics with Many Instruments
CHAPTER 6 Asymptotic Distributions of Instrumental Variables Statistics with Many Instruments James H. Stock and Motohiro Yogo ABSTRACT This paper extends Staiger and Stock s (1997) weak instrument asymptotic
More informationIV Estimation and its Limitations: Weak Instruments and Weakly Endogeneous Regressors
IV Estimation and its Limitations: Weak Instruments and Weakly Endogeneous Regressors Laura Mayoral, IAE, Barcelona GSE and University of Gothenburg U. of Gothenburg, May 2015 Roadmap Testing for deviations
More informationLecture 11 Weak IV. Econ 715
Lecture 11 Weak IV Instrument exogeneity and instrument relevance are two crucial requirements in empirical analysis using GMM. It now appears that in many applications of GMM and IV regressions, instruments
More informationSpecification Test for Instrumental Variables Regression with Many Instruments
Specification Test for Instrumental Variables Regression with Many Instruments Yoonseok Lee and Ryo Okui April 009 Preliminary; comments are welcome Abstract This paper considers specification testing
More informationA CONDITIONAL LIKELIHOOD RATIO TEST FOR STRUCTURAL MODELS. By Marcelo J. Moreira 1
Econometrica, Vol. 71, No. 4 (July, 2003), 1027 1048 A CONDITIONAL LIKELIHOOD RATIO TEST FOR STRUCTURAL MODELS By Marcelo J. Moreira 1 This paper develops a general method for constructing exactly similar
More informationSimple Estimators for Monotone Index Models
Simple Estimators for Monotone Index Models Hyungtaik Ahn Dongguk University, Hidehiko Ichimura University College London, James L. Powell University of California, Berkeley (powell@econ.berkeley.edu)
More informationSIMILAR-ON-THE-BOUNDARY TESTS FOR MOMENT INEQUALITIES EXIST, BUT HAVE POOR POWER. Donald W. K. Andrews. August 2011
SIMILAR-ON-THE-BOUNDARY TESTS FOR MOMENT INEQUALITIES EXIST, BUT HAVE POOR POWER By Donald W. K. Andrews August 2011 COWLES FOUNDATION DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 1815 COWLES FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS
More informationTests for Cointegration, Cobreaking and Cotrending in a System of Trending Variables
Tests for Cointegration, Cobreaking and Cotrending in a System of Trending Variables Josep Lluís Carrion-i-Silvestre University of Barcelona Dukpa Kim y Korea University May 4, 28 Abstract We consider
More informationEconomics 241B Estimation with Instruments
Economics 241B Estimation with Instruments Measurement Error Measurement error is de ned as the error resulting from the measurement of a variable. At some level, every variable is measured with error.
More informationGMM-based inference in the AR(1) panel data model for parameter values where local identi cation fails
GMM-based inference in the AR() panel data model for parameter values where local identi cation fails Edith Madsen entre for Applied Microeconometrics (AM) Department of Economics, University of openhagen,
More informationEstimation and Inference with Weak Identi cation
Estimation and Inference with Weak Identi cation Donald W. K. Andrews Cowles Foundation Yale University Xu Cheng Department of Economics University of Pennsylvania First Draft: August, 2007 Revised: March
More informationSimple Estimators for Semiparametric Multinomial Choice Models
Simple Estimators for Semiparametric Multinomial Choice Models James L. Powell and Paul A. Ruud University of California, Berkeley March 2008 Preliminary and Incomplete Comments Welcome Abstract This paper
More informationMarkov-Switching Models with Endogenous Explanatory Variables. Chang-Jin Kim 1
Markov-Switching Models with Endogenous Explanatory Variables by Chang-Jin Kim 1 Dept. of Economics, Korea University and Dept. of Economics, University of Washington First draft: August, 2002 This version:
More informationDiscussion Paper Series
INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO AUTÓNOMO DE MÉXICO CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN ECONÓMICA Discussion Paper Series Size Corrected Power for Bootstrap Tests Manuel A. Domínguez and Ignacio N. Lobato Instituto Tecnológico
