36 Endogeneity
Refresher
A general model framework
\[ \mathbf{Y = X \beta + \epsilon} \]
where
\(\mathbf{Y} = n \times 1\)
\(\mathbf{X} = n \times k\)
\(\beta = k \times 1\)
\(\epsilon = n \times 1\)
Then, OLS estimates of coefficients are
\[ \begin{aligned} \hat{\beta}_{OLS} &= (\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{X})^{1}(\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{Y}) \\ &= (\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{X})^{1}(\mathbf{X}'(\mathbf{X \beta + \epsilon})) \\ &= (\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{X})^{1} (\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{X}) \beta + (\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{X})^{1} (\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{\epsilon}) \\ \hat{\beta}_{OLS} & \to \beta + (\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{X})^{1} (\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{\epsilon}) \end{aligned} \]
To have unbiased estimates, we have to get rid of the second part \((\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{X})^{1} (\mathbf{X}'\mathbf{\epsilon})\)
There are 2 conditions to achieve unbiased estimates:
 \(E(\epsilon X) = 0\) (This is easy, putting an intercept can solve this issue)
 \(Cov(\mathbf{X}, \epsilon) = 0\) (This is the hard part)
We only care about omitted variable
Usually, the problem will stem Omitted Variables Bias, but we only care about omitted variable bias when
 Omitted variables correlate with the variables we care about (\(X\)). If OMV does not correlate with \(X\), we don’t care, and random assignment makes this correlation goes to 0)
 Omitted variables correlates with outcome/ dependent variable
There are more types of endogeneity listed below.
Types of endogeneity

Omitted Variables Bias
 Motivation
 Ability/talent
 Selfselection
Feedback Effect (Simultaneity): also known as bidirectionality
Reverse Causality: Subtle difference from Simultaneity: Technically, two variables affect each other sequentially, but in a big enough time frame, (e.g., monthly, or yearly), our coefficient will be biased just like simultaneity.
To deal with this problem, we have a toolbox (that has been mentioned in previous chapter 18)
Using control variables in regression is a “selection on observables” identification strategy.
In other words, if you believe you have an omitted variable, and you can measure it, including it in the regression model solves your problem. These uninterested variables are called control variables in your model.
However, this is rarely the case (because the problem is we don’t have their measurements). Hence, we need more elaborate methods:
Before we get to methods that deal with bias arises from omitted variables, we consider cases where we do have measurements of a variable, but there is measurement error (bias).
36.1 Endogenous Treatment
36.1.1 Measurement Error

