Binary response model with continuous endogenous explanatory variables

Given a probit model [1] y=1[y* > 0] where y* = x1 β + zδ + u, and u ~ N(0,1), without losing generality, z can be represented as z = x1 θ1 + x2 θ2 + v. When u is correlated with v, there will be an issue of endogeneity. This can be caused by omitted variables and measurement errors.[2] There are also many cases where z is partially determined by y and endogeneity issue arises. For instance, in a model evaluating the effect of different patient features on their choice of whether going to hospital, y is the choice and z is the amount of the medicine a respondent took, then it is very intuitive that more often the respondent goes to hospital, it is more likely that she took more medicine, hence endogeneity issue arises.[3] When there are endogenous explanatory variables, the estimator generated by usual estimation procedure will be inconsistent, then the corresponding estimated Average Partial Effect (APE) [4] will be inconsistent, too.

To address this issue, there are usually two different estimation procedure to generate consistent estimators. Under the normality assumption v~N(0,σ2), u = ρv + ε must hold, where ρ = cov(u , v)/σ2 and ε~N(0,1-ρ2 σ2). Then the equation for y* can be rewritten as y* = x1 β + zδ + ρv + ε.

This model can be consistently estimated by 2-Stage Least Square (2SLS):

1) Regress z on (x1, x2) and obtain the consistent estimator and the residual ;

2) Estimate the binary response model on (x1, z, ) and get the consistent estimator for the scaled coefficients ρσ, δρσ, ρρσ) ≡ (β, δ, ρ)/1 - ρ2 σ2;

Then (y = 1│x, z) = Φ ( x1 ρσ + zρσ + ρσ) . Since the APE of variable at (,) is given by

Ev ,)]

By Law of Large Number, a consistent estimator is given as

,)

This model can also be consistently estimated by conditional Maximum Likelihood Method.[5] Because P(y, z│x) = P (y│z, x) P (z| x) where P (y│x, z) is given by

and P(z│x) is given by

Then the log-likelihood function for maximization is given by:

Once the consistent estimators are obtained, APE can be calculated following the same procedure given above. All the discussion above is mainly about the probit model. When the distribution assumption is changed, the same logic still applies.

References

  1. Greene, W. H. (2003), Econometric Analysis , Prentice Hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ .
  2. Fuller, Wayne A. (1987), Measurement error models, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, ISBN 0-471-86187-1
  3. Bruce A. Rayton. (2006): “Examining the interconnection of job satisfaction and organizational commitment: an application of the bivariate probit model”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17, Iss. 1.
  4. Wooldridge, J. (2002): Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 22.
  5. This issue can also be addressed under the Semiparametric setting, for more details, refere to: Richard W. Blundell; James L. Powell. (2004): ”Endogeneity in Semiparametric Binary Response Models”,Review of Economic Studies 71 (3), pp: 655-679
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.