More informationTime Series Models and Inference. James L. Powell Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley
Time Series Models and Inference James L. Powell Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley Overview In contrast to the classical linear regression model, in which the components of the
More informationInstrumental Variables Estimation in Stata
Christopher F Baum 1 Faculty Micro Resource Center Boston College March 2007 1 Thanks to Austin Nichols for the use of his material on weak instruments and Mark Schaffer for helpful comments. The standard
More informationSubsets Tests in GMM without assuming identi cation
Subsets Tests in GMM without assuming identi cation Frank Kleibergen Brown University and University of Amsterdam Sophocles Mavroeidis y Brown University sophocles_mavroeidis@brown.edu Preliminary: please
More informationApplications of Subsampling, Hybrid, and Size-Correction Methods
Applications of Subsampling, Hybrid, and Size-Correction Methods Donald W. K. Andrews Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics Yale University Patrik Guggenberger Department of Economics UCLA November
More informationTesting for Regime Switching: A Comment
Testing for Regime Switching: A Comment Andrew V. Carter Department of Statistics University of California, Santa Barbara Douglas G. Steigerwald Department of Economics University of California Santa Barbara
More informationA New Approach to Robust Inference in Cointegration
A New Approach to Robust Inference in Cointegration Sainan Jin Guanghua School of Management, Peking University Peter C. B. Phillips Cowles Foundation, Yale University, University of Auckland & University
More informationSIMILAR-ON-THE-BOUNDARY TESTS FOR MOMENT INEQUALITIES EXIST, BUT HAVE POOR POWER. Donald W. K. Andrews. August 2011 Revised March 2012
SIMILAR-ON-THE-BOUNDARY TESTS FOR MOMENT INEQUALITIES EXIST, BUT HAVE POOR POWER By Donald W. K. Andrews August 2011 Revised March 2012 COWLES FOUNDATION DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 1815R COWLES FOUNDATION FOR
More informationThe Hausman Test and Weak Instruments y
The Hausman Test and Weak Instruments y Jinyong Hahn z John C. Ham x Hyungsik Roger Moon { September 7, Abstract We consider the following problem. There is a structural equation of interest that contains
More informationChapter 2. Dynamic panel data models
Chapter 2. Dynamic panel data models School of Economics and Management - University of Geneva Christophe Hurlin, Université of Orléans University of Orléans April 2018 C. Hurlin (University of Orléans)
More information1. The Multivariate Classical Linear Regression Model
Business School, Brunel University MSc. EC550/5509 Modelling Financial Decisions and Markets/Introduction to Quantitative Methods Prof. Menelaos Karanasos (Room SS69, Tel. 08956584) Lecture Notes 5. The
More informationTesting Overidentifying Restrictions with Many Instruments and Heteroskedasticity
Testing Overidentifying Restrictions with Many Instruments and Heteroskedasticity John C. Chao, Department of Economics, University of Maryland, chao@econ.umd.edu. Jerry A. Hausman, Department of Economics,
More informationRobust Con dence Intervals in Nonlinear Regression under Weak Identi cation
Robust Con dence Intervals in Nonlinear Regression under Weak Identi cation Xu Cheng y Department of Economics Yale University First Draft: August, 27 This Version: December 28 Abstract In this paper,
More informationEstimation and Inference with Weak, Semi-strong, and Strong Identi cation
Estimation and Inference with Weak, Semi-strong, and Strong Identi cation Donald W. K. Andrews Cowles Foundation Yale University Xu Cheng Department of Economics University of Pennsylvania This Version:
More informationWhen is it really justifiable to ignore explanatory variable endogeneity in a regression model?
