Dear users,
I'm unsure about the interpretation of the results of my xtivreg2 etsimation (Stata 18). I want to estimate x1 on y with controls - the main interest of variable is x1. I have been adviced to use dynamic panel estimation due to endogeneity of l.y.
The command is specified as the following:
I am wondering how to interpret the causality here. I get how to interpret the specific IV test - inthis case showing strong instruments and detection of endogeneity of l.y. Further, the effect of x1 (main interest) is still significant when using xtivreg2.
Is it correct that the only causal effect I can be sure of here (based on the results of good instruments and endogeneity) is the lagged y since (l.y=l2.z l3.z ) - which is good since I have handled the endogeneity of l.y. Then hat part is solved. But, as mentioned, the main interest is the effect of changes of x1. Can I say that x1 is also causal in this model? I am guessing no - and that I have to do an own IV-specification for x1 as well (or perhaps in the same specification of l.y). Is that right?
I hope this was understable.
Many thanks for you input, and apologies in advanced if this is not a typical Statalist question (not very technical).
Kind regards,
Renira
I'm unsure about the interpretation of the results of my xtivreg2 etsimation (Stata 18). I want to estimate x1 on y with controls - the main interest of variable is x1. I have been adviced to use dynamic panel estimation due to endogeneity of l.y.
The command is specified as the following:
Code:
xtivreg2 y x1 x2 x3 y_trend y_trend2 (l.y=l2.z l3.z ), fe robust small first endog (l.y)
Is it correct that the only causal effect I can be sure of here (based on the results of good instruments and endogeneity) is the lagged y since (l.y=l2.z l3.z ) - which is good since I have handled the endogeneity of l.y. Then hat part is solved. But, as mentioned, the main interest is the effect of changes of x1. Can I say that x1 is also causal in this model? I am guessing no - and that I have to do an own IV-specification for x1 as well (or perhaps in the same specification of l.y). Is that right?
I hope this was understable.
Many thanks for you input, and apologies in advanced if this is not a typical Statalist question (not very technical).
Kind regards,
Renira
Comment