区分有效的外部仪器和有效的排除限制

Q3 Mathematics
J. Kiviet
{"title":"区分有效的外部仪器和有效的排除限制","authors":"J. Kiviet","doi":"10.1515/jem-2016-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In models estimated by (generalized) method of moments a test on coefficient restrictions can either be based on a Wald statistic or on the difference between evaluated criterion functions. From their correspondence it easily follows that the statistic used for testing instrument validity, the Sargan-Hansen overidentifying restrictions (OR) statistic, is equivalent to an exclusion restrictions test statistic for a nonunique group of regressor variables. We prove that asymptotically this is the case too for incremental OR tests. However, we also demonstrate that, despite this equivalence of test statistics, one can nevertheless distinguish between either the (in)validity of some additional instruments or the (un)tenability of particular exclusion restrictions. This, however, requires to be explicit about the adopted maintained hypothesis. It also highlights that recent warnings in the literature that overidentifying restrictions tests may mislead practitioners should not be directed towards the test, but to practitioners who do not realize that inference based on such tests is unavoidably conditional on the validity of particular just-identifying statistically untestable assumptions.","PeriodicalId":36727,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Econometric Methods","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jem-2016-0005","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discriminating between (in)valid External Instruments and (in)valid Exclusion Restrictions\",\"authors\":\"J. Kiviet\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jem-2016-0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In models estimated by (generalized) method of moments a test on coefficient restrictions can either be based on a Wald statistic or on the difference between evaluated criterion functions. From their correspondence it easily follows that the statistic used for testing instrument validity, the Sargan-Hansen overidentifying restrictions (OR) statistic, is equivalent to an exclusion restrictions test statistic for a nonunique group of regressor variables. We prove that asymptotically this is the case too for incremental OR tests. However, we also demonstrate that, despite this equivalence of test statistics, one can nevertheless distinguish between either the (in)validity of some additional instruments or the (un)tenability of particular exclusion restrictions. This, however, requires to be explicit about the adopted maintained hypothesis. It also highlights that recent warnings in the literature that overidentifying restrictions tests may mislead practitioners should not be directed towards the test, but to practitioners who do not realize that inference based on such tests is unavoidably conditional on the validity of particular just-identifying statistically untestable assumptions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Econometric Methods\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jem-2016-0005\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Econometric Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jem-2016-0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Econometric Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jem-2016-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

在广义矩量法估计的模型中,对系数限制的检验既可以基于Wald统计量,也可以基于评价准则函数之间的差值。从它们的对应关系中很容易得出,用于测试工具有效性的统计量,即Sargan-Hansen过度识别限制(OR)统计量,相当于非唯一回归变量组的排除限制检验统计量。我们渐近地证明对于增量或检验也是如此。然而,我们也证明,尽管测试统计量的这种等效性,人们仍然可以区分某些附加工具的有效性或特定排除限制的有效性。然而,这需要明确采用的维持假设。它还强调,最近文献中关于过度识别限制测试可能误导从业者的警告不应针对测试,而应针对那些没有意识到基于此类测试的推断不可避免地取决于特定的刚刚识别的统计上不可检验的假设的有效性的从业者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discriminating between (in)valid External Instruments and (in)valid Exclusion Restrictions
Abstract In models estimated by (generalized) method of moments a test on coefficient restrictions can either be based on a Wald statistic or on the difference between evaluated criterion functions. From their correspondence it easily follows that the statistic used for testing instrument validity, the Sargan-Hansen overidentifying restrictions (OR) statistic, is equivalent to an exclusion restrictions test statistic for a nonunique group of regressor variables. We prove that asymptotically this is the case too for incremental OR tests. However, we also demonstrate that, despite this equivalence of test statistics, one can nevertheless distinguish between either the (in)validity of some additional instruments or the (un)tenability of particular exclusion restrictions. This, however, requires to be explicit about the adopted maintained hypothesis. It also highlights that recent warnings in the literature that overidentifying restrictions tests may mislead practitioners should not be directed towards the test, but to practitioners who do not realize that inference based on such tests is unavoidably conditional on the validity of particular just-identifying statistically untestable assumptions.
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
Journal of Econometric Methods
Journal of Econometric Methods Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
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