和平是缺失的价值还是零?

Colin Vance, Nolan Ritter
{"title":"和平是缺失的价值还是零?","authors":"Colin Vance, Nolan Ritter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2423259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sample selection models, variants of which are the Heckman and Heckit models, are increasingly used by political scientists to accommodate data in which censoring of the dependent variable raises concerns of sample selectivity bias. Beyond demonstrating several pitfalls in the calculation of marginal effects and associated levels of statistical significance derived from these models, we argue that many of the empirical questions addressed by political scientists would – for both substantive and statistical reasons – be more appropriately addressed using an alternative but closely related procedure referred to as the two-part model (2PM). Aside from being simple to estimate, one key advantage of the 2PM is its less onerous identification requirements. Specifically, the model does not require the specification of so-called exclusion restrictions, variables that are included in the selection equation of the Heckit model but omitted from the outcome equation. Moreover, we argue that the interpretation of the marginal effects from the 2PM, which are in terms of actual outcomes, are more appropriate for the questions typically addressed by political scientists than the potential outcomes ascribed to the Heckit results. Drawing on data compiled by Sweeney (2003) from the Correlates of War database, we present an empirical analysis of conflict intensity illustrating that the choice between the sample selection model and 2PM can bear fundamentally on the conclusions drawn.","PeriodicalId":234067,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: Scientific Study eJournal","volume":"144 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Peace a Missing Value or a Zero?\",\"authors\":\"Colin Vance, Nolan Ritter\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2423259\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sample selection models, variants of which are the Heckman and Heckit models, are increasingly used by political scientists to accommodate data in which censoring of the dependent variable raises concerns of sample selectivity bias. Beyond demonstrating several pitfalls in the calculation of marginal effects and associated levels of statistical significance derived from these models, we argue that many of the empirical questions addressed by political scientists would – for both substantive and statistical reasons – be more appropriately addressed using an alternative but closely related procedure referred to as the two-part model (2PM). Aside from being simple to estimate, one key advantage of the 2PM is its less onerous identification requirements. Specifically, the model does not require the specification of so-called exclusion restrictions, variables that are included in the selection equation of the Heckit model but omitted from the outcome equation. Moreover, we argue that the interpretation of the marginal effects from the 2PM, which are in terms of actual outcomes, are more appropriate for the questions typically addressed by political scientists than the potential outcomes ascribed to the Heckit results. Drawing on data compiled by Sweeney (2003) from the Correlates of War database, we present an empirical analysis of conflict intensity illustrating that the choice between the sample selection model and 2PM can bear fundamentally on the conclusions drawn.\",\"PeriodicalId\":234067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conflict Studies: Scientific Study eJournal\",\"volume\":\"144 \",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conflict Studies: Scientific Study eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2423259\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conflict Studies: Scientific Study eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2423259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

样本选择模型,其变体是Heckman和Heckit模型,被政治学家越来越多地用于容纳数据,其中对因变量的审查引起了对样本选择性偏差的担忧。除了展示计算边际效应和从这些模型中得出的相关统计显著性水平的几个陷阱之外,我们认为,出于实质性和统计上的原因,政治科学家解决的许多实证问题可以使用另一种但密切相关的程序(称为两部分模型(2PM))来更恰当地解决。除了易于估计之外,2PM的一个关键优势是它较少的繁重标识需求。具体来说,该模型不需要说明所谓的排除限制,即Heckit模型的选择方程中包含但结果方程中省略的变量。此外,我们认为,从实际结果的角度来解释下午2点的边际效应,比将潜在结果归因于Heckit结果更适合政治科学家通常要解决的问题。根据Sweeney(2003)从战争相关数据库中收集的数据,我们对冲突强度进行了实证分析,说明样本选择模型和2PM之间的选择可以从根本上影响得出的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Peace a Missing Value or a Zero?
Sample selection models, variants of which are the Heckman and Heckit models, are increasingly used by political scientists to accommodate data in which censoring of the dependent variable raises concerns of sample selectivity bias. Beyond demonstrating several pitfalls in the calculation of marginal effects and associated levels of statistical significance derived from these models, we argue that many of the empirical questions addressed by political scientists would – for both substantive and statistical reasons – be more appropriately addressed using an alternative but closely related procedure referred to as the two-part model (2PM). Aside from being simple to estimate, one key advantage of the 2PM is its less onerous identification requirements. Specifically, the model does not require the specification of so-called exclusion restrictions, variables that are included in the selection equation of the Heckit model but omitted from the outcome equation. Moreover, we argue that the interpretation of the marginal effects from the 2PM, which are in terms of actual outcomes, are more appropriate for the questions typically addressed by political scientists than the potential outcomes ascribed to the Heckit results. Drawing on data compiled by Sweeney (2003) from the Correlates of War database, we present an empirical analysis of conflict intensity illustrating that the choice between the sample selection model and 2PM can bear fundamentally on the conclusions drawn.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信