Data error can stem from
Coding errors
Reporting errors
Two forms of measurement error:
 Random (stochastic) (indeterminate error) (Classical Measurement Errors): noise or measurement errors do not show up in a consistent or predictable way.
 Systematic (determinate error) (Nonclassical Measurement Errors): When measurement error is consistent and predictable across observations.
 Instrument errors (e.g., faulty scale) > calibration or adjustment
 Method errors (e.g., sampling errors) > better method development + study design
 Human errors (e.g., judgement)
Usually the systematic measurement error is a bigger issue because it introduces “bias” into our estimates, while random error introduces noise into our estimates
 Noise > regression estimate to 0
 Bias > can pull estimate to upward or downward.
36.1.1.1 Classical Measurement Errors
36.1.1.1.1 Righthand side
 Righthand side measurement error: When the measurement is in the covariates, then we have the endogeneity problem.
Say you know the true model is
\[ Y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_i + u_i \]
But you don’t observe \(X_i\), but you observe
\[ \tilde{X}_i = X_i + e_i \]
which is known as classical measurement errors where we assume \(e_i\) is uncorrelated with \(X_i\) (i.e., \(E(X_i e_i) = 0\))
Then, when you estimate your observed variables, you have (substitute \(X_i\) with \(\tilde{X}_i  e_i\) ):
\[ \begin{aligned} Y_i &= \beta_0 + \beta_1 (\tilde{X}_i  e_i)+ u_i \\ &= \beta_0 + \beta_1 \tilde{X}_i + u_i  \beta_1 e_i \\ &= \beta_0 + \beta_1 \tilde{X}_i + v_i \end{aligned} \]
In words, the measurement error in \(X_i\) is now a part of the error term in the regression equation \(v_i\). Hence, we have an endogeneity bias.
Endogeneity arises when
\[ \begin{aligned} E(\tilde{X}_i v_i) &= E((X_i + e_i )(u_i  \beta_1 e_i)) \\ &= \beta_1 Var(e_i) \neq 0 \end{aligned} \]
Since \(\tilde{X}_i\) and \(e_i\) are positively correlated, then it leads to
a negative bias in \(\hat{\beta}_1\) if the true \(\beta_1\) is positive
a positive bias if \(\beta_1\) is negative
In other words, measurement errors cause attenuation bias, which inter turn pushes the coefficient towards 0
As \(Var(e_i)\) increases or \(\frac{Var(e_i)}{Var(\tilde{X})} \to 1\) then \(e_i\) is a random (noise) and \(\beta_1 \to 0\) (random variable \(\tilde{X}\) should not have any relation to \(Y_i\))
Technical note:
The size of the bias in the OLSestimator is
\[ \hat{\beta}_{OLS} = \frac{ cov(\tilde{X}, Y)}{var(\tilde{X})} = \frac{cov(X + e, \beta X + u)}{var(X + e)} \]
then
\[ plim \hat{\beta}_{OLS} = \beta \frac{\sigma^2_X}{\sigma^2_X + \sigma^2_e} = \beta \lambda \]
where \(\lambda\) is reliability or signaltototal variance ratio or attenuation factor
Reliability affect the extent to which measurement error attenuates \(\hat{\beta}\). The attenuation bias is
\[ \hat{\beta}_{OLS}  \beta = (1\lambda)\beta \]
Thus, \(\hat{\beta}_{OLS} < \beta\) (unless \(\lambda = 1\), in which case we don’t even have measurement error).
Note:
Data transformation worsen (magnify) the measurement error
\[ y= \beta x + \gamma x^2 + \epsilon \]
then, the attenuation factor for \(\hat{\gamma}\) is the square of the attenuation factor for \(\hat{\beta}\) (i.e., \(\lambda_{\hat{\gamma}} = \lambda_{\hat{\beta}}^2\))
Adding covariates increases attenuation bias
To fix classical measurement error problem, we can
 Find estimates of either \(\sigma^2_X, \sigma^2_\epsilon\) or \(\lambda\) from validation studies, or survey data.
 Endogenous Treatment Use instrument \(Z\) correlated with \(X\) but uncorrelated with \(\epsilon\)
 Abandon your project
36.1.1.1.2 Lefthand side
When the measurement is in the outcome variable, econometricians or causal scientists do not care because they still have an unbiased estimate of the coefficients (the zero conditional mean assumption is not violated, hence we don’t have endogeneity). However, statisticians might care because it might inflate our uncertainty in the coefficient estimates (i.e., higher standard errors).
\[ \tilde{Y} = Y + v \]
then the model you estimate is
\[ \tilde{Y} = \beta X + u + v \]
Since \(v\) is uncorrelated with \(X\), then \(\hat{\beta}\) is consistently estimated by OLS
If we have measurement error in \(Y_i\), it will pass through \(\beta_1\) and go to \(u_i\)
36.1.1.2 Nonclassical Measurement Errors
Relaxing the assumption that \(X\) and \(\epsilon\) are uncorrelated
Recall the true model we have true estimate is
\[ \hat{\beta} = \frac{cov(X + \epsilon, \beta X + u)}{var(X + \epsilon)} \]
then without the above assumption, we have
\[ \begin{aligned} plim \hat{\beta} &= \frac{\beta (\sigma^2_X + \sigma_{X \epsilon})}{\sigma^2_X + \sigma^2_\epsilon + 2 \sigma_{X \epsilon}} \\ &= (1  \frac{\sigma^2_{\epsilon} + \sigma_{X \epsilon}}{\sigma^2_X + \sigma^2_\epsilon + 2 \sigma_{X \epsilon}}) \beta \\ &= (1  b_{\epsilon \tilde{X}}) \beta \end{aligned} \]
where \(b_{\epsilon \tilde{X}}\) is the covariance between \(\tilde{X}\) and \(\epsilon\) (also the regression coefficient of a regression of \(\epsilon\) on \(\tilde{X}\))
Hence, the Classical Measurement Errors is just a special case of Nonclassical Measurement Errors where \(b_{\epsilon \tilde{X}} = 1  \lambda\)
So when \(\sigma_{X \epsilon} = 0\) (Classical Measurement Errors), increasing this covariance \(b_{\epsilon \tilde{X}}\) increases the covariance increases the attenuation factor if more than half of the variance in \(\tilde{X}\) is measurement error, and decreases the attenuation factor otherwise. This is also known as mean reverting measurement error Bound, Brown, and Mathiowetz (2001)
A general framework for both righthand side and lefthand side measurement error is (Bound, Brown, and Mathiowetz 2001):
consider the true model
\[ \mathbf{Y = X \beta + \epsilon} \]
then
\[ \begin{aligned} \hat{\beta} &= \mathbf{(\tilde{X}' \tilde{X})^{1}\tilde{X} \tilde{Y}} \\ &= \mathbf{(\tilde{X}' \tilde{X})^{1} \tilde{X}' (\tilde{X} \beta  U \beta + v + \epsilon )} \\ &= \mathbf{\beta + (\tilde{X}' \tilde{X})^{1} \tilde{X}' (U \beta + v + \epsilon)} \\ plim \hat{\beta} &= \beta + plim (\tilde{X}' \tilde{X})^{1} \tilde{X}' ( U\beta + v) \\ &= \beta + plim (\tilde{X}' \tilde{X})^{1} \tilde{X}' W \left[ \begin{array} {c}  \beta \\ 1 \end{array} \right] \end{aligned} \]
Since we collect the measurement errors in a matrix \(W = [Uv]\), then
\[ ( U\beta + v) = W \left[ \begin{array} {c}  \beta \\ 1 \end{array} \right] \]
Hence, in general, biases in the coefficients \(\beta\) are regression coefficients from regressing the measurement errors on the mismeasured \(\tilde{X}\)
Notes:
Instrumental Variables (Brief) can help fix this problem
There can also be measurement error in dummy variables and you can still use Instrumental Variables (Brief) to fix it.
36.1.1.3 Solution to Measurement Errors
36.1.1.3.1 Correlation
\[ \begin{aligned} P(\rho  data) &= \frac{P(data\rho)P(\rho)}{P(data)} \\ \text{Posterior Probability} &\propto \text{Likelihood} \times \text{Prior Probability} \end{aligned} \] where
 \(\rho\) is a correlation coefficient
 \(P(data\rho)\) is the likelihood function evaluated at \(\rho\)
 \(P(\rho)\) prior probability
 \(P(data)\) is the normalizing constant
With sample correlation coefficient \(r\):
\[ r = \frac{S_{xy}}{\sqrt{S_{xx}S_{yy}}} \] Then the posterior density approximation of \(\rho\) is (Schisterman et al. 2003, 3)
\[ P(\rho x, y) \propto P(\rho) \frac{(1 \rho^2)^{(n1)/2}}{(1 \rho \times r)^{n  (3/2)}} \]
where
 \(\rho = \tanh \xi\) where \(\xi \sim N(z, 1/n)\)
 \(r = \tanh z\)
Then the posterior density follow a normal distribution where
Mean
\[ \mu_{posterior} = \sigma^2_{posterior} \times (n_{prior} \times \tanh^{1} r_{prior}+ n_{likelihood} \times \tanh^{1} r_{likelihood}) \]
variance
\[ \sigma^2_{posterior} = \frac{1}{n_{prior} + n_{Likelihood}} \]
To simplify the integration process, we choose prior that is
\[ P(\rho) \propto (1  \rho^2)^c \] where
 \(c\) is the weight the prior will have in estimation (i.e., \(c = 0\) if no prior info, hence \(P(\rho) \propto 1\))
Example:
Current study: \(r_{xy} = 0.5, n = 200\)
Previous study: \(r_{xy} = 0.2765, (n=50205)\)
Combining two, we have the posterior following a normal distribution with the variance of
\[ \sigma^2_{posterior} = \frac{1}{n_{prior} + n_{Likelihood}} = \frac{1}{200 + 50205} = 0.0000198393 \]
Mean
\[ \begin{aligned} \mu_{Posterior} &= \sigma^2_{Posterior} \times (n_{prior} \times \tanh^{1} r_{prior}+ n_{likelihood} \times \tanh^{1} r_{likelihood}) \\ &= 0.0000198393 \times (50205 \times \tanh^{1} 0.2765 + 200 \times \tanh^{1}0.5 )\\ &= 0.2849415 \end{aligned} \]
Hence, \(Posterior \sim N(0.691, 0.0009)\), which means the correlation coefficient is \(\tanh(0.691) = 0.598\) and 95% CI is
\[ \mu_{posterior} \pm 1.96 \times \sqrt{\sigma^2_{Posterior}} = 0.2849415 \pm 1.96 \times (0.0000198393)^{1/2} = (0.2762115, 0.2936714) \]
Hence, the interval for posterior \(\rho\) is \((0.2693952, 0.2855105)\)
If future authors suspect that they have
 Large sampling variation
 Measurement error in either measures in the correlation, which attenuates the relationship between the two variables
Applying this Bayesian correction can give them a better estimate of the correlation between the two.
To implement this calculation in R, see below
n_new < 200
r_new < 0.5
alpha < 0.05
update_correlation < function(n_new, r_new, alpha) {
n_meta < 50205
r_meta < 0.2765
# Variance
var_xi < 1 / (n_new + n_meta)
format(var_xi, scientific = FALSE)
# mean
mu_xi < var_xi * (n_meta * atanh(r_meta) + n_new * (atanh(r_new)))
format(mu_xi, scientific = FALSE)
# confidence interval
upper_xi < mu_xi + qnorm(1  alpha / 2) * sqrt(var_xi)
lower_xi < mu_xi  qnorm(1  alpha / 2) * sqrt(var_xi)
# rho
mean_rho < tanh(mu_xi)
upper_rho < tanh(upper_xi)
lower_rho < tanh(lower_xi)
# return a list
return(
list(
"mu_xi" = mu_xi,
"var_xi" = var_xi,
"upper_xi" = upper_xi,
"lower_xi" = lower_xi,
"mean_rho" = mean_rho,
"upper_rho" = upper_rho,
"lower_rho" = lower_rho
)
)
}
# Old confidence interval
r_new + qnorm(1  alpha / 2) * sqrt(1/n_new)
#> [1] 0.6385904
r_new  qnorm(1  alpha / 2) * sqrt(1/n_new)
#> [1] 0.3614096
testing = update_correlation(n_new = n_new, r_new = r_new, alpha = alpha)
# Updated rho
testing$mean_rho
#> [1] 0.2774723
# Updated confidence interval
testing$upper_rho
#> [1] 0.2855105
testing$lower_rho
#> [1] 0.2693952
36.1.2 Simultaneity
When independent variables (\(X\)’s) are jointly determined with the dependent variable \(Y\), typically through an equilibrium mechanism, violates the second condition for causality (i.e., temporal order).
Examples: quantity and price by demand and supply, investment and productivity, sales and advertisement
General Simultaneous (Structural) Equations
\[ \begin{aligned} Y_i &= \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_i + u_i \\ X_i &= \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 Y_i + v_i \end{aligned} \]
Hence, the solutions are
\[ \begin{aligned} Y_i &= \frac{\beta_0 + \beta_1 \alpha_0}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1} + \frac{\beta_1 v_i + u_i}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1} \\ X_i &= \frac{\alpha_0 + \alpha_1 \beta_0}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1} + \frac{v_i + \alpha_1 u_i}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1} \end{aligned} \]
If we run only one regression, we will have biased estimators (because of simultaneity bias):
\[ \begin{aligned} Cov(X_i, u_i) &= Cov(\frac{v_i + \alpha_1 u_i}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1}, u_i) \\ &= \frac{\alpha_1}{1 \alpha_1 \beta_1} Var(u_i) \end{aligned} \]
In an even more general model
\[ \begin{cases} Y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_i + \beta_2 T_i + u_i \\ X_i = \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 Y_i + \alpha_2 Z_i + v_i \end{cases} \]
where
\(X_i, Y_i\) are endogenous variables determined within the system
\(T_i, Z_i\) are exogenous variables
Then, the reduced form of the model is
\[ \begin{cases} \begin{aligned} Y_i &= \frac{\beta_0 + \beta_1 \alpha_0}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1} + \frac{\beta_1 \alpha_2}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1} Z_i + \frac{\beta_2}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1} T_i + \tilde{u}_i \\ &= B_0 + B_1 Z_i + B_2 T_i + \tilde{u}_i \end{aligned} \\ \begin{aligned} X_i &= \frac{\alpha_0 + \alpha_1 \beta_0}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1} + \frac{\alpha_2}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1} Z_i + \frac{\alpha_1\beta_2}{1  \alpha_1 \beta_1} T_i + \tilde{v}_i \\ &= A_0 + A_1 Z_i + A_2 T_i + \tilde{v}_i \end{aligned} \end{cases} \]
Then, now we can get consistent estimates of the reduced form parameters
And to get the original parameter estimates
\[ \begin{aligned} \frac{B_1}{A_1} &= \beta_1 \\ B_2 (1  \frac{B_1 A_2}{A_1B_2}) &= \beta_2 \\ \frac{A_2}{B_2} &= \alpha_1 \\ A_1 (1  \frac{B_1 A_2}{A_1 B_2}) &= \alpha_2 \end{aligned} \]
Rules for Identification
Order Condition (necessary but not sufficient)
\[ K  k \ge m  1 \]
where
\(M\) = number of endogenous variables in the model
K = number of exogenous variables int he model
\(m\) = number of endogenous variables in a given
\(k\) = is the number of exogenous variables in a given equation
This is actually the general framework for instrumental variables
36.1.3 Endogenous Treatment Solutions
Using the OLS estimates as a reference point
library(AER)
library(REndo)
set.seed(421)
data("CASchools")
school < CASchools
school$stratio < with(CASchools, students / teachers)
m1.ols <
lm(read ~ stratio + english + lunch
+ grades + income + calworks + county,
data = school)
summary(m1.ols)$coefficients[1:7,]
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 683.45305948 9.56214469 71.4748711 3.011667e218
#> stratio 0.30035544 0.25797023 1.1643027 2.450536e01
#> english 0.20550107 0.03765408 5.4576041 8.871666e08
#> lunch 0.38684059 0.03700982 10.4523759 1.427370e22
#> gradesKK08 1.91291321 1.35865394 1.4079474 1.599886e01
#> income 0.71615378 0.09832843 7.2832829 1.986712e12
#> calworks 0.05273312 0.06154758 0.8567863 3.921191e01
36.1.3.1 Instrumental Variables (Brief)
A3a requires \(\epsilon_i\) to be uncorrelated with \(\mathbf{x}_i\)
\[ plim(\hat{\beta}_{OLS}) = \beta + [E(\mathbf{x_i'x_i})]^{1}E(\mathbf{x_i'}\epsilon_i) \]
A3a is the weakest assumption needed for OLS to be consistent
A3 fails when \(x_{ik}\) is correlated with \(\epsilon_i\)
 Omitted Variables Bias: \(\epsilon_i\) includes any other factors that may influence the dependent variable (linearly)
 Simultaneity Demand and prices are simultaneously determined.
 Endogenous Sample Selection we did not have iid sample
 Measurement Error
Note
 Omitted Variable: an omitted variable is a variable, omitted from the model (but is in the \(\epsilon_i\)) and unobserved has predictive power towards the outcome.
 Omitted Variable Bias: is the bias (and inconsistency when looking at large sample properties) of the OLS estimator when the omitted variable.
 We cam have both positive and negative selection bias (it depends on what our story is)
The structural equation is used to emphasize that we are interested understanding a causal relationship
\[ y_{i1} = \beta_0 + \mathbf{z}_i1 \beta_1 + y_{i2}\beta_2 + \epsilon_i \]
where
 \(y_{it}\) is the outcome variable (inherently correlated with \(\epsilon_i\))
 \(y_{i2}\) is the endogenous covariate (presumed to be correlated with \(\epsilon_i\))
 \(\beta_1\) represents the causal effect of \(y_{i2}\) on \(y_{i1}\)
 \(\mathbf{z}_{i1}\) is exogenous controls (uncorrelated with \(\epsilon_i\)) (\(E(z_{1i}'\epsilon_i) = 0\))
OLS is an inconsistent estimator of the causal effect \(\beta_2\)
If there was no endogeneity
 \(E(y_{i2}'\epsilon_i) = 0\)
 the exogenous variation in \(y_{i2}\) is what identifies the causal effect
If there is endogeneity
 Any wiggle in \(y_{i2}\) will shift simultaneously with \(\epsilon_i\)
\[ plim(\hat{\beta}_{OLS}) = \beta + [E(\mathbf{x'_ix_i})]^{1}E(\mathbf{x'_i}\epsilon_i) \]
where
 \(\beta\) is the causal effect
 \([E(\mathbf{x'_ix_i})]^{1}E(\mathbf{x'_i}\epsilon_i)\) is the endogenous effect
Hence \(\hat{\beta}_{OLS}\) can be either more positive and negative than the true causal effect.
Motivation for Two Stage Least Squares (2SLS)
\[ y_{i1}=\beta_0 + \mathbf{z}_{i1}\beta_1 + y_{i2}\beta_2 + \epsilon_i \]
We want to understand how movement in \(y_{i2}\) effects movement in \(y_{i1}\), but whenever we move \(y_{i2}\), \(\epsilon_i\) also moves.
Solution
We need a way to move \(y_{i2}\) independently of \(\epsilon_i\), then we can analyze the response in \(y_{i1}\) as a causal effect