Discussion Paper: 2015/05 When is it really justifiable to ignore explanatory variable endogeneity in a regression model? Jan F. Kiviet www.ase.uva.nl/uva-econometrics Amsterdam School of Economics Roetersstraat
More information1 Procedures robust to weak instruments
Comment on Weak instrument robust tests in GMM and the new Keynesian Phillips curve By Anna Mikusheva We are witnessing a growing awareness among applied researchers about the possibility of having weak
More informationEstimator Averaging for Two Stage Least Squares
Estimator Averaging for Two Stage Least Squares Guido Kuersteiner y and Ryo Okui z This version: October 7 Abstract This paper considers model averaging as a way to select instruments for the two stage
More information(Y jz) t (XjZ) 0 t = S yx S yz S 1. S yx:z = T 1. etc. 2. Next solve the eigenvalue problem. js xx:z S xy:z S 1
Abstract Reduced Rank Regression The reduced rank regression model is a multivariate regression model with a coe cient matrix with reduced rank. The reduced rank regression algorithm is an estimation procedure,
More informationWhat s New in Econometrics. Lecture 13
What s New in Econometrics Lecture 13 Weak Instruments and Many Instruments Guido Imbens NBER Summer Institute, 2007 Outline 1. Introduction 2. Motivation 3. Weak Instruments 4. Many Weak) Instruments
More informationGMM based inference for panel data models
GMM based inference for panel data models Maurice J.G. Bun and Frank Kleibergen y this version: 24 February 2010 JEL-code: C13; C23 Keywords: dynamic panel data model, Generalized Method of Moments, weak
More informationA Robust Test for Weak Instruments in Stata
A Robust Test for Weak Instruments in Stata José Luis Montiel Olea, Carolin Pflueger, and Su Wang 1 First draft: July 2013 This draft: November 2013 Abstract We introduce and describe a Stata routine ivrobust
More informationCointegration Tests Using Instrumental Variables Estimation and the Demand for Money in England
Cointegration Tests Using Instrumental Variables Estimation and the Demand for Money in England Kyung So Im Junsoo Lee Walter Enders June 12, 2005 Abstract In this paper, we propose new cointegration tests
More informationThe Impact of a Hausman Pretest on the Size of a Hypothesis Test: the Panel Data Case
The Impact of a Hausman retest on the Size of a Hypothesis Test: the anel Data Case atrik Guggenberger Department of Economics UCLA September 22, 2008 Abstract: The size properties of a two stage test
More informationExogeneity tests and weak-identification
Exogeneity tests and weak-identification Firmin Doko Université de Montréal Jean-Marie Dufour McGill University First version: September 2007 Revised: October 2007 his version: February 2007 Compiled:
More informationApproximate Distributions of the Likelihood Ratio Statistic in a Structural Equation with Many Instruments
CIRJE-F-466 Approximate Distributions of the Likelihood Ratio Statistic in a Structural Equation with Many Instruments Yukitoshi Matsushita CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo February 2007
More informationComment on HAC Corrections for Strongly Autocorrelated Time Series by Ulrich K. Müller
Comment on HAC Corrections for Strongly Autocorrelated ime Series by Ulrich K. Müller Yixiao Sun Department of Economics, UC San Diego May 2, 24 On the Nearly-optimal est Müller applies the theory of optimal
More informationGMM estimation of spatial panels
MRA Munich ersonal ReEc Archive GMM estimation of spatial panels Francesco Moscone and Elisa Tosetti Brunel University 7. April 009 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/637/ MRA aper No. 637, posted
More informationBootstrapping the Grainger Causality Test With Integrated Data
Bootstrapping the Grainger Causality Test With Integrated Data Richard Ti n University of Reading July 26, 2006 Abstract A Monte-carlo experiment is conducted to investigate the small sample performance
More informationGENERIC RESULTS FOR ESTABLISHING THE ASYMPTOTIC SIZE OF CONFIDENCE SETS AND TESTS. Donald W.K. Andrews, Xu Cheng and Patrik Guggenberger.
