Dear all, Dear Jeff Jeff Wooldridge, Dear Joao Joao Santos Silva
I have a question on endogeneity in the case of panel data.
I am running a linear regression on a performance variable and I want to test whether my independent variable (count variable) is endogenous. I have a strong instrument. However, I am unsure how to interpret my results and whether I should go with 2SLS or a control function approach.
My independent variable is significant in the normal model (xtreg) but it becomes insignificant if I use 2SLS. The endog() option indicates that endogeneity is not present. If I understand correctly, I can now just go with the original model. Yet, I was thinking about what it means that my IV becomes insignificant in the 2SLS regression as significance is still important in my field. Can the reason be that my independent variable is a count variable?
I also used the control function approach, where I regressed my endogenous count variable on the instrument and exogenous variables to receive the residuals. Implementing the residuals in the linear second stage shows that the residuals are not significant, supporting the idea that my model does not suffer from endogeneity.
To sum up:
1) Can the count nature of my independent variable be the reason for the insignificant 2SLS?
2) Should I have greater trust in the results of the control function approach than the 2SLS due to the count nature of my independent variable?
Thank you in advance.
Patrick
I have a question on endogeneity in the case of panel data.
I am running a linear regression on a performance variable and I want to test whether my independent variable (count variable) is endogenous. I have a strong instrument. However, I am unsure how to interpret my results and whether I should go with 2SLS or a control function approach.
My independent variable is significant in the normal model (xtreg) but it becomes insignificant if I use 2SLS. The endog() option indicates that endogeneity is not present. If I understand correctly, I can now just go with the original model. Yet, I was thinking about what it means that my IV becomes insignificant in the 2SLS regression as significance is still important in my field. Can the reason be that my independent variable is a count variable?
I also used the control function approach, where I regressed my endogenous count variable on the instrument and exogenous variables to receive the residuals. Implementing the residuals in the linear second stage shows that the residuals are not significant, supporting the idea that my model does not suffer from endogeneity.
To sum up:
1) Can the count nature of my independent variable be the reason for the insignificant 2SLS?
2) Should I have greater trust in the results of the control function approach than the 2SLS due to the count nature of my independent variable?
Thank you in advance.
Patrick
Comment