Tobit or Not Tobit?
AbstractTime-use surveys collect very detailed information about individuals' activities over a short period of time, typically one day. As a result, a large fraction of observations have values of zero for the time spent in many activities, even for individuals who do the activity on a regular basis. For example, it is safe to assume that all parents do at least some childcare, but a relatively large fraction report no time spent in childcare on their diary day. Because of the large number of zeros Tobit would seem to be the natural approach. However, it is important to recognize that the zeros in time-use data arise from a mismatch between the reference period of the data (the diary day) and the period of interest, which is typically much longer. Thus it is not clear that Tobit is appropriate. In this study, I examine the bias associated with alternative estimation procedures for estimating the marginal effects of covariates on time use. I begin by adapting the infrequency of purchase model, which is typically used to analyze expenditures, to time-diary data and showing that OLS estimates are unbiased. Next, using simulated data, I examine the bias associated with three procedures that are commonly used to analyze time-diary data – Tobit, the Cragg (1971) two-part model, and OLS – under a number of alternative assumptions about the data-generating process. I find that the estimated marginal effects from Tobits are biased and that the extent of the bias varies with the fraction of zero-value observations. The two-part model performs significantly better, but generates biased estimated in certain circumstances. Only OLS generates unbiased estimates in all of the simulations considered here.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in its series IZA Discussion Papers with number 4588.
Length: 27 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2009
Date of revision:
Publication status: forthcoming in: Journal of Economic and Social Measurement
Contact details of provider:
Postal: IZA, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 228 3894 223
Fax: +49 228 3894 180
Web page: http://www.iza.org
Postal: IZA, Margard Ody, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany
Other versions of this item:
- Stewart, Jay, 2013. "Tobit or not Tobit?," Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, IOS Press, IOS Press, issue 3, pages 263-290.
- C24 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models
- J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Fallak).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.