GENERIC RESULTS FOR ESTABLISHING THE ASYMPTOTIC SIZE OF CONFIDENCE SETS AND TESTS By Donald W.K. Andrews, Xu Cheng and Patrik Guggenberger August 2011 COWLES FOUNDATION DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 1813 COWLES
More informationSupplemental Material 1 for On Optimal Inference in the Linear IV Model
Supplemental Material 1 for On Optimal Inference in the Linear IV Model Donald W. K. Andrews Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics Yale University Vadim Marmer Vancouver School of Economics University
More information11. Bootstrap Methods
11. Bootstrap Methods c A. Colin Cameron & Pravin K. Trivedi 2006 These transparencies were prepared in 20043. They can be used as an adjunct to Chapter 11 of our subsequent book Microeconometrics: Methods
More informationA more powerful subvector Anderson Rubin test in linear instrumental variable regression
A more powerful subvector Anderson Rubin test in linear instrumental variable regression Patrik Guggenberger Department of Economics Pennsylvania State University Frank Kleibergen Department of Quantitative
More informationSimulating Properties of the Likelihood Ratio Test for a Unit Root in an Explosive Second Order Autoregression
Simulating Properties of the Likelihood Ratio est for a Unit Root in an Explosive Second Order Autoregression Bent Nielsen Nuffield College, University of Oxford J James Reade St Cross College, University
More informationEstimation and Inference of Linear Trend Slope Ratios
Estimation and Inference of Linear rend Slope Ratios imothy J. Vogelsang and Nasreen Nawaz Department of Economics, Michigan State University October 4 Abstract We focus on the estimation of the ratio
More informationChapter 2. GMM: Estimating Rational Expectations Models
Chapter 2. GMM: Estimating Rational Expectations Models Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Step 1: Solve the model and obtain Euler equations 2 3 Step 2: Formulate moment restrictions 3 4 Step 3: Estimation and
More informationLecture Notes on Measurement Error
Steve Pischke Spring 2000 Lecture Notes on Measurement Error These notes summarize a variety of simple results on measurement error which I nd useful. They also provide some references where more complete
More information13 Endogeneity and Nonparametric IV
13 Endogeneity and Nonparametric IV 13.1 Nonparametric Endogeneity A nonparametric IV equation is Y i = g (X i ) + e i (1) E (e i j i ) = 0 In this model, some elements of X i are potentially endogenous,
More informationESTIMATION AND INFERENCE WITH WEAK, SEMI-STRONG, AND STRONG IDENTIFICATION. Donald W. K. Andrews and Xu Cheng. October 2010 Revised July 2011
ESTIMATION AND INFERENCE WITH WEAK, SEMI-STRONG, AND STRONG IDENTIFICATION By Donald W. K. Andrews and Xu Cheng October 1 Revised July 11 COWLES FOUNDATION DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 1773R COWLES FOUNDATION
More informationComparing Nested Predictive Regression Models with Persistent Predictors
Comparing Nested Predictive Regression Models with Persistent Predictors Yan Ge y and ae-hwy Lee z November 29, 24 Abstract his paper is an extension of Clark and McCracken (CM 2, 25, 29) and Clark and
More informationInference on a Structural Break in Trend with Fractionally Integrated Errors
Inference on a Structural Break in rend with Fractionally Integrated Errors Seongyeon Chang Boston University Pierre Perron y Boston University November, Abstract Perron and Zhu (5) established the consistency,
More informationReduced rank regression in cointegrated models
Journal of Econometrics 06 (2002) 203 26 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Reduced rank regression in cointegrated models.w. Anderson Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4065,
More informationTesting for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression
Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression August 001 James H. Stock Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Motohiro Yogo* Department
More informationIntroduction: structural econometrics. Jean-Marc Robin
Introduction: structural econometrics Jean-Marc Robin Abstract 1. Descriptive vs structural models 2. Correlation is not causality a. Simultaneity b. Heterogeneity c. Selectivity Descriptive models Consider
