IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sza/wpaper/wpapers344.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Instrument-free inference under confined regressor endogeneity; derivations and applications

Author

Listed:
  • Jan F. Kiviet

    () (University of Amsterdam and Stellenbosch University)

Abstract

Instead of exploiting instruments and claiming these to be uncorrelated with the disturbances, in an instrument-free approach one may adopt flexible bounds on the correlation between the endogenous regressors and the disturbances. Such an alternative to Two-Stage Least-Squares (TSLS) inference is developed here for general linear models with endogenous possibly time-dependent regressors. Earlier results enabled this just for rather restrictive mesokurtic i.i.d. cross-section data. In three empirical replication studies their underlying exclusion restrictions are shown to be most doubtful. Next, incredible (weak-instrument robust) TSLS inference is replaced by more reliable remarkably narrow instrument-free asymptotically conservative confidence intervals.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan F. Kiviet, 2020. "Instrument-free inference under confined regressor endogeneity; derivations and applications," Working Papers 09/2020, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:sza:wpaper:wpapers344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ekon.sun.ac.za/wpapers/2020/wp092020/wp092020.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:taf:jnlbes:v:30:y:2012:i:1:p:67-80 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Murray Michael P., 2017. "Linear Model IV Estimation When Instruments Are Many or Weak," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Phillips, Garry D.A. & Liu-Evans, Gareth, 2016. "Approximating and reducing bias in 2SLS estimation of dynamic simultaneous equation models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 734-762.
    4. Donald W. K. Andrews & Vadim Marmer & Zhengfei Yu, 2019. "On optimal inference in the linear IV model," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(2), pages 457-485, May.
    5. Aviv Nevo & Adam M. Rosen, 2012. "Identification With Imperfect Instruments," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 659-671, August.
    6. Kiviet, Jan F. & Phillips, Garry D.A., 2012. "Higher-order asymptotic expansions of the least-squares estimation bias in first-order dynamic regression models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 3705-3729.
    7. Jan F. Kiviet, 2013. "Identification and inference in a simultaneous equation under alternative information sets and sampling schemes," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 16(1), pages 24-59, February.
    8. Kathryn Graddy, 2006. "Markets: The Fulton Fish Market," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 207-220, Spring.
    9. David H. Romer & Jeffrey A. Frankel, 1999. "Does Trade Cause Growth?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 379-399, June.
    10. Kiviet, Jan F., 2016. "When is it really justifiable to ignore explanatory variable endogeneity in a regression model?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 192-195.
    11. Federico A. Bugni & Ivan A. Canay & Xiaoxia Shi, 2017. "Inference for subvectors and other functions of partially identified parameters in moment inequality models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(1), pages 1-38, March.
    12. Imbens, Guido W., 2014. "Instrumental Variables: An Econometrician's Perspective," IZA Discussion Papers 8048, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Christian Bontemps & Thierry Magnac, 2017. "Set Identification, Moment Restrictions, and Inference," Post-Print hal-02137347, HAL.
    14. Kathryn Graddy & Peter Kennedy, 2010. "When Are Supply And Demand Determined Recursively Rather Than Simultaneously?," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 36(2), pages 188-197, Spring.
    15. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    16. Donald W. K. Andrews & Gustavo Soares, 2010. "Inference for Parameters Defined by Moment Inequalities Using Generalized Moment Selection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 119-157, January.
    17. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    18. Aart Kraay, 2012. "Instrumental variables regressions with uncertain exclusion restrictions: a Bayesian approach," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 108-128, January.
    19. Christian Bontemps & Thierry Magnac, 2017. "Set Identification, Moment Restrictions, and Inference," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 103-129, September.
    20. Kathryn Graddy, 1995. "Testing for Imperfect Competition at the Fulton Fish Market," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 75-92, Spring.
    21. Patrik Guggenberger & Frank Kleibergen & Sophocles Mavroeidis, 2019. "A more powerful subvector Anderson Rubin test in linear instrumental variables regression," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(2), pages 487-526, May.
    22. Joshua D. Angrist & Kathryn Graddy & Guido W. Imbens, 2000. "The Interpretation of Instrumental Variables Estimators in Simultaneous Equations Models with an Application to the Demand for Fish," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 67(3), pages 499-527.
    23. Michael P. Murray, 2006. "Avoiding Invalid Instruments and Coping with Weak Instruments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 111-132, Fall.
    24. Epstein, Roy J, 1989. "The Fall of OLS in Structural Estimation," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 94-107, January.
    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. Jan F. Kiviet, 2020. "Causes Of Haze And Its Health Effects In Singapore: A Replication Study," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(06), pages 1367-1387, December.

