Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Subset hypotheses testing and instrument exclusion in the linear IV regression

Contents:

Author Info

  • Firmin Doko Tchatoka

    (School of Economics and Finance, University of Tasmania)

Abstract

This paper investigates the asymptotic size properties of robust subset tests when instruments are left out of the analysis. Recently, robust subset procedures have been developed for testing hypotheses which are specified on the subsets of the structural parameters or on the parameters associated with the included exogenous variables. It has been shown that they never over-reject the true parameter values even when nuisance parameters are not identified. However, their robustness to instrument exclusion has not been investigated. Instrument exclusion is an important problem in econometrics and there are at least two reasons to be concerned. Firstly, it is difficult in practice to assess whether an instrument has been omitted. For example, some components of the “identifying” instruments that are excluded from the structural equation may be quite uncertain or “left out” of the analysis. Secondly, in many instrumental variable (IV) applications, an infinite number of instruments are available for use in large sample estimation. This is particularly the case with most time series models. If a given variable, say Xt, is a legitimate instrument, so too are its lags Xt1; Xt2. Hence, instrument exclusion seems highly likely in most practical situations. After formulating a general asymptotic framework which allows one to study this issue in a convenient way, I consider two main setups: (1) the missing instruments are (possibly) relevant, and, (2) they are asymptotically weak. In both setups, I show that all subset procedures studied are in general consistent against instrument inclusion (hence asymptotically invalid for the subset hypothesis of interest). I characterize cases where consistency may not hold, but the asymptotic distribution is modified in a way that would lead to size distortions in large samples. I propose a “rule of thumb” which allows to practitioners to know whether a missing instrument is detrimental or not to subset procedures. I present a Monte Carlo experiment confirming that the subset procedures are unreliable when instruments are missing.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://eprints.utas.edu.au/10668/
File Function: First version, 2011
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Tasmania, School of Economics and Finance in its series Working Papers with number 10668.

as in new window
Length: 43 pages
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published by University of Tasmania, School of Economics & Finance - Discussion Paper 2011
Handle: RePEc:tas:wpaper:10668

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Private Bag 85, Hobart, Tasmania 7001
Phone: +61 3 6226 7672
Fax: +61 3 6226 7587
Web page: http://www.utas.edu.au/economics-finance/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: REPEC;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Dufour, Jean-Marie & Jasiak, Joann, 2001. "Finite Sample Limited Information Inference Methods for Structural Equations and Models with Generated Regressors," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 42(3), pages 815-43, August.
  2. D. S. Poskitt & C. L. Skeels, 2009. "Assessing the magnitude of the concentration parameter in a simultaneous equations model," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 12(1), pages 26-44, 03.
  3. Dufour, Jean-Marie & Khalaf, Lynda & Kichian, Maral, 2006. "Inflation dynamics and the New Keynesian Phillips Curve: An identification robust econometric analysis," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 30(9-10), pages 1707-1727.
  4. C Bean, 1992. "European Unemployment: A Survey," CEP Discussion Papers dp0071, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  5. Chaudhuri, Saraswata & Zivot, Eric, 2011. "A new method of projection-based inference in GMM with weakly identified nuisance parameters," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 164(2), pages 239-251, October.
  6. Christian Hansen & Jerry Hausman & Whitney Newey, 2006. "Estimation with many instrumental variables," CeMMAP working papers CWP19/06, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  7. Phillips, P.C.B., 1989. "Partially Identified Econometric Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(02), pages 181-240, August.
  8. Jean-Marie Dufour & Mohamed Taamouti, 2005. "Projection-Based Statistical Inference in Linear Structural Models with Possibly Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1351-1365, 07.
  9. Jean-Marie Dufour, 1997. "Some Impossibility Theorems in Econometrics with Applications to Structural and Dynamic Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(6), pages 1365-1388, November.
  10. James M. Malcomson & Sophocles Mavroeidis, 2007. "Matching Frictions, Efficiency Wages, and Unemployment in the USA and the UK," Working Papers 2007-02, Brown University, Department of Economics.
  11. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1994. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," NBER Technical Working Papers 0151, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  12. Kocherlakota, Narayana R., 1990. "On tests of representative consumer asset pricing models," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 285-304, October.
  13. Breusch, Trevor & Qian, Hailong & Schmidt, Peter & Wyhowski, Donald, 1999. "Redundancy of moment conditions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 89-111, July.
  14. Tim Loughran & Jay Ritter, 2004. "Why Has IPO Underpricing Changed Over Time?," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 33(3), Fall.
  15. Kleibergen, Frank, 2009. "Tests of risk premia in linear factor models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 149(2), pages 149-173, April.
  16. Dufour, Jean-Marie & Taamouti, Mohamed, 2007. "Further results on projection-based inference in IV regressions with weak, collinear or missing instruments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 133-153, July.
  17. Kleibergen, Frank & Mavroeidis, Sophocles, 2009. "Weak Instrument Robust Tests in GMM and the New Keynesian Phillips Curve," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27(3), pages 293-311.
  18. Jean-Marie Dufour, 2003. "Identification, Weak Instruments and Statistical Inference in Econometrics," CIRANO Working Papers 2003s-49, CIRANO.
  19. Hall, Alastair R. & Inoue, Atsushi & Jana, Kalidas & Shin, Changmock, 2007. "Information in generalized method of moments estimation and entropy-based moment selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 488-512, June.
  20. Guggenberger, Patrik, 2012. "On The Asymptotic Size Distortion Of Tests When Instruments Locally Violate The Exogeneity Assumption," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(02), pages 387-421, April.
  21. Choi, In & Phillips, Peter C. B., 1992. "Asymptotic and finite sample distribution theory for IV estimators and tests in partially identified structural equations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 113-150.
  22. Sophocles Mavroeidis, 2004. "Weak Identification of Forward-looking Models in Monetary Economics," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 66(s1), pages 609-635, 09.
  23. Frank Kleibergen, 2000. "Pivotal Statistics for Testing Structural Parameters in Instrumental Variables Regression," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-055/4, Tinbergen Institute.
  24. Frank Kleibergen, 2005. "Testing Parameters in GMM Without Assuming that They Are Identified," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1103-1123, 07.
  25. Stock, James H & Wright, Jonathan H & Yogo, Motohiro, 2002. "A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 518-29, October.
  26. Dufour, J.-M., 1986. "Exact tests and confidence sets in linear regressions with autocorrelated errors," CORE Discussion Papers 1986037, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  27. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin Sabro & Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2008. "Instrument endogeneity and identification-robust tests: some analytical results," MPRA Paper 29613, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  28. Hansen, Lars Peter & Heaton, John & Yaron, Amir, 1996. "Finite-Sample Properties of Some Alternative GMM Estimators," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 14(3), pages 262-80, July.
  29. Marcelo J. Moreira, 2003. "A Conditional Likelihood Ratio Test for Structural Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1027-1048, 07.
  30. Mavroeidis, Sophocles, 2005. "Identification Issues in Forward-Looking Models Estimated by GMM, with an Application to the Phillips Curve," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 37(3), pages 421-48, June.
  31. James H. Stock & Jonathan Wright, 2000. "GMM with Weak Identification," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1055-1096, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin Sabro, 2012. "Specification Tests with Weak and Invalid Instruments," MPRA Paper 40185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  2. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin, 2012. "Testing for partial exogeneity with weak identification," Working Papers 14565, University of Tasmania, School of Economics and Finance, revised 31 May 2012.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tas:wpaper:10668. See general 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: (Derek Rowlands).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.