Announcement

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

  • As long as you do not change the second equation, my earlier statement about Xit being predetermined still stands.

    Once Xit becomes a direct function of Yit, as in your amended second equation, Xit becomes endogenous.
    https://www.kripfganz.de/stata/

    Comment


    • Dear Sebastian,

      Is there any reference that I can understand this better and explain why I can treat X_it as predetermined? I had difficulties to explain it in the method section of my paper. Or can you elaborate more on your reasoning?

      Best regards,
      Nursena

      Comment


      • Any standard econometrics textbook should cover systems of simultaneous equations and regressor endogeneity.

        A variable is predetermined if it is a function of (i.e., determined by) previous periods' shocks to the equation of interest (but not current or future periods' shocks).
        https://www.kripfganz.de/stata/

        Comment


        • Sebastian Kripfganz

          Hi, Sebastian,

          I have a question regarding a model specification where a I include the second lag of the dependent variable to deal with serial correlation. The model takes the following form:
          Code:
          xtdpdgmm DV l(1/2).DV l.IV l.(controls),  gmm(l(1/2).DV, lag(0 0) collapse m(fodev)) gmm(l.IV, lag(0 3) collapse m(fodev)) iv(l.(controls),d m(level)) teffects two vce(robust) nocons
          I assume that l.DV and l.IV are both predetermined - all right-hand side variables enter the model with a one-year lag, due to economic reasons, and all controls to be strictly exogeneous. I am not sure whether
          Code:
          gmm(l(1/2).DV, lag(0 0) collapse m(fodev))
          and
          Code:
          iv(l.(controls),d m(level))
          are correctly specified.

          Thank you in advance for your response!
          Last edited by Nicu Sprincean; 07 Feb 2025, 06:51.

          Comment


          • There is nothing wrong with these instruments per se. It is just a bit unusual that you are using different lag orders to instrument the lagged dependent variables and the independent variable. You should make sure that this can be justified; otherwise it looks like cherry picking a model specification that delivers the nicest results.

            For the controls, it is also unusual to not specify instruments for the transformed model; e.g., iv(l.(controls), m(fodev)).

            As a technical comment, note that gmm(l(1/2).DV, lag(0 0) collapse m(fodev)) is equivalent to iv(l(1/2).DV, m(fodev)).
            https://www.kripfganz.de/stata/

            Comment

            Working...
            X