IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/obuest/v68y2006i4p515-518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Note on Additive Separability and Latent Index Models of Binary Choice: Representation Results

Author

Listed:
  • Edward Vytlacil

Abstract

The standard binary choice model in econometrics has the choice determined by a latent index crossing a threshold. The latent index is almost always assumed to be additively separable in observable and unobservable regressors, and most commonly linear in all regressors. This note provides a class of non‐separable latent index functions which will have equivalent representations as additively separable or linear index functions. These results demonstrate that assuming a linear or additively separable latent index function is less restrictive than previously recognized.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward Vytlacil, 2006. "A Note on Additive Separability and Latent Index Models of Binary Choice: Representation Results," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 68(4), pages 515-518, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:obuest:v:68:y:2006:i:4:p:515-518
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2006.00175.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2006.00175.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2006.00175.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Azeem Shaikh & Edward Vytlacil, 2005. "Threshold Crossing Models and Bounds on Treatment Effects: A Nonparametric Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0307, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Yu‐Chang Chen & Haitian Xie, 2022. "Global Representation of the Conditional LATE Model: A Separability Result," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 84(4), pages 789-798, August.
    2. Stefan Boes, 2013. "Nonparametric analysis of treatment effects in ordered response models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 81-109, February.
    3. James J. Heckman & Sergio Urzua & Edward Vytlacil, 2006. "Understanding Instrumental Variables in Models with Essential Heterogeneity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 389-432, August.
    4. Zhewen Pan & Zhengxin Wang & Junsen Zhang & Yahong Zhou, 2024. "Marginal treatment effects in the absence of instrumental variables," Papers 2401.17595, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    5. Heckman, James J. & Humphries, John Eric & Veramendi, Gregory, 2016. "Dynamic treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 191(2), pages 276-292.
    6. Azeem Shaikh & Edward Vytlacil, 2005. "Threshold Crossing Models and Bounds on Treatment Effects: A Nonparametric Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0307, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Klein, Tobias J., 2010. "Heterogeneous treatment effects: Instrumental variables without monotonicity?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 155(2), pages 99-116, April.
    8. Chen, Heng & Fan, Yanqin, 2019. "Identification and wavelet estimation of weighted ATE under discontinuous and kink incentive assignment mechanisms," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 212(2), pages 476-502.
    9. Carlson, Alyssa, 2023. "Relaxing conditional independence in an endogenous binary response model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 232(2), pages 490-500.
    10. Donald S. Poskitt & Xueyan Zhao, 2023. "Bootstrap Hausdorff Confidence Regions for Average Treatment Effect Identified Sets," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 9/23, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    11. Yu-Chang Chen & Haitian Xie, 2022. "Personalized Subsidy Rules," Papers 2202.13545, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    12. Junlong Feng, 2019. "Matching Points: Supplementing Instruments with Covariates in Triangular Models," Papers 1904.01159, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2020.
    13. Yu-Chang Chen & Haitian Xie, 2020. "Global Representation of the Conditional LATE Model: A Separability Result," Papers 2007.08106, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ismaël Mourifié & Marc Henry & Romuald Méango, 2020. "Sharp Bounds and Testability of a Roy Model of STEM Major Choices," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(8), pages 3220-3283.
    2. Stefan Boes, 2013. "Nonparametric analysis of treatment effects in ordered response models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 81-109, February.
    3. Amit Gandhi & Jeremy T. Fox, 2009. "Identifying Heterogeneity in Economic Choice and Selection Models Using Mixtures," 2009 Meeting Papers 165, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    4. Kédagni, Désiré, 2023. "Identifying treatment effects in the presence of confounded types," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 479-511.
    5. Steven T. Berry & Philip A. Haile, 2009. "Identification of a Heterogeneous Generalized Regression Model with Group Effects," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1732, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    6. Flavio Cunha & James Heckman & Salvador Navarro, 2005. "Separating uncertainty from heterogeneity in life cycle earnings," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 57(2), pages 191-261, April.
    7. Lina Zhang & David T. Frazier & D. S. Poskitt & Xueyan Zhao, 2020. "Decomposing Identification Gains and Evaluating Instrument Identification Power for Partially Identified Average Treatment Effects," Papers 2009.02642, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    8. Stefan Boes, 2009. "Bounds on Counterfactual Distributions Under Semi-Monotonicity Constraints," SOI - Working Papers 0920, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    9. Stefan Boes, 2009. "Partial Identification of Discrete Counterfactual Distributions with Sequential Update of Information," SOI - Working Papers 0918, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    10. Anders Forslund & Oskar Nordström Stans, 2006. "Swedish Youth Labour Market Policies Revisited," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 75(3), pages 168-185.
    11. Alfred Galichon & Marc Henry, 2021. "Inference in Incomplete Models," Papers 2102.12257, arXiv.org.
    12. Shaikh, Azeem M. & Vytlacil, Edward, 2008. "Endogenous binary choice models with median restrictions: A comment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 23-28, January.
    13. Casey Quinn, 2005. "Generalisable regression methods for costeffectiveness using copulas," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 05/13, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    14. Purvi Sevak & Lucie Schmidt, 2007. "How do Immigrants Fare in Retirement?," Working Papers wp169, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    15. Michael Gerfin & Martin Schellhorn, 2006. "Nonparametric bounds on the effect of deductibles in health care insurance on doctor visits – Swiss evidence," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(9), pages 1011-1020, September.
    16. Machado, Cecilia & Shaikh, Azeem M. & Vytlacil, Edward J., 2019. "Instrumental variables and the sign of the average treatment effect," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 212(2), pages 522-555.
    17. Chiburis, Richard C., 2010. "Semiparametric bounds on treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 159(2), pages 267-275, December.
    18. Patrick Kline & Andres Santos, 2013. "Sensitivity to missing data assumptions: Theory and an evaluation of the U.S. wage structure," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 4(2), pages 231-267, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:obuest:v:68:y:2006:i:4:p:515-518. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfeixuk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.