More informationParametric Inference on Strong Dependence
Parametric Inference on Strong Dependence Peter M. Robinson London School of Economics Based on joint work with Javier Hualde: Javier Hualde and Peter M. Robinson: Gaussian Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood Estimation
More informationOn GMM Estimation and Inference with Bootstrap Bias-Correction in Linear Panel Data Models
On GMM Estimation and Inference with Bootstrap Bias-Correction in Linear Panel Data Models Takashi Yamagata y Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, Heslington, York, UK January
More informationFinite Sample Performance of A Minimum Distance Estimator Under Weak Instruments
Finite Sample Performance of A Minimum Distance Estimator Under Weak Instruments Tak Wai Chau February 20, 2014 Abstract This paper investigates the nite sample performance of a minimum distance estimator
More informationNotes on Generalized Method of Moments Estimation
Notes on Generalized Method of Moments Estimation c Bronwyn H. Hall March 1996 (revised February 1999) 1. Introduction These notes are a non-technical introduction to the method of estimation popularized
More informationRegression. Saraswata Chaudhuri, Thomas Richardson, James Robins and Eric Zivot. Working Paper no. 73. Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences
Split-Sample Score Tests in Linear Instrumental Variables Regression Saraswata Chaudhuri, Thomas Richardson, James Robins and Eric Zivot Working Paper no. 73 Center for Statistics and the Social Sciences
More informationFinite-sample quantiles of the Jarque-Bera test
Finite-sample quantiles of the Jarque-Bera test Steve Lawford Department of Economics and Finance, Brunel University First draft: February 2004. Abstract The nite-sample null distribution of the Jarque-Bera
More informationDepartment of Econometrics and Business Statistics
ISSN 440-77X Australia Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics http://wwwbusecomonasheduau/depts/ebs/pubs/wpapers/ The Asymptotic Distribution of the LIML Estimator in a artially Identified
More informationA CONSISTENT SPECIFICATION TEST FOR MODELS DEFINED BY CONDITIONAL MOMENT RESTRICTIONS. Manuel A. Domínguez and Ignacio N. Lobato 1
Working Paper 06-41 Economics Series 11 June 2006 Departamento de Economía Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Calle Madrid, 126 28903 Getafe (Spain) Fax (34) 91 624 98 75 A CONSISTENT SPECIFICATION TEST
More informationThe Case Against JIVE
The Case Against JIVE Related literature, Two comments and One reply PhD. student Freddy Rojas Cama Econometrics Theory II Rutgers University November 14th, 2011 Literature 1 Literature 2 Key de nitions
More informationNonparametric Estimation of Wages and Labor Force Participation
Nonparametric Estimation of Wages Labor Force Participation John Pepper University of Virginia Steven Stern University of Virginia May 5, 000 Preliminary Draft - Comments Welcome Abstract. Model Let y
More informationA Test of Cointegration Rank Based Title Component Analysis.
A Test of Cointegration Rank Based Title Component Analysis Author(s) Chigira, Hiroaki Citation Issue 2006-01 Date Type Technical Report Text Version publisher URL http://hdl.handle.net/10086/13683 Right
More informationAlternative Graphical Representations of the Confidence Intervals for the Structural Coefficient from Exactly Identified Two-Stage Least Squares.
Alternative Graphical Representations of the Confidence Intervals for the Structural Coefficient from Exactly Identified wo-stage Least Squares. Joe Hirschberg &Jenny Lye Economics, University of Melbourne,
More informationComparing the asymptotic and empirical (un)conditional distributions of OLS and IV in a linear static simultaneous equation
Comparing the asymptotic and empirical (un)conditional distributions of OLS and IV in a linear static simultaneous equation Jan F. Kiviet and Jerzy Niemczyk y January JEL-classi cation: C3, C, C3 Keywords:
More informationMaximum Likelihood (ML) Estimation
Econometrics 2 Fall 2004 Maximum Likelihood (ML) Estimation Heino Bohn Nielsen 1of32 Outline of the Lecture (1) Introduction. (2) ML estimation defined. (3) ExampleI:Binomialtrials. (4) Example II: Linear
