IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Finite Sample Evidence Suggesting a Heavy Tail Problem of the Generalized Empirical Likelihood Estimator

Listed author(s):
  • Patrik Guggenberger
Registered author(s):

    Comprehensive Monte Carlo evidence is provided that compares the finite sample properties of generalized empirical likelihood (GEL) estimators to the ones of k-class estimators in the linear instrumental variables (IV) model. We focus on sample median, mean, mean squared error, and on the coverage probability and length of confidence intervals obtained from inverting a t-statistic based on the various estimators. The results indicate that in terms of the above criteria, all the GEL estimators and the limited information maximum likelihood (LIML) estimator behave very similarly. This suggests that GEL estimators might also share the “no-moment” problem of LIML. At sample sizes as in our Monte Carlo study, there is no systematic bias advantage of GEL estimators over k-class estimators. On the other hand, the standard deviation of GEL estimators is pronouncedly higher than for some of the k-class estimators. Therefore, if mean squared error is used as the underlying loss function, our study suggests the use of computationally simple estimators, such as two-stage least squares, in the linear IV model rather than GEL. Based on the properties of confidence intervals, we cannot recommend the use of GEL estimators either in the linear IV model.

    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:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Econometric Reviews.

    Volume (Year): 27 (2008)
    Issue (Month): 4-6 ()
    Pages: 526-541

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:emetrv:v:27:y:2008:i:4-6:p:526-541
    DOI: 10.1080/07474930801960410
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:emetrv:v:27:y:2008:i:4-6:p:526-541. 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: ()

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.