Find an instrumental variable(s) \(z_{i2}\)
 Instrument Relevance: when** \(z_{i2}\) moves then \(y_{i2}\) also moves
 Instrument Exogeneity: when \(z_{i2}\) moves then \(\epsilon_i\) does not move.
\(z_{i2}\) is the exogenous variation that identifies the causal effect \(\beta_2\)
Finding an Instrumental variable:
 Random Assignment: + Effect of class size on educational outcomes: instrument is initial random
 Relation’s Choice + Effect of Education on Fertility: instrument is parent’s educational level
 Eligibility + Tradeoff between IRA and 401K retirement savings: instrument is 401k eligibility
Example
Return to College
education is correlated with ability  endogenous

Near 4year as an instrument
 Instrument Relevance: when near moves then education also moves
 Instrument Exogeneity: when near moves then \(\epsilon_i\) does not move.
Other potential instruments; near a 2year college. Parent’s Education. Owning Library Card
\[ y_{i1}=\beta_0 + \mathbf{z}_{i1}\beta_1 + y_{i2}\beta_2 + \epsilon_i \]
First Stage (Reduced Form) Equation:
\[ y_{i2} = \pi_0 + \mathbf{z_{i1}\pi_1} + \mathbf{z_{i2}\pi_2} + v_i \]
where
 \(\pi_0 + \mathbf{z_{i1}\pi_1} + \mathbf{z_{i2}\pi_2}\) is exogenous variation \(v_i\) is endogenous variation
This is called a reduced form equation
Not interested in the causal interpretation of \(\pi_1\) or \(\pi_2\)
A linear projection of \(z_{i1}\) and \(z_{i2}\) on \(y_{i2}\) (simple correlations)
The projections \(\pi_1\) and \(\pi_2\) guarantee that \(E(z_{i1}'v_i)=0\) and \(E(z_{i2}'v_i)=0\)
Instrumental variable \(z_{i2}\)
 Instrument Relevance: \(\pi_2 \neq 0\)
 Instrument Exogeneity: \(E(\mathbf{z_{i2}\epsilon_i})=0\)
Moving only the exogenous part of \(y_i2\) is moving
\[ \tilde{y}_{i2} = \pi_0 + \mathbf{z_{i1}\pi_1 + z_{i2}\pi_2} \]
two Stage Least Squares (2SLS)
\[ y_{i1} = \beta_0 +\mathbf{z_{i1}\beta_1}+ y_{i2}\beta_2 + \epsilon_i \]
\[ y_{i2} = \pi_0 + \mathbf{z_{i2}\pi_2} + \mathbf{v_i} \]
Equivalently,
\[\begin{equation} \begin{split} y_{i1} = \beta_0 + \mathbf{z_{i1}}\beta_1 + \tilde{y}_{i2}\beta_2 + u_i \end{split} \tag{33.1} \end{equation}\]where
 \(\tilde{y}_{i2} =\pi_0 + \mathbf{z_{i2}\pi_2}\)
 \(u_i = v_i \beta_2+ \epsilon_i\)
 A2 holds if the instrument is relevant \(\pi_2 \neq 0\) + \(y_{i1} = \beta_0 + \mathbf{z_{i1}\beta_1 + (\pi_0 + z_{i1}\pi_1 + z_{i2}\pi_2)}\beta_2 + u_i\)
 A3a holds if the instrument is exogenous \(E(\mathbf{z}_{i2}\epsilon_i)=0\)
\[ \begin{aligned} E(\tilde{y}_{i2}'u_i) &= E((\pi_0 + \mathbf{z_{i1}\pi_1+z_{i2}})(v_i\beta_2 + \epsilon_i)) \\ &= E((\pi_0 + \mathbf{z_{i1}\pi_1+z_{i2}})( \epsilon_i)) \\ &= E(\epsilon_i)\pi_0 + E(\epsilon_iz_{i1})\pi_1 + E(\epsilon_iz_{i2}) \\ &=0 \end{aligned} \]
Hence, (33.1) is consistent
The 2SLS Estimator
1. Estimate the first stage using OLS
\[ y_{i2} = \pi_0 + \mathbf{z_{i2}\pi_2} + \mathbf{v_i} \]
and obtained estimated value \(\hat{y}_{i2}\)
 Estimate the altered equation using OLS
\[ y_{i1} = \beta_0 +\mathbf{z_{i1}\beta_1}+ \hat{y}_{i2}\beta_2 + \epsilon_i \]
Properties of the 2SLS Estimator
 Under A1, A2, A3a (for \(z_{i1}\)), A5 and if the instrument satisfies the following two conditions, + Instrument Relevance: \(\pi_2 \neq 0\) + Instrument Exogeneity: \(E(\mathbf{z}_{i2}'\epsilon_i) = 0\) then the 2SLS estimator is consistent
 Can handle more than one endogenous variable and more than one instrumental variable
\[ \begin{aligned} y_{i1} &= \beta_0 + z_{i1}\beta_1 + y_{i2}\beta_2 + y_{i3}\beta_3 + \epsilon_i \\ y_{i2} &= \pi_0 + z_{i1}\pi_1 + z_{i2}\pi_2 + z_{i3}\pi_3 + z_{i4}\pi_4 + v_{i2} \\ y_{i3} &= \gamma_0 + z_{i1}\gamma_1 + z_{i2}\gamma_2 + z_{i3}\gamma_3 + z_{i4}\gamma_4 + v_{i3} \end{aligned} \]
+ **IV estimator**: one endogenous variable with a single instrument
+ **2SLS estimator**: one endogenous variable with multiple instruments
+ **GMM estimator**: multiple endogenous variables with multiple instruments

Standard errors produced in the second step are not correct
 Because we do not know \(\tilde{y}\) perfectly and need to estimate it in the firs step, we are introducing additional variation
 We did not have this problem with FGLS because “the first stage was orthogonal to the second stage.” This is generally not true for most multistep procedure.
 If A4 does not hold, need to report robust standard errors.

2SLS is less efficient than OLS and will always have larger standard errors.
 First, \(Var(u_i) = Var(v_i\beta_2 + \epsilon_i) > Var(\epsilon_i)\)
 Second, \(\hat{y}_{i2}\) is generally highly collinear with \(\mathbf{z}_{i1}\)
 First, \(Var(u_i) = Var(v_i\beta_2 + \epsilon_i) > Var(\epsilon_i)\)
The number of instruments need to be at least as many or more the number of endogenous variables.
Note
 2SLS can be combined with FGLS to make the estimator more efficient: You have the same firststage, and in the secondstage, instead of using OLS, you can use FLGS with the weight matrix \(\hat{w}\)
 Generalized Method of Moments can be more efficient than 2SLS.
 In the secondstage of 2SLS, you can also use MLE, but then you are making assumption on the distribution of the outcome variable, the endogenous variable, and their relationship (joint distribution).
36.1.3.1.1 Testing Assumptions
Test of Endogeneity: Is \(y_{i2}\) truly endogenous (i.e., can we just use OLS instead of 2SLS)?

Testing Instrument’s assumptions
Exogeneity (Cannot always test “and when you can it might not be informative”)
Relevancy (need to avoid “weak instruments”)
36.1.3.1.1.1 Test of Endogeneity
2SLS is generally so inefficient that we may prefer OLS if there is not much endogeneity
Biased but inefficient vs efficient but biased

Want a sense of “how endogenous” \(y_{i2}\) is
 if “very” endogenous  should use 2SLS
 if not “very” endogenous  perhaps prefer OLS
Invalid Test of Endogeneity: \(y_{i2}\) is endogenous if it is correlated with \(\epsilon_i\),
\[ \epsilon_i = \gamma_0 + y_{i2}\gamma_1 + error_i \]
where \(\gamma_1 \neq 0\) implies that there is endogeneity
 \(\epsilon_i\) is not observed, but using the residuals
\[ e_i = \gamma_0 + y_{i2}\gamma_1 + error_i \]
is NOT a valid test of endogeneity + The OLS residual, e is mechanically uncorrelated with \(y_{i2}\) (by FOC for OLS) + In every situation, \(\gamma_1\) will be essentially 0 and you will never be able to reject the null of no endogeneity
Valid test of endogeneity
 If \(y_{i2}\) is not endogenous then \(\epsilon_i\) and v are uncorrelated
\[ \begin{aligned} y_{i1} &= \beta_0 + \mathbf{z}_{i1}\beta_1 + y_{i2}\beta_2 + \epsilon_i \\ y_{i2} &= \pi_0 + \mathbf{z}_{i1}\pi_1 + z_{i2}\pi_2 + v_i \end{aligned} \]
variable Addition test: include the first stage residuals as an additional variable,
\[ y_{i1} = \beta_0 + \mathbf{z}_{i1}\beta_1 + y_{i2}\beta_2 + \hat{v}_i \theta + error_i \]
Then the usual \(t\)test of significance is a valid test to evaluate the following hypothesis. note this test requires your instrument to be valid instrument.
\[ \begin{aligned} &H_0: \theta = 0 & \text{ (not endogenous)} \\ &H_1: \theta \neq 0 & \text{ (endogenous)} \end{aligned} \]
36.1.3.1.1.2 Testing Instrument’s assumptions
The instrumental variable must satisfy
 Exogeneity (Cannot always test “and when you can it might not be informative”)
 Relevancy (need to avoid “weak instruments”)
36.1.3.1.1.3 Exogeneity
Why exogeneity matter?
\[ E(\mathbf{z}_{i2}'\epsilon_i) = 0 \]
 If A3a fails  2SLS is also inconsistent
 If instrument is not exogenous, then we need to find a new one.
 Similar to Test of Endogeneity, when there is a single instrument
\[ \begin{aligned} e_i &= \gamma_0 + \mathbf{z}_{i2}\gamma_1 + error_i \\ H_0: \gamma_1 &= 0 \end{aligned} \]
is NOT a valid test of endogeneity
 the OLS residual, e is mechanically uncorrelated with \(z_{i2}\): \(\hat{\gamma}_1\) will be essentially 0 and you will never be able to determine if the instrument is endogenous.
Solution
Testing Instrumental Exogeneity in an Overidentified Model

