You are not logged in. You can browse but not post. Login or Register by clicking 'Login or Register' at the top-right of this page. For more information on Statalist, see the FAQ.
If the homoskedasticity assumption in the structural equation does not hold, does using fitted values as instrument lead to more efficient estimates than using the actual instrument, Z, itself? I have a situation where my instrument also happens to be binary.
Devon: There are no guarantees with heteroskedasticity. It could still be more efficient. Use robust standard errors in both cases. With binary Z you’re counting on variation in X to strengthen the IV.
You may want to check the following from Angrist & Krueger (2001):
We conclude our review of pitfalls with a discussion of functional form issues for both the first and second stages in two-stage least squares estimation. Researchers are sometimes tempted to use probit or logit to generate first-stage predicted values in applications with a dummy endogenous regressor. But this is not necessary and may even do some harm. In two-stage least squares, consistency of the second-stage estimates does not turn on getting the first-stage functional form right (Kelejian, 1971). So using a linear regression for the first-stage estimates generates consistent second-stage estimates even with a dummy endogenous variable. Moreover, using a nonlinear first stage to generate fitted values that are plugged directly into the second-stage equation does not generate consistent estimates unless the nonlinear model happens to be exactly right, a result which makes the dangers of misspecification high.10
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001). Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.4.69
You may want to check the following from Angrist & Krueger (2001):
We conclude our review of pitfalls with a discussion of functional form issues for both the first and second stages in two-stage least squares estimation. Researchers are sometimes tempted to use probit or logit to generate first-stage predicted values in applications with a dummy endogenous regressor. But this is not necessary and may even do some harm. In two-stage least squares, consistency of the second-stage estimates does not turn on getting the first-stage functional form right (Kelejian, 1971). So using a linear regression for the first-stage estimates generates consistent second-stage estimates even with a dummy endogenous variable. Moreover, using a nonlinear first stage to generate fitted values that are plugged directly into the second-stage equation does not generate consistent estimates unless the nonlinear model happens to be exactly right, a result which makes the dangers of misspecification high.10
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001). Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.4.69
Hello Jef, I have a question that is related to this thread, is it okay if my ivreg2 shows that my instruments are strong but then when I do the first step -probit- only one instrument is significant (out of three). Can I still use the estimated probability as an instrument or does it mean that the instruments are questionable?
Thanks
Comment