    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. Kiviet, Jan F., 2020. "Testing the impossible: Identifying exclusion restrictions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 294-316.
    2. Liao, Yuan & Simoni, Anna, 2019. "Bayesian inference for partially identified smooth convex models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 338-360.
    3. Graddy, Kathryn & Hall, George, 2011. "A dynamic model of price discrimination and inventory management at the Fulton Fish Market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 6-19.
    4. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin Sabro, 2012. "Specification Tests with Weak and Invalid Instruments," MPRA Paper 40185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Kiviet, Jan F., 2016. "When is it really justifiable to ignore explanatory variable endogeneity in a regression model?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 192-195.
    6. Andrews, Donald W.K. & Cheng, Xu & Guggenberger, Patrik, 2020. "Generic results for establishing the asymptotic size of confidence sets and tests," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 496-531.
    7. Richard A. Ashley & Christopher F. Parmeter, 2020. "Sensitivity Analysis of an OLS Multiple Regression Inference with Respect to Possible Linear Endogeneity in the Explanatory Variables, for Both Modest and for Extremely Large Samples," Econometrics, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Huber, Martin, 2012. "Statistical verification of a natural "natural experiment": Tests and sensitivity checks for the sibling sex ratio instrument," Economics Working Paper Series 1219, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    9. Bontemps, Christian & Kumar, Rohit, 2020. "A geometric approach to inference in set-identified entry games," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 373-389.
    10. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    11. Wright, Austin L. & Sonin, Konstantin & Driscoll, Jesse & Wilson, Jarnickae, 2020. "Poverty and economic dislocation reduce compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place protocols," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 544-554.
    12. Teklewold, Hailemariam, 2011. "Farming or burning? shadow prices and farmer’s impatience on the allocation of multi-purpose resource in the mixed farming system of Ethiopia," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116080, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Denizer, Cevdet & Kaufmann, Daniel & Kraay, Aart, 2013. "Good countries or good projects? Macro and micro correlates of World Bank project performance," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 288-302.
    14. Subramanian Rangan & Metin Sengul, 2009. "Information technology and transnational integration: Theory and evidence on the evolution of the modern multinational enterprise," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 40(9), pages 1496-1514, December.
    15. Yayan Hernuryadin & Koji Kotani & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Time Preferences of Food Producers: Does “Cultivate and Grow” Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 132-148.
    16. Faure, Corinne & Schleich, Joachim, 2020. "Poor energy ratings when appliances convey?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    17. Jindrich Matousek, 2018. "Individual Discount Rates: A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence," Working Papers IES 2018/40, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Dec 2018.
    18. Krčál, Ondřej & Staněk, Rostislav & Slanicay, Martin, 2019. "Made for the job or by the job? A lab-in-the-field experiment with firefighters," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(4), pages 271-276.
    19. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    20. David F. Hendry & Grayham E. Mizon, 2016. "Improving the teaching of econometrics," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1170096-117, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    endogeneity robust least-squares inference; new exclusion restrictions test; replication studies; sensitivity analysis of two-stage least-squares;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • C26 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sza:wpaper:wpapers344. 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: (Melt van Schoor). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/desunza.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.