When there is more than one exogenous instrument (per endogenous variable), we can test for instrument exogeneity.
When we have multiple instruments, the model is said to be overidentified.
Could estimate the same model several ways (i.e., can identify/ estimate \(\beta_1\) more than one way)
Idea behind the test: if the controls and instruments are truly exogenous then OLS estimation of the following regression,
\[ \epsilon_i = \gamma_0 + \mathbf{z}_{i1}\gamma_1 + \mathbf{z}_{i2}\gamma_2 + error_i \]
should have a very low \(R^2\)
 if the model is just identified (one instrument per endogenous variable) then the \(R^2 = 0\)
Steps:
Estimate the structural equation by 2SLS (using all available instruments) and obtain the residuals e
Regress e on all controls and instruments and obtain the \(R^2\)

Under the null hypothesis (all IV’s are uncorrelated), \(nR^2 \sim \chi^2(q)\), where q is the number of instrumental variables minus the number of endogenous variables
 if the model is just identified (one instrument per endogenous variable) then q = 0, and the distribution under the null collapses.
low pvalue means you reject the null of exogenous instruments. Hence you would like to have high pvalue in this test.
Pitfalls for the Overid test

the overid test is essentially compiling the following information.
 Conditional on first instrument being exogenous is the other instrument exogenous?
 Conditional on the other instrument being exogenous, is the first instrument exogenous?
If all instruments are endogenous than neither test will be valid
really only useful if one instrument is thought to be truly exogenous (randomly assigned). even f you do reject the null, the test does not tell you which instrument is exogenous and which is endogenous.
Result  Implication 

reject the null  you can be pretty sure there is an endogenous instrument, but don’t know which one. 
fail to reject  could be either (1) they are both exogenous, (2) they are both endogenous. 
36.1.3.1.1.4 Relevancy
Why Relevance matter?
\[ \pi_2 \neq 0 \]

used to show A2 holds
If \(\pi_2 = 0\) (instrument is not relevant) then A2 fails  perfect multicollinearity
If \(\pi_2\) is close to 0 (weak instrument) then there is near perfect multicollinearity  2SLS is highly inefficient (Large standard errors).

A weak instrument will exacerbate any inconsistency due to an instrument being (even slightly) endogenous.
 In the simple case with no controls and a single endogenous variable and single instrumental variable,
\[ plim(\hat{\beta}_{2_{2SLS}}) = \beta_2 + \frac{E(z_{i2}\epsilon_i)}{E(z_{i2}y_{i2})} \]
Testing Weak Instruments
can use \(t\)test (or \(F\)test for overidentified models) in the first stage to determine if there is a weak instrument problem.

J. Stock and Yogo (2005): a statistical rejection of the null hypothesis in the first stage at the 5% (or even 1%) level is not enough to insure the instrument is not weak
 Rule of Thumb: need a \(F\)stat of at least 10 (or a \(t\)stat of at least 3.2) to reject the null hypothesis that the instrument is weak.
Summary of the 2SLS Estimator
\[ \begin{aligned} y_{i1} &=\beta_0 + \mathbf{z}_{i1}\beta_1 + y_{i2}\beta_2 + \epsilon_i \\ y_{i2} &= \pi_0 + \mathbf{z_{i1}\pi_1} + \mathbf{z_{i2}\pi_2} + v_i \end{aligned} \]
 when A3a does not hold
\[ E(y_{i2}'\epsilon_i) \neq 0 \]
Then the OLS estimator is no longer unbiased or consistent.
If we have valid instruments \(\mathbf{z}_{i2}\)

Relevancy (need to avoid “weak instruments”): \(\pi_2 \neq 0\) Then the 2SLS estimator is consistent under A1, A2, A5a, and the above two conditions.
\[ \begin{aligned} y_{i1} &= \beta_0 + \mathbf{z}_{i1}\beta_1 + y_{i2}\beta_2 + \epsilon_i \\ y_{i2} &= \pi_0 + \mathbf{z_{i1}\pi_1} + \mathbf{z_{i2}\pi_2} + v_i \end{aligned} \]
 When A3a does hold
\[ E(y_{i2}'\epsilon_i) = 0 \]
and we have valid instruments, then both the OLS and 2SLS estimators are consistent.
 The OLS estimator is always more efficient
 can use the variable addition test to determine if 2SLS is need (A3a does hold) or if OLS is valid (A3a does not hold)
Sometimes we can test the assumption for instrument to be valid:
 Exogeneity : Only table when there are more instruments than endogenous variables.
 Relevancy (need to avoid “weak instruments”): Always testable, need the Fstat to be greater than 10 to rule out a weak instrument
Application
Expenditure as observed instrument
m2.2sls <
ivreg(
read ~ stratio + english + lunch
+ grades + income + calworks + county 
expenditure + english + lunch
+ grades + income + calworks + county ,
data = school
)
summary(m2.2sls)$coefficients[1:7,]
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 700.47891593 13.58064436 51.5792106 8.950497e171
#> stratio 1.13674002 0.53533638 2.1234126 3.438427e02
#> english 0.21396934 0.03847833 5.5607753 5.162571e08
#> lunch 0.39384225 0.03773637 10.4366757 1.621794e22
#> gradesKK08 1.89227865 1.37791820 1.3732881 1.704966e01
#> income 0.62487986 0.11199008 5.5797785 4.668490e08
#> calworks 0.04950501 0.06244410 0.7927892 4.284101e01
36.1.3.1.2 Checklist
 Regress the dependent variable on the instrument (reduced form). Since under OLS, we have unbiased estimate, the coefficient estimate should be significant (make sure the sign makes sense)
 Report Fstat on the excluded instruments. Fstat < 10 means you have a weak instrument (J. H. Stock, Wright, and Yogo 2002).
 Present \(R^2\) before and after including the instrument (Rossi 2014)
 For models with multiple instrument, present first and secondstage result for each instrument separately. Overid test should be conducted (e.g., SarganHansen J)
 Hausman test between OLS and 2SLS (don’t confuse this test for evidence that endogeneity is irrelevant  under invalid IV, the test is useless)
 Compare the 2SLS with the limited information ML. If they are different, you have evidence for weak instruments.
36.1.3.2 Good Instruments
Exogeneity and Relevancy are necessary but not sufficient for IV to produce consistent estimates.
Without theory or possible explanation, you can always create a new variable that is correlated with \(X\) and uncorrelated with \(\epsilon\)
For example, we want to estimate the effect of price on quantity (Reiss 2011, 960)
\[ \begin{aligned} Q &= \beta_1 P + \beta_2 X + \epsilon \\ P &= \pi_1 X + \eta \end{aligned} \]
where \(\epsilon\) and \(\eta\) are jointly determined, \(X \perp \epsilon, \eta\)
Without theory, we can just create a new variable \(Z = X + u\) where \(E(u) = 0; u \perp X, \epsilon, \eta\)
Then, \(Z\) satisfied both conditions:
Relevancy: \(X\) correlates \(P\) \(\rightarrow\) \(Z\) correlates \(P\)
Exogeneity: \(u \perp \epsilon\) (random noise)
But obviously, it’s not a valid instrument (intuitively). But theoretically, relevance and exogeneity are not sufficient to identify \(\beta\) because of unsatisfied rank condition for identification.
Moreover, the functional form of the instrument also plays a role when choosing a good instrument. Hence, we always need to check for the robustness of our instrument.
IV methods even with valid instruments can still have poor sampling properties (finite sample bias, large sampling errors) (Rossi 2014)
When you have a weak instrument, it’s important to report it appropriately. This problem will be exacerbated if you have multiple instruments (Larcker and Rusticus 2010).
36.1.3.2.1 Lagged dependent variable
In time series data sets, we can use lagged dependent variable as an instrument because it is not influenced by current shocks.
Citations for lagged dependent variable in econ (Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff 2014),
36.1.3.3 Internal instrumental variable
(also known as instrument free methods). This section is based on Raluca Gui’s guide
alternative to external instrumental variable approaches
All approaches here assume a continuous dependent variable
36.1.3.3.1 Nonhierarchical Data (Crossclassified)
\[ Y_t = \beta_0 + \beta_1 P_t + \beta_2 X_t + \epsilon_t \]
where
 \(t = 1, .., T\) (indexes either time or crosssectional units)
 \(Y_t\) is a \(k \times 1\) response variable
 \(X_t\) is a \(k \times n\) exogenous regressor
 \(P_t\) is a \(k \times 1\) continuous endogenous regressor
 \(\epsilon_t\) is a structural error term with \(\mu_\epsilon =0\) and \(E(\epsilon^2) = \sigma^2\)
 \(\beta\) are model parameters
The endogeneity problem arises from the correlation of \(P_t\) and \(\epsilon_t\):
\[ P_t = \gamma Z_t + v_t \]
where
 \(Z_t\) is a \(l \times 1\) vector of internal instrumental variables
 \(ν_t\) is a random error with \(\mu_{v_t}, E(v^2) = \sigma^2_v, E(\epsilon v) = \sigma_{\epsilon v}\)
 \(Z_t\) is assumed to be stochastic with distribution \(G\)
 \(ν_t\) is assumed to have density \(h(·)\)
36.1.3.3.1.1 Latent Instrumental Variable
assume \(Z_t\) (unobserved) to be uncorrelated with \(\epsilon_t\), which is similar to Instrumental Variables (Brief). Hence, \(Z_t\) and \(ν_t\) can’t be identified without distributional assumptions
The distributions of \(Z_t\) and \(ν_t\) need to be specified such that:
 endogeneity of \(P_t\) is corrected
 the distribution of \(P_t\) is empirically close to the integral that expresses the amount of overlap of Z as it is shifted over ν (= the convolution between \(Z_t\) and \(ν_t\)).
When the density h(·) = Normal, then G cannot be normal because the parameters would not be identified (Ebbes et al. 2005) .
Hence,
 in the LIV model the distribution of \(Z_t\) is discrete
 in the Higher Moments Method and Joint Estimation Using Copula methods, the distribution of \(Z_t\) is taken to be skewed.
\(Z_t\) are assumed unobserved, discrete and exogenous, with
 an unknown number of groups m
 \(\gamma\) is a vector of group means.
Identification of the parameters relies on the distributional assumptions of
 \(P_t\): a nonGaussian distribution
 \(Z_t\) discrete with \(m \ge 2\)
Note:
 If \(Z_t\) is continuous, the model is unidentified
 If \(P_t \sim N\), you have inefficient estimates.
m3.liv < latentIV(read ~ stratio, data = school)
summary(m3.liv)$coefficients[1:7, ]
#> Estimate Std. Error zscore Pr(>z)
#> (Intercept) 6.996014e+02 2.686186e+02 2.604441e+00 9.529597e03
#> stratio 2.272673e+00 1.367757e+01 1.661605e01 8.681108e01
#> pi1 4.896363e+01 5.526907e08 8.859139e+08 0.000000e+00
#> pi2 1.963920e+01 9.225351e02 2.128830e+02 0.000000e+00
#> theta5 6.939432e152 3.354672e160 2.068587e+08 0.000000e+00
#> theta6 3.787512e+02 4.249457e+01 8.912932e+00 1.541524e17
#> theta7 1.227543e+00 4.885276e+01 2.512741e02 9.799653e01
it will return a coefficient very different from the other methods since there is only one endogenous variable.
36.1.3.3.1.2 Joint Estimation Using Copula
assume \(Z_t\) (unobserved) to be uncorrelated with \(\epsilon_t\), which is similar to Instrumental Variables (Brief). Hence, \(Z_t\) and \(ν_t\) can’t be identified without distributional assumptions
(Park and Gupta 2012) allows joint estimation of the continuous \(P_t\) and \(\epsilon_t\) using Gaussian copulas, where a copula is a function that maps several conditional distribution functions (CDF) into their joint CDF).
The underlying idea is that using information contained in the observed data, one selects marginal distributions for \(P_t\) and \(\epsilon_t\). Then, the copula model constructs a flexible multivariate joint distribution that allows a wide range of correlations between the two marginals.
The method allows both continuous and discrete \(P_t\).
In the special case of one continuous \(P_t\), estimation is based on MLE
Otherwise, based on Gaussian copulas, augmented OLS estimation is used.
Assumptions:
skewed \(P_t\)
the recovery of the correct parameter estimates
\(\epsilon_t \sim\) normal marginal distribution. The marginal distribution of \(P_t\) is obtained using the Epanechnikov kernel density estimator
\[ \hat{h}_p = \frac{1}{T . b} \sum_{t=1}^TK(\frac{p  P_t}{b}) \] where\(P_t\) = endogenous variables
\(K(x) = 0.75(1x^2)I(x\le 1)\)

