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

Specification tests with weak and invalid instruments

We investigate the size of the Durbin-Wu-Hausman tests for exogeneity when instrumental variables violate the strict exogeneity assumption. We show that these tests are severely size distorted even for a small correlation between the structural error and instruments. We then propose a bootstrap procedure for correcting their size. The proposed bootstrap procedure does not require identification assumptions and is also valid even for moderate correlations between the structural error and instruments, so it can be described as robust to both weak and invalid instruments.

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/15063/1/2012-06__DP_Doko.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Tasmania, School of Economics and Finance in its series Working Papers with number 15063.

as
in new window

Length: 27 pages
Date of creation: 26 Jun 2012
Date of revision: 26 Jun 2012
Publication status: Published by the University of Tasmania. Discussion paper 2010-06
Handle: RePEc:tas:wpaper:15063
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

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. Daniel Berkowitz & Mehmet Caner & Ying Fang, 2013. "The Validity of Instruments Revisited," Papers 2013-10-14, Working Paper.
  2. Richard A. Ashley., 2006. "Assessing the Credibility of Instrumental Variables Inference With Imperfect Instruments Via Sensitivity Analysis," Working Papers e06-9, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Economics.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 S24-S59, 02.
  5. Alastair R. Hall & Glenn D. Rudebusch & David W. Wilcox, 1994. "Judging instrument relevance in instrumental variables estimation," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 94-3, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  6. Firmin Doko Tchatoka & Jean-Marie Dufour, 2014. "Identification-robust inference for endogeneity parameters in linear structural models," CIRANO Working Papers 2014s-17, CIRANO.
  7. Firmin Doko Tchatoka, 2014. "On Bootstrap Validity for Specification Tests with Weak Instruments," School of Economics Working Papers 2014-06, University of Adelaide, School of Economics.
  8. Donald W. K. Andrews, 2002. "Higher-Order Improvements of a Computationally Attractive "k"-Step Bootstrap for Extremum Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 119-162, January.
  9. Li, Jing, 2006. "The block bootstrap test of Hausman's exogeneity in the presence of serial correlation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 76-82, April.
  10. Harrison, Ann, 1991. "Openness and growth : a time series, cross-country analysis for developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 809, The World Bank.
  11. Kiviet, Jan F. & Niemczyk, Jerzy, 2007. "The asymptotic and finite sample distributions of OLS and simple IV in simultaneous equations," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(7), pages 3296-3318, April.
  12. Revankar, Nagesh S & Hartley, Michael J, 1973. "An Independence Test and Conditional Unbiased Predictions in the Context of Simultaneous Equation Systems," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 14(3), pages 625-31, October.
  13. Firmin Doko Tchatoka, 2011. "Subset hypotheses testing and instrument exclusion in the linear IV regression," Working Papers 10668, University of Tasmania, School of Economics and Finance.
  14. Marcelo J. Moreira, 2003. "A Conditional Likelihood Ratio Test for Structural Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1027-1048, 07.
  15. 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.
  16. Ahn, Seung C, 1997. "Orthogonality Tests in Linear Models," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 59(1), pages 183-86, February.
  17. James H. Stock & Motohiro Yogo, 2002. "Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression," NBER Technical Working Papers 0284, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  18. Smith, Richard, 1983. "On the classical nature of the Wu-Hausman statistics for the independence of stochastic regressors and disturbance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 357-364.
  19. Jean-Marie Dufour, 2003. "Identification, Weak Instruments and Statistical Inference in Econometrics," CIRANO Working Papers 2003s-49, CIRANO.
  20. J. A. Hausman, 1976. "Specification Tests in Econometrics," Working papers 185, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  21. Spencer, David E & Berk, Kenneth N, 1981. "A Limited Information Specification Test [Specification Tests in Econometrics]," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1079-85, June.
  22. Holly, Alberto, 1982. "A Remark on Hausman's Specification Test," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 749-59, May.
  23. Sargan, J D, 1983. "Identification and Lack of Identification," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(6), pages 1605-33, November.
  24. Guildo W. Imbens, 2003. "Sensitivity to Exogeneity Assumptions in Program Evaluation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 126-132, May.
  25. Samuel Bazzi & Michael A. Clemens, 2013. "Blunt Instruments: Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Identifying the Causes of Economic Growth," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 152-86, April.
  26. Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2006. "Monte Carlo tests with nuisance parameters: A general approach to finite-sample inference and nonstandard asymptotics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 443-477, August.
  27. Frank Kleibergen, 2002. "Pivotal Statistics for Testing Structural Parameters in Instrumental Variables Regression," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1781-1803, September.
  28. 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.
  29. Hwang, Hae-shin, 1985. "The equivalence of Hausman and Lagrange Multiplier tests of independence between disturbance and a subset of stochastic regressors," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 17(1-2), pages 83-86.
  30. Mehmet Caner & Dan Berkowitz & Ying Fang, 2006. "Are Nearly Exogenous Instruments Reliable?," Working Papers 207, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2006.
  31. 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.
  32. Frank Kleibergen, 2005. "Testing Parameters in GMM Without Assuming that They Are Identified," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1103-1123, 07.
  33. N. Gregory Mankiw & David Romer & David N. Weil, 1990. "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth," NBER Working Papers 3541, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  34. Richard Ashley, 2009. "Assessing the credibility of instrumental variables inference with imperfect instruments via sensitivity analysis," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(2), pages 325-337, 03.
