2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.01.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tests with correct size when instruments can be arbitrarily weak

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
148
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 155 publications
(160 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
8
148
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The critical values suggest that the bias of IV estimates for some small subgroups in our sample such as men or specific age cohorts is likely to be sometimes above 25 percent when we analyze heterogeneity in the migration effect. We follow Moreira (2003), Moreira (2009) and Mikusheva and Poi (2006a) by using the conditional likelihood ratio (CLR) test, which is valid under weak instruments, to ascertain whether the migration effect is significantly different from zero and positive or negative, where possible. We also calculate the CLR confidence region for the migration coefficient (Andrews et al (2006) implemented in STATA using a package provided by Mikusheva and Poi (2006a)).…”
Section: Identification Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The critical values suggest that the bias of IV estimates for some small subgroups in our sample such as men or specific age cohorts is likely to be sometimes above 25 percent when we analyze heterogeneity in the migration effect. We follow Moreira (2003), Moreira (2009) and Mikusheva and Poi (2006a) by using the conditional likelihood ratio (CLR) test, which is valid under weak instruments, to ascertain whether the migration effect is significantly different from zero and positive or negative, where possible. We also calculate the CLR confidence region for the migration coefficient (Andrews et al (2006) implemented in STATA using a package provided by Mikusheva and Poi (2006a)).…”
Section: Identification Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We can prove this result directly from Theorem 2-(a) of Moreira (2001Moreira ( , 2009 for homoskedastic errors (with the scalar µ and matrix Ω being replaced by µ Φ and Σ). As this setup resembles the just-identified model with homoskedastic errors, optimality of the Anderson-Rubin test for HAC errors and k = 1 follows straightforwardly.…”
Section: Proposition 3 a Test Is Said To Be Locally Unbiased (Lu) Ifmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Kleibergen (2006) instead adapts the formula for the likelihood ratio statistic derived by Moreira (2003) in the homoskedastic IV model to the GMM framework. For the HAC-IV model, this quasi likelihood ratio statistic becomes…”
Section: The IV Model and Statisticsmentioning
confidence: 99%