\(b=0.9T^{1/5}\times min(s, IQR/1.34)\)
 IQR = interquartile range
 \(s\) = sample standard deviation
 \(T\) = n of time periods observed in the data
In augmented OLS and MLE, the inference procedure occurs in two stages:
(1): the empirical distribution of \(P_t\) is computed
(2) used in it constructing the likelihood function)
Hence, the standard errors would not be correct.
So we use the sampling distributions (from bootstrapping) to get standard errors and the variancecovariance matrix. Since the distribution of the bootstrapped parameters is highly skewed, we report the percentile confidence intervals is preferable.
set.seed(110)
m4.cc <
copulaCorrection(
read ~ stratio + english + lunch + calworks +
grades + income + county 
continuous(stratio),
data = school,
optimx.args = list(method = c("NelderMead"),
itnmax = 60000),
num.boots = 2,
verbose = FALSE
)
summary(m4.cc)$coefficients[1:7,]
#> Point Estimate Boots SE Lower Boots CI (95%) Upper Boots CI (95%)
#> (Intercept) 683.06900891 2.80554212 NA NA
#> stratio 0.32434608 0.02075999 NA NA
#> english 0.21576110 0.01450666 NA NA
#> lunch 0.37087664 0.01902052 NA NA
#> calworks 0.05569058 0.02076781 NA NA
#> gradesKK08 1.92286128 0.25684614 NA NA
#> income 0.73595353 0.04725700 NA NA
we run this model with only one endogenous continuous regressor (stratio
). Sometimes, the code will not converge, in which case you can use different
 optimization algorithm
 starting values
 maximum number of iterations
36.1.3.3.1.3 Higher Moments Method
suggested by (Lewbel 1997) to identify \(\epsilon_t\) caused by measurement error.
Identification is achieved by using third moments of the data, with no restrictions on the distribution of \(\epsilon_t\)
The following instruments can be used with 2SLS estimation to obtain consistent estimates:
\[ \begin{aligned} q_{1t} &= (G_t  \bar{G}) \\ q_{2t} &= (G_t  \bar{G})(P_t  \bar{P}) \\ q_{3t} &= (G_t  \bar{G})(Y_t  \bar{Y})\\ q_{4t} &= (Y_t  \bar{Y})(P_t  \bar{P}) \\ q_{5t} &= (P_t  \bar{P})^2 \\ q_{6t} &= (Y_t  \bar{Y})^2 \\ \end{aligned} \]
where
 \(G_t = G(X_t)\) for any given function G that has finite third own and cross moments
 \(X\) = exogenous variable
\(q_{5t}, q_{6t}\) can be used only when the measurement and \(\epsilon_t\) are symmetrically distributed. The rest of the instruments does not require any distributional assumptions for \(\epsilon_t\).
Since the regressors \(G(X) = X\) are included as instruments, \(G(X)\) can’t be a linear function of X in \(q_{1t}\)
Since this method has very strong assumptions, Higher Moments Method should only be used in case of overidentification
set.seed(111)
m5.hetEr <
hetErrorsIV(
read ~ stratio + english + lunch + calworks + income +
grades + county 
stratio  IIV(income, english),
data = school
)
summary(m5.hetEr)$coefficients[1:7,]
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 662.78791557 27.90173069 23.7543657 2.380436e76
#> stratio 0.71480686 1.31077325 0.5453322 5.858545e01
#> english 0.19522271 0.04057527 4.8113717 2.188618e06
#> lunch 0.37834232 0.03927793 9.6324402 9.760809e20
#> calworks 0.05665126 0.06302095 0.8989273 3.692776e01
#> income 0.82693755 0.17236557 4.7975797 2.335271e06
#> gradesKK08 1.93795843 1.38723186 1.3969968 1.632541e01
recommend using this approach to create additional instruments to use with external ones for better efficiency.
36.1.3.3.1.4 Heteroskedastic Error Approach
 using means of variables that are uncorrelated with the product of heteroskedastic errors to identify structural parameters.
 This method can be use either when you don’t have external instruments or you want to use additional instruments to improve the efficiency of the IV estimator (Lewbel 2012)
 The instruments are constructed as simple functions of data
 Model’s assumptions:
\[ \begin{aligned} E(X \epsilon) &= 0 \\ E(X v ) &= 0 \\ cov(Z, \epsilon v) &= 0 \\ cov(Z, v^2) &\neq 0 \text{ (for identification)} \end{aligned} \]
Structural parameters are identified by 2SLS regression of Y on X and P, using X and [Z − E(Z)]ν as instruments.
\[ \text{instrument's strength} \propto cov((Z\bar{Z})v,v) \]
where \(cov((Z\bar{Z})v,v)\) is the degree of heteroskedasticity of ν with respect to Z (Lewbel 2012), which can be empirically tested.
If it is zero or close to zero (i.e.,the instrument is weak), you might have imprecise estimates, with large standard errors.
 Under homoskedasticity, the parameters of the model are unidentified.
 Under heteroskedasticity related to at least some elements of X, the parameters of the model are identified.
36.1.3.3.2 Hierarchical Data
Multiple independent assumptions involving various random components at different levels mean that any moderate correlation between some predictors and a random component or error term can result in a significant bias of the coefficients and of the variance components. (J.S. Kim and Frees 2007) proposed a generalized method of moments which uses both, the between and within variations of the exogenous variables, but only assumes the within variation of the variables to be endogenous.
Assumptions
 the errors at each level \(\sim iid N\)
 the slope variables are exogenous
 the level1 \(\epsilon \perp X, P\). If this is not the case, additional, external instruments are necessary
Hierarchical Model
\[ \begin{aligned} Y_{cst} &= Z_{cst}^1 \beta_{cs}^1 + X_{cst}^1 \beta_1 + \epsilon_{cst}^1 \\ \beta^1_{cs} &= Z_{cs}^2 \beta_{c}^2 + X_{cst}^2 \beta_2 + \epsilon_{cst}^2 \\ \beta^2_{c} &= X^3_c \beta_3 + \epsilon_c^3 \end{aligned} \]
Bias could stem from:
 errors at the higher two levels (\(\epsilon_c^3,\epsilon_{cst}^2\)) are correlated with some of the regressors
 only third level errors (\(\epsilon_c^3\)) are correlated with some of the regressors
(J.S. Kim and Frees 2007) proposed
 When all variables are assumed exogenous, the proposed estimator equals the random effects estimator
 When all variables are assumed endogenous, it equals the fixed effects estimator
 also use omitted variable test (based on the Hausmantest (J. A. Hausman 1978) for panel data), which allows the comparison of a robust estimator and an estimator that is efficient under the null hypothesis of no omitted variables or the comparison of two robust estimators at different levels.
# function 'cholmod_factor_ldetA' not provided by package 'Matrix'
set.seed(113)
school$gr08 < school$grades == "KK06"
m7.multilevel <
multilevelIV(read ~ stratio + english + lunch + income + gr08 +
calworks + (1  county)  endo(stratio),
data = school)
summary(m7.multilevel)$coefficients[1:7,]
Another example using simulated data
 level1 regressors: \(X_{11}, X_{12}, X_{13}, X_{14}, X_{15}\), where \(X_{15}\) is correlated with the level2 error (i.e., endogenous).
 level2 regressors: \(X_{21}, X_{22}, X_{23}, X_{24}\)
 level3 regressors: \(X_{31}, X_{32}, X_{33}\)
We estimate a threelevel model with X15 assumed endogenous. Having a threelevel hierarchy, multilevelIV()
returns five estimators, from the most robust to omitted variables (FE_L2), to the most efficient (REF) (i.e. lowest mean squared error).
 The random effects estimator (REF) is efficient assuming no omitted variables
 The fixed effects estimator (FE) is unbiased and asymptotically normal even in the presence of omitted variables.
 Because of the efficiency, the random effects estimator is preferable if you think there is no omitted. variables
 The robust estimator would be preferable if you think there is omitted variables.
# function 'cholmod_factor_ldetA' not provided by package 'Matrix'’
data(dataMultilevelIV)
set.seed(114)
formula1 <
y ~ X11 + X12 + X13 + X14 + X15 + X21 + X22 + X23 + X24 +
X31 + X32 + X33 + (1  CID) + (1  SID)  endo(X15)
m8.multilevel <
multilevelIV(formula = formula1, data = dataMultilevelIV)
coef(m8.multilevel)
summary(m8.multilevel, "REF")
True \(\beta_{X_{15}} =1\). We can see that some estimators are bias because \(X_{15}\) is correlated with the leveltwo error, to which only FE_L2 and GMM_L2 are robust
To select the appropriate estimator, we use the omitted variable test.
In a threelevel setting, we can have different estimator comparisons:
 Fixed effects vs. random effects estimators: Test for omitted leveltwo and levelthree omitted effects, simultaneously, one compares FE_L2 to REF. But we will not know at which omitted variables exist.
 Fixed effects vs. GMM estimators: Once the existence of omitted effects is established but not sure at which level, we test for level2 omitted effects by comparing FE_L2 vs GMM_L3. If you reject the null, the omitted variables are at level2 The same is accomplished by testing FE_L2 vs. GMM_L2, since the latter is consistent only if there are no omitted effects at level2.
 Fixed effects vs. fixed effects estimators: We can test for omitted level2 effects, while allowing for omitted level3 effects by comparing FE_L2 vs. FE_L3 since FE_L2 is robust against both level2 and level3 omitted effects while FE_L3 is only robust to level3 omitted variables.
Summary, use the omitted variable test comparing REF vs. FE_L2
first.
If the null hypothesis is rejected, then there are omitted variables either at level2 or level3

