Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interpreting impulse response with log percentage as dependent variable and first difference of share as independent one

    Hello everyone,

    I estimate a VAR model where the dependent variable is log-transformed percentage (0-100) and the independent variable is first difference of a share (0-1) whereas the independent variable is not log-transformed.

    I have seen similar questions here, but not specifically log-transformed percentage and first differences of share.

    Can you help me to interpret the response of the dependent variable to the shock caused by the independent variable if the impulse respone would be, eg. 0.6 after 5 years?

    Best
    Marius

  • #2
    The interpretation would be: a one percentage point increase in x is associated with a 0.6 percent increase in y.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you, Fei.
      Why is it not given by approximately multiplying 0.6 by 100 as usual in log-level settings? Is it simply because y is already given as percentage?

      Comment


      • #4
        No, the reason is that one percentage point increase in x is essentially a 0.01 unit increase in x, given that x is related to fraction (0-1) rather than percentage (0-100). So multiplying 0.6 by 100 is offset by dividing one unit increase in x by 100.
        Last edited by Fei Wang; 29 Nov 2021, 03:22.

        Comment


        • #5
          BTW, it seems a little awkward to log-transform a percentage. Without log, the coefficient would be more naturally interpreted as percentage points change in y in response to percentage points change in x.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks for clarifying! I think it's just a trade-off between interpreting the results more naturally (by using percentage points change) and emphasizing the size of the effect (by using percentage change) given that the percentage point change is relatively small compared to the percentage change.

            Comment


            • #7
              Fei Wang So your interpretation also holds when y is not log-transformed percentage, but instead, e.g. log(GDP)? Then the percantage change is not given by exactly 100*(e0,6 -1 ) but instead also just by e0,6 -1?

              Comment


              • #8
                Strictly speaking, the percentage change would be 100*(exp(0.006)-1) = 0.6.

                Comment

                Working...
                X