IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Subset hypotheses testing and instrument exclusion in the linear IV regression

  • Doko Tchatoka, Firmin

This paper explores the sensitivity of plug-in based subset tests to instrument exclusion in linear IV regression. Recently, identification-robust statistics based on plug-in principle have been developed for testing hypotheses specified on subsets of the structural parameters. 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. 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 X(t), is a legitimate instrument, so too are its lags X(t-1), X(t-2), ... Hence, instrument exclusion seems highly likely in most practical situations. In this paper, we stress that the usual high level assumption of the identification may be misleading when potential relevant instruments are omitted. We propose an analysis of the asymptotic distributions of the LIML estimator and the plug-in based statistics when potential instrument are omitted. Our results provides several new insights and extensions of earlier studies. We show that even when partial identification holds, the asymptotic distribution of the LIML estimator of the identified linear combination is no longer a Gaussian mixture, even though it is still consistent. This contrasts with the usual IV estimator of the identified linear combination, which is still asymptotically a Gaussian mixture despite the exclusion of relevant instruments. As a result, the asymptotic distributions of the plug-in based subset statistics that exploit the LIML estimator are modified in a way that could lead to size distortions. We provide an empirical illustration using a widely considered returns to education example, which clearly shows that the confidence sets of the returns to education resulting from the plug-in principle are highly sensitive to instrument exclusion.

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://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29611/2/MPRA_paper_29611.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 29611.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 25 Nov 2010
Date of revision: 02 Feb 2012
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:29611
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC

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. 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.
  2. Jean-Marie Dufour, 2003. "Identification, Weak Instruments and Statistical Inference in Econometrics," CIRANO Working Papers 2003s-49, CIRANO.
  3. Hansen, Christian & Hausman, Jerry & Newey, Whitney, 2008. "Estimation With Many Instrumental Variables," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 26, pages 398-422.
  4. In Choi & Peter C.B. Phillips, 1989. "Asymptotic and Finite Sample Distribution Theory for IV Estimators and Tests in Partially Identified Structural Equations," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 929, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
  5. 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.
  6. Phillips, P.C.B., 1989. "Partially Identified Econometric Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(02), pages 181-240, August.
  7. Jean-Marie Dufour & Lynda Khalaf & Maral Kichian, 2005. "Inflation Dynamics and the New Keynesian Phillips Curve: an Identification Robust Econometric Analysis," CIRANO Working Papers 2005s-30, CIRANO.
  8. 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.
  9. Frank Kleibergen, 2002. "Pivotal Statistics for Testing Structural Parameters in Instrumental Variables Regression," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1781-1803, September.
  10. 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.
  11. Breusch, Trevor & Qian, Hailong & Schmidt, Peter & Wyhowski, Donald, 1999. "Redundancy of moment conditions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 89-111, July.
  12. 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.
  13. James H. Stock & Jonathan Wright, 2000. "GMM with Weak Identification," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1055-1096, September.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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).
  18. Kleibergen, Frank, 2009. "Tests of risk premia in linear factor models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 149(2), pages 149-173, April.
  19. DUFOUR, Jean-Marie, 2003. "Identification, Weak Instruments and Statistical Inference in Econometrics," Cahiers de recherche 10-2003, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
  20. Kocherlakota, Narayana R., 1990. "On tests of representative consumer asset pricing models," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 285-304, October.
  21. C Bean, 1992. "European Unemployment: A Survey," CEP Discussion Papers dp0071, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Tim Loughran & Jay Ritter, 2004. "Why Has IPO Underpricing Changed Over Time?," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 33(3), Fall.
  26. Marcelo J. Moreira, 2003. "A Conditional Likelihood Ratio Test for Structural Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1027-1048, 07.
  27. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
  28. Saraswata Chaudhuri & Eric Zivot, 2008. "A new method of projection-based inference in GMM with weakly identified nuisance parameters," Working Papers UWEC-2008-26, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. Frank Kleibergen, 2005. "Testing Parameters in GMM Without Assuming that They Are Identified," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1103-1123, 07.
  32. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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:pra:mprapa:29611. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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.