Next, test whether there are level2 omitted effects, since testing for omitted level three effects relies on the assumption there are no leveltwo omitted effects. You can use any of these pair of comparisons:
FE_L2 vs. FE_L3
FE_L2 vs. GMM_L2

If no omitted variables at level2 are found, test for omitted level3 effects by comparing either

FE_L3
vs.GMM_L3

GMM_L2
vs.GMM_L3

summary(m8.multilevel, "REF")
# compare REF with all the other estimators. Testing REF (the most efficient estimator) against FE_L2 (the most robust estimator), equivalently we are testing simultaneously for level2 and level3 omitted effects.
Since the null hypothesis is rejected (p = 0.000139), there is bias in the random effects estimator.
To test for level2 omitted effects (regardless of level3 omitted effects), we compare FE_L2 versus FE_L3
summary(m8.multilevel,"FE_L2")
The null hypothesis of no omitted level2 effects is rejected (\(p = 3.92e − 05\)). Hence, there are omitted effects at leveltwo. We should use FE_L2 which is consistent with the underlying data that we generated (level2 error correlated with \(X_15\), which leads to biased FE_L3 coefficients.
The omitted variable test between FE_L2 and GMM_L2 should reject the null hypothesis of no omitted level2 effects (pvalue is 0).
If we assume an endogenous variable as exogenous, the RE and GMM estimators will be biased because of the wrong set of internal instrumental variables. To increase our confidence, we should compare the omitted variable tests when the variable is considered endogenous vs. exogenous to get a sense whether the variable is truly endogenous.
36.1.3.4 Proxy Variables
Can be in place of the omitted variable
will not be able to estimate the effect of the omitted variable
will be able to reduce some endogeneity caused bye the omitted variable
but it can have Measurement Error. Hence, you have to be extremely careful when using proxies.
Criteria for a proxy variable:
 The proxy is correlated with the omitted variable.
 Having the omitted variable in the regression will solve the problem of endogeneity
 The variation of the omitted variable unexplained by the proxy is uncorrelated with all independent variables, including the proxy.
IQ test can be a proxy for ability in the regression between wage explained education.
For the third requirement
\[ ability = \gamma_0 + \gamma_1 IQ + \epsilon \]
where \(\epsilon\) is uncorrelated with education and IQ test.
36.2 Endogenous Sample Selection
Also known as sample selection or selfselection problem or incidental truncation.
The omitted variable is how people were selected into the sample
Some disciplines consider nonresponse bias and selection bias as sample selection.
 When unobservable factors that affect who is in the sample are independent of unobservable factors that affect the outcome, the sample selection is not endogenous. Hence, the sample selection is ignorable and estimator that ignores sample selection is still consistent.
 when the unobservable factors that affect who is included in the sample are correlated with the unobservable factors that affect the outcome, the sample selection is endogenous and not ignorable, because estimators that ignore endogenous sample selection are not consistent (we don’t know which part of the observable outcome is related to the causal relationship and which part is due to different people were selected for the treatment and control groups).
Assumptions:  The unobservables that affect the treatment selection and the outcome are jointly distributed as bivariate normal.
Notes:

If you don’t have strong exclusion restriction, identification is driven by the assumed non linearity in the functional form (through inverse Mills ratio). E.g., the estimate depend on the bivariate normal distribution of the error structure:
 With strong exclusion restriction for the covariate in the correction equation, the variation in this variable can help identify the control for selection
 With weak exclusion restriction, and the variable exists in both steps, it’s the assumed error structure that identifies the control for selection (J. Heckman and NavarroLozano 2004).
In management, Wolfolds and Siegel (2019) found that papers should have valid exclusion conditions, because without these, simulations show that results using the Heckman method are less reliable than those obtained with OLS.
There are differences between Heckman Sample Selection vs. Heckmantype correction
Heckman Sample Selection Model  HeckmanType Corrections  