More informationECON Introductory Econometrics. Lecture 16: Instrumental variables
ECON4150 - Introductory Econometrics Lecture 16: Instrumental variables Monique de Haan (moniqued@econ.uio.no) Stock and Watson Chapter 12 Lecture outline 2 OLS assumptions and when they are violated Instrumental
More informationA more powerful subvector Anderson Rubin test in linear instrumental variables regression
A more powerful subvector Anderson Rubin test in linear instrumental variables regression Patrik Guggenberger Department of Economics Pennsylvania State University Frank Kleibergen Department of Quantitative
More informationECONOMETRICS II (ECO 2401S) University of Toronto. Department of Economics. Spring 2013 Instructor: Victor Aguirregabiria
ECONOMETRICS II (ECO 2401S) University of Toronto. Department of Economics. Spring 2013 Instructor: Victor Aguirregabiria SOLUTION TO FINAL EXAM Friday, April 12, 2013. From 9:00-12:00 (3 hours) INSTRUCTIONS:
More informationEconometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data
Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data Jeffrey M. Wooldridge / The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England Contents Preface Acknowledgments xvii xxiii I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
More informationInference about Clustering and Parametric. Assumptions in Covariance Matrix Estimation
Inference about Clustering and Parametric Assumptions in Covariance Matrix Estimation Mikko Packalen y Tony Wirjanto z 26 November 2010 Abstract Selecting an estimator for the variance covariance matrix
More informationEFFICIENT ESTIMATION USING PANEL DATA 1. INTRODUCTION
Econornetrica, Vol. 57, No. 3 (May, 1989), 695-700 EFFICIENT ESTIMATION USING PANEL DATA BY TREVOR S. BREUSCH, GRAYHAM E. MIZON, AND PETER SCHMIDT' 1. INTRODUCTION IN AN IMPORTANT RECENT PAPER, Hausman
More informationGMM Estimation of SAR Models with. Endogenous Regressors
GMM Estimation of SAR Models with Endogenous Regressors Xiaodong Liu Department of Economics, University of Colorado Boulder E-mail: xiaodongliucoloradoedu Paulo Saraiva Department of Economics, University
More informationLecture 4: Testing Stuff
Lecture 4: esting Stuff. esting Hypotheses usually has three steps a. First specify a Null Hypothesis, usually denoted, which describes a model of H 0 interest. Usually, we express H 0 as a restricted
More informationRank Estimation of Partially Linear Index Models
Rank Estimation of Partially Linear Index Models Jason Abrevaya University of Texas at Austin Youngki Shin University of Western Ontario October 2008 Preliminary Do not distribute Abstract We consider
More informationINFERENCE APPROACHES FOR INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE QUANTILE REGRESSION. 1. Introduction
INFERENCE APPROACHES FOR INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE QUANTILE REGRESSION VICTOR CHERNOZHUKOV CHRISTIAN HANSEN MICHAEL JANSSON Abstract. We consider asymptotic and finite-sample confidence bounds in instrumental
More informationLocation Properties of Point Estimators in Linear Instrumental Variables and Related Models
Location Properties of Point Estimators in Linear Instrumental Variables and Related Models Keisuke Hirano Department of Economics University of Arizona hirano@u.arizona.edu Jack R. Porter Department of
More informationGMM Estimation with Noncausal Instruments
ömmföäflsäafaäsflassflassflas ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Discussion Papers GMM Estimation with Noncausal Instruments Markku Lanne University of Helsinki, RUESG and HECER and Pentti Saikkonen
More informationOnline Appendix. j=1. φ T (ω j ) vec (EI T (ω j ) f θ0 (ω j )). vec (EI T (ω) f θ0 (ω)) = O T β+1/2) = o(1), M 1. M T (s) exp ( isω)
Online Appendix Proof of Lemma A.. he proof uses similar arguments as in Dunsmuir 979), but allowing for weak identification and selecting a subset of frequencies using W ω). It consists of two steps.
More informationIDENTIFICATION-ROBUST SUBVECTOR INFERENCE. Donald W. K. Andrews. September 2017 Updated September 2017 COWLES FOUNDATION DISCUSSION PAPER NO.
