2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.03.039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating panel data models in the presence of endogeneity and selection

Abstract: a b s t r a c tWe consider estimation of panel data models with sample selection when the equation of interest contains endogenous explanatory variables as well as unobserved heterogeneity. Assuming that appropriate instruments are available, we propose several tests for selection bias and two estimation procedures that correct for selection in the presence of endogenous regressors. The tests are based on the fixed effects two-stage least squares estimator, thereby permitting arbitrary correlation between unob… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
337
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 430 publications
(374 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
337
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In all models a battery of simple variable addition tests (see Semykina and Wooldridge 2010) never reject the null of zero correlation between and past or future realizations of the selection. More specifically, the selection rule is such that if individual i is in the sample at time t (has the employee status) and otherwise.…”
Section: Sample Selection and Endogeneitymentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In all models a battery of simple variable addition tests (see Semykina and Wooldridge 2010) never reject the null of zero correlation between and past or future realizations of the selection. More specifically, the selection rule is such that if individual i is in the sample at time t (has the employee status) and otherwise.…”
Section: Sample Selection and Endogeneitymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…We estimated equation ( Testing for contemporaneous selection is more intricate. For example, implementing the twostep procedure suggested in Semykina and Wooldridge (2010) requires that we take care of the incidental truncation on a subset of right-hand-side variables, specifically the aspect satisfaction variables, the contract indicators and, in models 2 and 3, the interactions between the two groups of variables. In any event, this boils down to an unusually high number of potentially endogenous regressors, which should be matched by an equal number of nontruncated excluded instruments, a hard task in our sample.…”
Section: Sample Selection and Endogeneitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to address the above issues, Wooldridge (1995) and Semykina and Wooldridge (2005) have proposed a suitable Conditional Maximum Likelihood (CML) estimation procedure. Specifically, following Mundlak (1978) and Chamberlain (1984) it is initially assumed that the correlation between ߟ and ‫ݖ‬ ௧ can be parameterized via a linear relationship, ߟ ൌ ‫ݖ‬ҧ ′ ߜ ߱ , where ߱ ݅݅݀ ܰሺ0, ߪ ఠ ଶ ሻ, ‫ܧ‬ሺ߱ ‫ݖ|‬ ௧ , ߝ ௧ ሻ ൌ 0 and ‫ݖ‬ҧ are the means over the sample period of all exogenous variables.…”
Section: The Profile Of the Dual Job-holder And Occupational Choicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…௧ = 1. The Wooldridge (1995) and Semykina and Wooldridge (2005) methodology is utilized again so that the estimation of equations (7) and (8) proceeds as follows 6 :…”
Section: Dual Job-holding Job Mobility and Occupational Choice In Thmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To assess whether our results are influenced by selectivity, we applied several two-step control function estimators: In our GSOEP sample we used the estimators proposed by To test our fourth hypothesis that daily routine housework activities have a stronger negative impact on wages as opposed to those activities that are more easily postponed, we distinguish two categories of housework. As hours spent on daily routine housework activities we define the sum of hours spent on "shopping", "washing, cooking, and cleaning", "childcare", and "care and support for persons in need of care", whereas the hours spent on re- Wooldridge (1995), which intuitively adds a sample selection correction term to the standard FE model, and by Semykina and Wooldridge (2010), which does the same in the IV FE model. In our GTUS sample, we made use of a standard Heckit and a Heckit IV model (for the latter, see Wooldridge 2010, pp.…”
Section: Econometric Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%