When  Only observes one sample (treated), addressing selection bias directly.  Two samples are observed (treated and untreated), known as the control function approach. 
Model  Probit  OLS (even for dummy endogenous variable) 
Integration of 1st stage  Also include a term (called Inverse Mills ratio) besides the endogenous variable.  Decompose the endogenous variable to get the part that is uncorrelated with the error terms of the outcome equation. Either use the predicted endogenous variable directly or include the residual from the firststage equation. 
Advantages and Assumptions  Provides a direct test for endogeneity via the coefficient of the inverse Mills ratio but requires the assumption of joint normality of errors.  Does not require the assumption of joint normality, but can’t test for endogeneity directly. 
To deal with [Sample Selection], we can
 Randomization: participants are randomly selected into treatment and control.
 Instruments that determine the treatment status (i.e., treatment vs. control) but not the outcome (\(Y\))
 Functional form of the selection and outcome processes: originated from (James J. Heckman 1976), later on generalize by (Amemiya 1984)
We have our main model
\[ \mathbf{y^* = xb + \epsilon} \]
However, the pattern of missingness (i.e., censored) is related to the unobserved (latent) process:
\[ \mathbf{z^* = w \gamma + u} \]
and
\[ z_i = \begin{cases} 1& \text{if } z_i^*>0 \\ 0&\text{if } z_i^*\le0\\ \end{cases} \]
Equivalently, \(z_i = 1\) (\(y_i\) is observed) when
\[ u_i \ge w_i \gamma \]
Hence, the probability of observed \(y_i\) is
\[ \begin{aligned} P(u_i \ge w_i \gamma) &= 1  \Phi(w_i \gamma) \\ &= \Phi(w_i \gamma) & \text{symmetry of the standard normal distribution} \end{aligned} \]
We will assume
 the error term of the selection \(\mathbf{u \sim N(0,I)}\)
 \(Var(u_i) = 1\) for identification purposes
Visually, \(P(u_i \ge w_i \gamma)\) is the shaded area.
x = seq(3, 3, length = 200)
y = dnorm(x, mean = 0, sd = 1)
plot(x,
y,
type = "l",
main = bquote("Probabibility distribution of" ~ u[i]))
x = seq(0.3, 3, length = 100)
y = dnorm(x, mean = 0, sd = 1)
polygon(c(0.3, x, 3), c(0, y, 0), col = "gray")
text(1, 0.1, bquote(1  Phi ~ (w[i] ~ gamma)))
arrows(0.5, 0.1, 0.3, 0, length = .15)
text(0.5, 0.12, bquote(w[i] ~ gamma))
legend(
"topright",
"Gray = Prob of Observed",
pch = 1,
title = "legend",
inset = .02
)
Hence in our observed model, we see
\[\begin{equation} y_i = x_i\beta + \epsilon_i \text{when $z_i=1$} \end{equation}\]and the joint distribution of the selection model (\(u_i\)), and the observed equation (\(\epsilon_i\)) as
\[ \left[ \begin{array} {c} u \\ \epsilon \\ \end{array} \right] \sim^{iid}N \left( \left[ \begin{array} {c} 0 \\ 0 \\ \end{array} \right], \left[ \begin{array} {cc} 1 & \rho \\ \rho & \sigma^2_{\epsilon} \\ \end{array} \right] \right) \]
The relation between the observed and selection models:
\[ \begin{aligned} E(y_i  y_i \text{ observed}) &= E(y_i z^*>0) \\ &= E(y_i w_i \gamma) \\ &= \mathbf{x}_i \beta + E(\epsilon_i  u_i > w_i \gamma) \\ &= \mathbf{x}_i \beta + \rho \sigma_\epsilon \frac{\phi(w_i \gamma)}{\Phi(w_i \gamma)} \end{aligned} \]
where \(\frac{\phi(w_i \gamma)}{\Phi(w_i \gamma)}\) is the Inverse Mills Ratio. and \(\rho \sigma_\epsilon \frac{\phi(w_i \gamma)}{\Phi(w_i \gamma)} \ge 0\)
A property of IMR: Its derivative is: \(IMR'(x) = x IMR(x)  IMR(x)^2\)
Great visualization of special cases of correlation patterns among data and errors by professor Rob Hick
Note:
(Bareinboim and Pearl 2014) is an excellent summary of cases that we can still do causal inference in case of selection bias. I’ll try to summarize their idea here:
Let \(X\) be an action, \(Y\) be an outcome, and S be a binary indicator of entry into the data pool where (\(S = 1 =\) in the sample, \(S = 0 =\) out of sample) and Q be the conditional distribution \(Q = P(yx)\).
Usually we want to understand , but because of \(S\), we only have \(P(y, xS = 1)\). Hence, we’d like to recover \(P(yx)\) from \(P(y, xS = 1)\)
 If both X and Y affect S, we can’t unbiasedly estimate \(P(yx)\)
In the case of Omitted variable bias (\(U\)) and sample selection bias (\(S\)), you have unblocked extraneous “flow” of information between X and \(Y\), which causes spurious correlation for \(X\) and \(Y\). Traditionally, we would recover \(Q\) by parametric assumption of
 The data generating process (e.g., Heckman 2step)
 Type of datagenerating model (e..g, treatmentdependent or outcomedependent)
 Selection’s probability \(P(S = 1P a_s)\) with nonparametrically based causal graphical models, the authors proposed more robust way to model misspecification regardless of the type of datagenerating model, and do not require selection’s probability. Hence, you can recover Q
 Without external data
 With external data
 Causal effects with the Selectionbackdoor criterion
36.2.1 Tobit2
also known as Heckman’s standard sample selection model
Assumption: joint normality of the errors
Data here is taken from Mroz (1984).
We want to estimate the log(wage) for married women, with education, experience, experience squared, and a dummy variable for living in a big city. But we can only observe the wage for women who are working, which means a lot of married women in 1975 who were out of the labor force are unaccounted for. Hence, an OLS estimate of the wage equation would be bias due to sample selection. Since we have data on nonparticipants (i.e., those who are not working for pay), we can correct for the selection process.
The Tobit2 estimates are consistent
36.2.1.1 Example 1
library(sampleSelection)
library(dplyr)
# 1975 data on married women’s pay and laborforce participation
# from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID)
data("Mroz87")
head(Mroz87)
#> lfp hours kids5 kids618 age educ wage repwage hushrs husage huseduc huswage
#> 1 1 1610 1 0 32 12 3.3540 2.65 2708 34 12 4.0288
#> 2 1 1656 0 2 30 12 1.3889 2.65 2310 30 9 8.4416
#> 3 1 1980 1 3 35 12 4.5455 4.04 3072 40 12 3.5807
#> 4 1 456 0 3 34 12 1.0965 3.25 1920 53 10 3.5417
#> 5 1 1568 1 2 31 14 4.5918 3.60 2000 32 12 10.0000
#> 6 1 2032 0 0 54 12 4.7421 4.70 1040 57 11 6.7106
#> faminc mtr motheduc fatheduc unem city exper nwifeinc wifecoll huscoll
#> 1 16310 0.7215 12 7 5.0 0 14 10.910060 FALSE FALSE
#> 2 21800 0.6615 7 7 11.0 1 5 19.499981 FALSE FALSE
#> 3 21040 0.6915 12 7 5.0 0 15 12.039910 FALSE FALSE
#> 4 7300 0.7815 7 7 5.0 0 6 6.799996 FALSE FALSE
#> 5 27300 0.6215 12 14 9.5 1 7 20.100058 TRUE FALSE
#> 6 19495 0.6915 14 7 7.5 1 33 9.859054 FALSE FALSE
Mroz87 = Mroz87 %>%
mutate(kids = kids5 + kids618)
library(nnet)
library(ggplot2)
library(reshape2)
2stage Heckman’s model:
 probit equation estimates the selection process (who is in the labor force?)
 the results from 1st stage are used to construct a variable that captures the selection effect in the wage equation. This correction variable is called the inverse Mills ratio.
# OLS: log wage regression on LF participants only
ols1 = lm(log(wage) ~ educ + exper + I(exper ^ 2) + city,
data = subset(Mroz87, lfp == 1))
# Heckman's Twostep estimation with LFP selection equation
heck1 = heckit(
selection = lfp ~ age + I(age ^ 2) + kids + huswage + educ,
# the selection process, l
# fp = 1 if the woman is participating in the labor force
outcome = log(wage) ~ educ + exper + I(exper ^ 2) + city,
data = Mroz87
)
summary(heck1$probit)
#> 
#> Probit binary choice model/Maximum Likelihood estimation
#> NewtonRaphson maximisation, 4 iterations
#> Return code 1: gradient close to zero (gradtol)
#> LogLikelihood: 482.8212
#> Model: Y == '1' in contrary to '0'
#> 753 observations (325 'negative' and 428 'positive') and 6 free parameters (df = 747)
#> Estimates:
#> Estimate Std. error t value Pr(> t)
#> XS(Intercept) 4.18146681 1.40241567 2.9816 0.002867 **
#> XSage 0.18608901 0.06517476 2.8552 0.004301 **
#> XSI(age^2) 0.00241491 0.00075857 3.1835 0.001455 **
#> XSkids 0.14955977 0.03825079 3.9100 9.230e05 ***
#> XShuswage 0.04303635 0.01220791 3.5253 0.000423 ***
#> XSeduc 0.12502818 0.02277645 5.4894 4.034e08 ***
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#> Significance test:
#> chi2(5) = 64.10407 (p=1.719042e12)
#> 
summary(heck1$lm)
#>
#> Call:
#> lm(formula = YO ~ 1 + XO + imrData$IMR1, subset = YS == 1, weights = weightsNoNA)
#>
#> Residuals:
#> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
#> 3.09494 0.30953 0.05341 0.36530 2.34770
#>
#> Coefficients:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> XO(Intercept) 0.6143381 0.3768796 1.630 0.10383
#> XOeduc 0.1092363 0.0197062 5.543 5.24e08 ***
#> XOexper 0.0419205 0.0136176 3.078 0.00222 **
#> XOI(exper^2) 0.0008226 0.0004059 2.026 0.04335 *
#> XOcity 0.0510492 0.0692414 0.737 0.46137
#> imrData$IMR1 0.0551177 0.2111916 0.261 0.79423
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#>
#> Residual standard error: 0.6674 on 422 degrees of freedom
#> Multiple Rsquared: 0.7734, Adjusted Rsquared: 0.7702
#> Fstatistic: 240 on 6 and 422 DF, pvalue: < 2.2e16
Use only variables that affect the selection process in the selection equation. Technically, the selection equation and the equation of interest could have the same set of regressors. But it is not recommended because we should only use variables (or at least one) in the selection equation that affect the selection process, but not the wage process (i.e., instruments). Here, variable kids
fulfill that role: women with kids may be more likely to stay home, but working moms with kids would not have their wages change.
Alternatively,
# ML estimation of selection model
ml1 = selection(
selection = lfp ~ age + I(age ^ 2) + kids + huswage + educ,
outcome = log(wage) ~ educ + exper + I(exper ^ 2) + city,
data = Mroz87
)
summary(ml1)
#> 
#> Tobit 2 model (sample selection model)
#> Maximum Likelihood estimation
#> NewtonRaphson maximisation, 3 iterations
#> Return code 8: successive function values within relative tolerance limit (reltol)
#> LogLikelihood: 914.0777
#> 753 observations (325 censored and 428 observed)
#> 13 free parameters (df = 740)
#> Probit selection equation:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 4.1484037 1.4109302 2.940 0.003382 **
#> age 0.1842132 0.0658041 2.799 0.005253 **
#> I(age^2) 0.0023925 0.0007664 3.122 0.001868 **
#> kids 0.1488158 0.0384888 3.866 0.000120 ***
#> huswage 0.0434253 0.0123229 3.524 0.000451 ***
#> educ 0.1255639 0.0229229 5.478 5.91e08 ***
#> Outcome equation:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.5814781 0.3052031 1.905 0.05714 .
#> educ 0.1078481 0.0172998 6.234 7.63e10 ***
#> exper 0.0415752 0.0133269 3.120 0.00188 **
#> I(exper^2) 0.0008125 0.0003974 2.044 0.04129 *
#> city 0.0522990 0.0682652 0.766 0.44385
#> Error terms:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> sigma 0.66326 0.02309 28.729 <2e16 ***
#> rho 0.05048 0.23169 0.218 0.828
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#> 
# summary(ml1$twoStep)
Manual
myprob < probit(lfp ~ age + I( age^2 ) + kids + huswage + educ,
# x = TRUE,
# iterlim = 30,
data = Mroz87)
summary(myprob)
#> 
#> Probit binary choice model/Maximum Likelihood estimation
#> NewtonRaphson maximisation, 4 iterations
#> Return code 1: gradient close to zero (gradtol)
#> LogLikelihood: 482.8212
#> Model: Y == '1' in contrary to '0'
#> 753 observations (325 'negative' and 428 'positive') and 6 free parameters (df = 747)
#> Estimates:
#> Estimate Std. error t value Pr(> t)
#> (Intercept) 4.18146681 1.40241567 2.9816 0.002867 **
#> age 0.18608901 0.06517476 2.8552 0.004301 **
#> I(age^2) 0.00241491 0.00075857 3.1835 0.001455 **
#> kids 0.14955977 0.03825079 3.9100 9.230e05 ***
#> huswage 0.04303635 0.01220791 3.5253 0.000423 ***
#> educ 0.12502818 0.02277645 5.4894 4.034e08 ***
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#> Significance test:
#> chi2(5) = 64.10407 (p=1.719042e12)
#> 
imr < invMillsRatio(myprob)
Mroz87$IMR1 < imr$IMR1
manually_est < lm(log(wage) ~ educ + exper + I( exper^2 ) + city + IMR1,
data = Mroz87,
subset = (lfp == 1))
summary(manually_est)
#>
#> Call:
#> lm(formula = log(wage) ~ educ + exper + I(exper^2) + city + IMR1,
#> data = Mroz87, subset = (lfp == 1))
#>
#> Residuals:
#> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
#> 3.09494 0.30953 0.05341 0.36530 2.34770
#>
#> Coefficients:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.6143381 0.3768796 1.630 0.10383
#> educ 0.1092363 0.0197062 5.543 5.24e08 ***
#> exper 0.0419205 0.0136176 3.078 0.00222 **
#> I(exper^2) 0.0008226 0.0004059 2.026 0.04335 *
#> city 0.0510492 0.0692414 0.737 0.46137
#> IMR1 0.0551177 0.2111916 0.261 0.79423
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#>