  35. Mikusheva, Anna, 2013. "Survey on statistical inferences in weakly-identified instrumental variable models," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 29(1), pages 117-131.
  36. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-54, July.
  37. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
  38. Jinyong Hahn & Jerry Hausman, 2010. "Estimation with Valid and Invalid Instruments," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 25-57 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  39. Newey, Whitney K, 1985. "Maximum Likelihood Specification Testing and Conditional Moment Tests," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1047-70, September.
  40. Engle, Robert F., 1982. "A general approach to lagrange multiplier model diagnostics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 83-104, October.
  41. Ruud, Paul A., 2000. "An Introduction to Classical Econometric Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195111644, March.
  42. 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.
  43. Small, Dylan S., 2007. "Sensitivity Analysis for Instrumental Variables Regression With Overidentifying Restrictions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 1049-1058, September.
  44. Nakamura, Alice & Nakamura, Masao, 1985. "On the performance of tests by Wu and by Hausman for detecting the ordinary least squares bias problem," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 213-227, September.
  45. Patrik Guggenberger & Frank Kleibergen & Sophocles Mavroeidis & Linchun Chen, 2012. "On the Asymptotic Sizes of Subset Anderson–Rubin and Lagrange Multiplier Tests in Linear Instrumental Variables Regression," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(6), pages 2649-2666, November.
  46. 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.
  47. Hwang, Hae-Shin, 1980. "Test of Independence between a Subset of Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 21(3), pages 749-60, October.
  48. Nakamura, Alice & Nakamura, Masao, 1981. "On the Relationships among Several Specification Error Tests Presented by Durbin, Wu, and Hausman," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1583-88, November.
  49. Jan F. KIVIET & Milan PLEUS, 2012. "The performance of tests on endogeneity of subsets of explanatory variables scanned by simulation," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1208, Nanyang Technological University, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
  50. David H. Romer & Jeffrey A. Frankel, 1999. "Does Trade Cause Growth?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 379-399, June.
  51. Ruud, Paul A., 1984. "Tests of Specification in Econometrics," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4kq8m0hf, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  52. Reynolds, Roger A, 1982. "Posterior Odds for the Hypothesis of Independence between Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 23(2), pages 479-90, June.
  53. Farebrother, R W, 1976. "A Remark on the Wu Test," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(3), pages 475-77, May.
  54. Smith, Richard J., 1985. "Wald tests for the independence of stochastic variables and disturbance of a single linear stochastic simultaneous equation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 17(1-2), pages 87-90.
  55. James H. Stock & Francesco Trebbi, 2003. "Retrospectives: Who Invented Instrumental Variable Regression?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 177-194, Summer.
  56. Kadane, Joseph B & Anderson, T W, 1977. "A Comment on the Test of Overidentifying Restrictions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 1027-31, May.
  57. Chmelarova, Viera & Hill, R. Carter, 2010. "The Hausman pretest estimator," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 96-99, July.
  58. Christopher F Baum & Mark E. Schaffer & Steven Stillman, 2002. "Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 545, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 14 Feb 2003.
  59. Pesaran, M. Hashem & Smith, Richard J., 1990. "A unified approach to estimation and orthogonality tests in linear single-equation econometric models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 41-66.
  60. Kiviet, Jan F. & Niemczyk, Jerzy, 2012. "Comparing the asymptotic and empirical (un)conditional distributions of OLS and IV in a linear static simultaneous equation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 3567-3586.
  61. Wu, De-Min, 1973. "Alternative Tests of Independence Between Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 733-50, July.
  62. Hausman, Jerry A. & Taylor, William E., 1981. "A generalized specification test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 239-245.
  63. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin, 2012. "On the validity of Durbin-Wu-Hausman tests for assessing partial exogeneity hypotheses with possibly weak instruments," Working Papers 15061, University of Tasmania, School of Economics and Finance, revised 06 Jul 2012.
  64. Thurman, Walter N, 1986. "Endogeneity Testing in a Supply and Demand Framework," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 638-46, November.
  65. Wong, Ka-fu, 1996. "Bootstrapping Hausman's exogeneity test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 139-143, November.
  66. Revankar, Nagesh S, 1978. "Asymptotic Relative Efficiency Analysis of Certain Tests of Independence in Structural Systems," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 19(1), pages 165-79, February.
  67. Wu, De-Min, 1974. "Alternative Tests of Independence between Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances: Finite Sample Results," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(3), pages 529-46, May.
  68. Wong, Ka-fu, 1997. "Effects on inference of pretesting the exogeneity of a regressor," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 267-271, November.
  69. 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.
  70. Smith, Richard J, 1984. "A Note on Likelihood Ratio Tests for the Independence between a Subset of Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 25(1), pages 263-69, February.
  71. Saraswata Chaudhuri & Elaina Rose, 2009. "Estimating the Veteran Effect with Endogenous Schooling when Instruments are Potentially Weak," Working Papers UWEC-2009-07, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
  72. 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.
  73. K. Newey, Whitney, 1985. "Generalized method of moments specification testing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 229-256, September.
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:tas:wpaper:15063. 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.

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