IDENTIFICATION-ROBUST SUBVECTOR INFERENCE By Donald W. K. Andrews September 2017 Updated September 2017 COWLES FOUNDATION DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 3005 COWLES FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS YALE UNIVERSITY
More informationReview of Classical Least Squares. James L. Powell Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley
Review of Classical Least Squares James L. Powell Department of Economics University of California, Berkeley The Classical Linear Model The object of least squares regression methods is to model and estimate
More informationSpatial panels: random components vs. xed e ects
Spatial panels: random components vs. xed e ects Lung-fei Lee Department of Economics Ohio State University l eeecon.ohio-state.edu Jihai Yu Department of Economics University of Kentucky jihai.yuuky.edu
More informationBootstrap Tests for Overidentification in Linear Regression Models
Bootstrap Tests for Overidentification in Linear Regression Models Department of Economics and CIREQ McGill University Montréal, Québec, Canada H3A 2T7 Russell Davidson russelldavidson@mcgillca and James
More informationTesting Restrictions and Comparing Models
Econ. 513, Time Series Econometrics Fall 00 Chris Sims Testing Restrictions and Comparing Models 1. THE PROBLEM We consider here the problem of comparing two parametric models for the data X, defined by
More informationSize and Power of the RESET Test as Applied to Systems of Equations: A Bootstrap Approach
Size and Power of the RESET Test as Applied to Systems of Equations: A Bootstrap Approach Ghazi Shukur Panagiotis Mantalos International Business School Department of Statistics Jönköping University Lund
More informationEconomics 241B Review of Limit Theorems for Sequences of Random Variables
Economics 241B Review of Limit Theorems for Sequences of Random Variables Convergence in Distribution The previous de nitions of convergence focus on the outcome sequences of a random variable. Convergence
More informationSize Distortion and Modi cation of Classical Vuong Tests
Size Distortion and Modi cation of Classical Vuong Tests Xiaoxia Shi University of Wisconsin at Madison March 2011 X. Shi (UW-Mdsn) H 0 : LR = 0 IUPUI 1 / 30 Vuong Test (Vuong, 1989) Data fx i g n i=1.
More informationSimultaneous Equations and Weak Instruments under Conditionally Heteroscedastic Disturbances
Simultaneous Equations and Weak Instruments under Conditionally Heteroscedastic Disturbances E M. I and G D.A. P Michigan State University Cardiff University This version: July 004. Preliminary version
More informationProblem set 1 - Solutions
EMPIRICAL FINANCE AND FINANCIAL ECONOMETRICS - MODULE (8448) Problem set 1 - Solutions Exercise 1 -Solutions 1. The correct answer is (a). In fact, the process generating daily prices is usually assumed
More informationIncreasing the Power of Specification Tests. November 18, 2018
Increasing the Power of Specification Tests T W J A. H U A MIT November 18, 2018 A. This paper shows how to increase the power of Hausman s (1978) specification test as well as the difference test in a
More informationChapter 3. GMM: Selected Topics
Chater 3. GMM: Selected oics Contents Otimal Instruments. he issue of interest..............................2 Otimal Instruments under the i:i:d: assumtion..............2. he basic result............................2.2
More informationCAE Working Paper # A New Asymptotic Theory for Heteroskedasticity-Autocorrelation Robust Tests. Nicholas M. Kiefer and Timothy J.
CAE Working Paper #05-08 A New Asymptotic Theory for Heteroskedasticity-Autocorrelation Robust Tests by Nicholas M. Kiefer and Timothy J. Vogelsang January 2005. A New Asymptotic Theory for Heteroskedasticity-Autocorrelation
More informationGMM Based Tests for Locally Misspeci ed Models
GMM Based Tests for Locally Misspeci ed Models Anil K. Bera Department of Economics University of Illinois, USA Walter Sosa Escudero University of San Andr es and National University of La Plata, Argentina
More informationCALCULATION METHOD FOR NONLINEAR DYNAMIC LEAST-ABSOLUTE DEVIATIONS ESTIMATOR
J. Japan Statist. Soc. Vol. 3 No. 200 39 5 CALCULAION MEHOD FOR NONLINEAR DYNAMIC LEAS-ABSOLUE DEVIAIONS ESIMAOR Kohtaro Hitomi * and Masato Kagihara ** In a nonlinear dynamic model, the consistency and
More information