#> Residual standard error: 0.6674 on 422 degrees of freedom
#> Multiple Rsquared: 0.1582, Adjusted Rsquared: 0.1482
#> Fstatistic: 15.86 on 5 and 422 DF, pvalue: 2.505e14
Similarly,
probit_selection <
glm(lfp ~ age + I( age^2 ) + kids + huswage + educ,
data = Mroz87,
family = binomial(link = 'probit'))
# library(fixest)
# probit_selection <
# fixest::feglm(lfp ~ age + I( age^2 ) + kids + huswage + educ,
# data = Mroz87,
# family = binomial(link = 'probit'))
probit_lp < predict(probit_selection)
inv_mills < dnorm(probit_lp) / (1  pnorm(probit_lp))
Mroz87$inv_mills < inv_mills
probit_outcome <
glm(
log(wage) ~ educ + exper + I(exper ^ 2) + city + inv_mills,
data = Mroz87,
subset = (lfp == 1)
)
summary(probit_outcome)
#>
#> Call:
#> glm(formula = log(wage) ~ educ + exper + I(exper^2) + city +
#> inv_mills, data = Mroz87, subset = (lfp == 1))
#>
#> Deviance Residuals:
#> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
#> 3.09494 0.30953 0.05341 0.36530 2.34770
#>
#> Coefficients:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.6143383 0.3768798 1.630 0.10383
#> educ 0.1092363 0.0197062 5.543 5.24e08 ***
#> exper 0.0419205 0.0136176 3.078 0.00222 **
#> I(exper^2) 0.0008226 0.0004059 2.026 0.04335 *
#> city 0.0510492 0.0692414 0.737 0.46137
#> inv_mills 0.0551179 0.2111918 0.261 0.79423
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#>
#> (Dispersion parameter for gaussian family taken to be 0.4454809)
#>
#> Null deviance: 223.33 on 427 degrees of freedom
#> Residual deviance: 187.99 on 422 degrees of freedom
#> AIC: 876.49
#>
#> Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 2
library("stargazer")
library("Mediana")
library("plm")
# function to calculate corrected SEs for regression
cse = function(reg) {
rob = sqrt(diag(vcovHC(reg, type = "HC1")))
return(rob)
}
# stargazer table
stargazer(
# ols1,
heck1,
ml1,
# manually_est,
se = list(cse(ols1), NULL, NULL),
title = "Married women's wage regressions",
type = "text",
df = FALSE,
digits = 4,
selection.equation = T
)
#>
#> Married women's wage regressions
#> ===================================================
#> Dependent variable:
#> 
#> lfp
#> Heckman selection
#> selection
#> (1) (2)
#> 
#> age 0.1861*** 0.1842***
#> (0.0658)
#>
#> I(age2) 0.0024 0.0024***
#> (0.0008)
#>
#> kids 0.1496*** 0.1488***
#> (0.0385)
#>
#> huswage 0.0430 0.0434***
#> (0.0123)
#>
#> educ 0.1250 0.1256***
#> (0.0130) (0.0229)
#>
#> Constant 4.1815*** 4.1484***
#> (0.2032) (1.4109)
#>
#> 
#> Observations 753 753
#> R2 0.1582
#> Adjusted R2 0.1482
#> Log Likelihood 914.0777
#> rho 0.0830 0.0505 (0.2317)
#> Inverse Mills Ratio 0.0551 (0.2099)
#> ===================================================
#> Note: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01
stargazer(
ols1,
# heck1,
# ml1,
manually_est,
se = list(cse(ols1), NULL, NULL),
title = "Married women's wage regressions",
type = "text",
df = FALSE,
digits = 4,
selection.equation = T
)
#>
#> Married women's wage regressions
#> ================================================
#> Dependent variable:
#> 
#> log(wage)
#> (1) (2)
#> 
#> educ 0.1057*** 0.1092***
#> (0.0130) (0.0197)
#>
#> exper 0.0411*** 0.0419***
#> (0.0154) (0.0136)
#>
#> I(exper2) 0.0008* 0.0008**
#> (0.0004) (0.0004)
#>
#> city 0.0542 0.0510
#> (0.0653) (0.0692)
#>
#> IMR1 0.0551
#> (0.2112)
#>
#> Constant 0.5308*** 0.6143
#> (0.2032) (0.3769)
#>
#> 
#> Observations 428 428
#> R2 0.1581 0.1582
#> Adjusted R2 0.1501 0.1482
#> Residual Std. Error 0.6667 0.6674
#> F Statistic 19.8561*** 15.8635***
#> ================================================
#> Note: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01
Rho is an estimate of the correlation of the errors between the selection and wage equations. In the lower panel, the estimated coefficient on the inverse Mills ratio is given for the Heckman model. The fact that it is not statistically different from zero is consistent with the idea that selection bias was not a serious problem in this case.
If the estimated coefficient of the inverse Mills ratio in the Heckman model is not statistically different from zero, then selection bias was not a serious problem.
36.2.1.2 Example 2
This code is from R package sampleSelection
set.seed(0)
library("sampleSelection")
library("mvtnorm")
# bivariate normal disturbances
eps <
rmvnorm(500, c(0, 0), matrix(c(1, 0.7, 0.7, 1), 2, 2))
# uniformly distributed explanatory variable
# (vectors of explanatory variables for the selection)
xs < runif(500)
# probit data generating process
ys < xs + eps[, 1] > 0
# vectors of explanatory variables for outcome equation
xo < runif(500)
yoX < xo + eps[, 2] # latent outcome
yo < yoX * (ys > 0) # observable outcome
# true intercepts = 0 and our true slopes = 1
# xs and xo are independent.
# Hence, exclusion restriction is fulfilled
summary(selection(ys ~ xs, yo ~ xo))
#> 
#> Tobit 2 model (sample selection model)
#> Maximum Likelihood estimation
#> NewtonRaphson maximisation, 5 iterations
#> Return code 1: gradient close to zero (gradtol)
#> LogLikelihood: 712.3163
#> 500 observations (172 censored and 328 observed)
#> 6 free parameters (df = 494)
#> Probit selection equation:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.2228 0.1081 2.061 0.0399 *
#> xs 1.3377 0.2014 6.642 8.18e11 ***
#> Outcome equation:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.0002265 0.1294178 0.002 0.999
#> xo 0.7299070 0.1635925 4.462 1.01e05 ***
#> Error terms:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> sigma 0.9190 0.0574 16.009 < 2e16 ***
#> rho 0.5392 0.1521 3.544 0.000431 ***
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#> 
without the exclusion restriction, we generate yo using xs instead of xo.
yoX < xs + eps[,2]
yo < yoX*(ys > 0)
summary(selection(ys ~ xs, yo ~ xs))
#> 
#> Tobit 2 model (sample selection model)
#> Maximum Likelihood estimation
#> NewtonRaphson maximisation, 14 iterations
#> Return code 8: successive function values within relative tolerance limit (reltol)
#> LogLikelihood: 712.8298
#> 500 observations (172 censored and 328 observed)
#> 6 free parameters (df = 494)
#> Probit selection equation:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.1984 0.1114 1.781 0.0756 .
#> xs 1.2907 0.2085 6.191 1.25e09 ***
#> Outcome equation:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.5499 0.5644 0.974 0.33038
#> xs 1.3987 0.4482 3.120 0.00191 **
#> Error terms:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> sigma 0.85091 0.05352 15.899 <2e16 ***
#> rho 0.13226 0.72684 0.182 0.856
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#> 
We can see that our estimates are still unbiased but standard errors are substantially larger. The exclusion restriction (i.e., independent information about the selection process) has a certain identifying power that we desire. Hence, it’s better to have different set of variable for the selection process from the interested equation. Without the exclusion restriction, we solely rely on the functional form identification.
36.2.2 Tobit5
Also known as the switching regression model
Condition: There is at least one variable in X in the selection process not included in the observed process. Used when there are separate models for participants, and nonparticipants.
set.seed(0)
vc < diag(3)
vc[lower.tri(vc)] < c(0.9, 0.5, 0.1)
vc[upper.tri(vc)] < vc[lower.tri(vc)]
# 3 disturbance vectors by a 3dimensional normal distribution
eps < rmvnorm(500, c(0,0,0), vc)
xs < runif(500) # uniformly distributed on [0, 1]
ys < xs + eps[,1] > 0
xo1 < runif(500) # uniformly distributed on [0, 1]
yo1 < xo1 + eps[,2]
xo2 < runif(500) # uniformly distributed on [0, 1]
yo2 < xo2 + eps[,3]
exclusion restriction is fulfilled when \(x\)’s are independent.
# one selection equation and a list of two outcome equations
summary(selection(ys~xs, list(yo1 ~ xo1, yo2 ~ xo2)))
#> 
#> Tobit 5 model (switching regression model)
#> Maximum Likelihood estimation
#> NewtonRaphson maximisation, 11 iterations
#> Return code 1: gradient close to zero (gradtol)
#> LogLikelihood: 895.8201
#> 500 observations: 172 selection 1 (FALSE) and 328 selection 2 (TRUE)
#> 10 free parameters (df = 490)
#> Probit selection equation:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.1550 0.1051 1.474 0.141
#> xs 1.1408 0.1785 6.390 3.86e10 ***
#> Outcome equation 1:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.02708 0.16395 0.165 0.869
#> xo1 0.83959 0.14968 5.609 3.4e08 ***
#> Outcome equation 2:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.1583 0.1885 0.840 0.401
#> xo2 0.8375 0.1707 4.908 1.26e06 ***
#> Error terms:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> sigma1 0.93191 0.09211 10.118 <2e16 ***
#> sigma2 0.90697 0.04434 20.455 <2e16 ***
#> rho1 0.88988 0.05353 16.623 <2e16 ***
#> rho2 0.17695 0.33139 0.534 0.594
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#> 
All the estimates are close to the true values.
Example of functional form misspecification
set.seed(5)
eps < rmvnorm(1000, rep(0, 3), vc)
eps < eps^2  1 # subtract 1 in order to get the mean zero disturbances
# interval [−1, 0] to get an asymmetric distribution over observed choices
xs < runif(1000, 1, 0)
ys < xs + eps[,1] > 0
xo1 < runif(1000)
yo1 < xo1 + eps[,2]
xo2 < runif(1000)
yo2 < xo2 + eps[,3]
summary(selection(ys~xs, list(yo1 ~ xo1, yo2 ~ xo2), iterlim=20))
#> 
#> Tobit 5 model (switching regression model)
#> Maximum Likelihood estimation
#> NewtonRaphson maximisation, 4 iterations
#> Return code 3: Last step could not find a value above the current.
#> Boundary of parameter space?
#> Consider switching to a more robust optimisation method temporarily.
#> LogLikelihood: 1665.936
#> 1000 observations: 760 selection 1 (FALSE) and 240 selection 2 (TRUE)
#> 10 free parameters (df = 990)
#> Probit selection equation:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.53698 0.05808 9.245 < 2e16 ***
#> xs 0.31268 0.09395 3.328 0.000906 ***
#> Outcome equation 1:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.70679 0.03573 19.78 <2e16 ***
#> xo1 0.91603 0.05626 16.28 <2e16 ***
#> Outcome equation 2:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.1446 NaN NaN NaN
#> xo2 1.1196 0.5014 2.233 0.0258 *
#> Error terms:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> sigma1 0.67770 0.01760 38.50 <2e16 ***
#> sigma2 2.31432 0.07615 30.39 <2e16 ***
#> rho1 0.97137 NaN NaN NaN
#> rho2 0.17039 NaN NaN NaN
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#> 
Although we still have an exclusion restriction (xo1 and xo2 are independent), we now have problems with the intercepts (i.e., they are statistically significantly different from the true values zero), and convergence problems.
If we don’t have the exclusion restriction, we will have a larger variance of xs
set.seed(6)
xs < runif(1000, 1, 1)
ys < xs + eps[,1] > 0
yo1 < xs + eps[,2]
yo2 < xs + eps[,3]
summary(tmp < selection(ys~xs, list(yo1 ~ xs, yo2 ~ xs), iterlim=20))
#> 
#> Tobit 5 model (switching regression model)
#> Maximum Likelihood estimation
#> NewtonRaphson maximisation, 16 iterations
#> Return code 8: successive function values within relative tolerance limit (reltol)
#> LogLikelihood: 1936.431
#> 1000 observations: 626 selection 1 (FALSE) and 374 selection 2 (TRUE)
#> 10 free parameters (df = 990)
#> Probit selection equation:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.3528 0.0424 8.321 2.86e16 ***
#> xs 0.8354 0.0756 11.050 < 2e16 ***
#> Outcome equation 1:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.55448 0.06339 8.748 <2e16 ***
#> xs 0.81764 0.06048 13.519 <2e16 ***
#> Outcome equation 2:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> (Intercept) 0.6457 0.4994 1.293 0.196
#> xs 0.3520 0.3197 1.101 0.271
#> Error terms:
#> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>t)
#> sigma1 0.59187 0.01853 31.935 <2e16 ***
#> sigma2 1.97257 0.07228 27.289 <2e16 ***
#> rho1 0.15568 0.15914 0.978 0.328
#> rho2 0.01541 0.23370 0.066 0.947
#> 
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#> 
Usually it will not converge. Even if it does, the results may be seriously biased.
Note
The loglikelihood function of the models might not be globally concave. Hence, it might not converge, or converge to a local maximum. To combat this, we can use
 Different starting value
 Different maximization methods.
 refer to Nonlinear Least Squares for suggestions.
36.2.2.0.1 PatternMixture Models
 compared to the Heckman’s model where it assumes the value of the missing data is predetermined, patternmixture models assume missingness affect the distribution of variable of interest (e.g., Y)
 To read more, you can check NCSU, stefvanbuuren.