[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/adl/wpaper/2016-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exogeneity tests, weak identification, incomplete models and non-Gaussian distributions: Invariance and finite-sample distributional theory

Author

Listed:
  • Firmin Doko Tchatoka

    (School of Economics, University of Adelaide)

  • Jean-Marie Dufour

    (McGill University)

Abstract
We study the distribution of Durbin-Wu-Hausman (DWH) tests for exogeneity from a finite-sample viewpoint, under the null and alternative hypotheses. We consider linear structural models with possibly non-Gaussian errors, where structural parameters may not be identified and where reduced forms can be incompletely specified (or nonparametric). On level control, we characterize the null distributions of all the test statistics. Through conditioning and invariance arguments, we show that these distributions do not involve nuisance parameters. In particular, this applies to several test statistics for which no finite-sample distributional theory is yet available, such as the standard statistic proposed by Hausman (1978). The distributions of the test statistics may be non-standard – so corrections to usual asymptotic critical values are needed – but the characterizations are sufficiently explicit to yield finite-sample (Monte-Carlo) tests of the exogeneity hypothesis. The procedures so obtained are robust to weak identification, missing instruments or misspecified reduced forms, and can easily be adapted to allow for parametric non-Gaussian error distributions. We give a general invariance result (block triangular invariance) for exogeneity test statistics. This property yields a convenient exogeneity canonical form and a parsimonious reduction of the parameters on which power depends. In the extreme case where no structural parameter is identified, the distributions under the alternative hypothesis and the null hypothesis are identical, so the power function is flat, for all the exogeneity statistics. However, as soon as identification does not fail completely, this phenomenon typically disappears. We present simulation evidence which confirms the finite-sample theory. The theoretical results are illustrated with two empirical examples: the relation between trade and economic growth, and the widely studied problem of the return of education to earnings.

Suggested Citation

  • Firmin Doko Tchatoka & Jean-Marie Dufour, 2016. "Exogeneity tests, weak identification, incomplete models and non-Gaussian distributions: Invariance and finite-sample distributional theory," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2016-01, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:adl:wpaper:2016-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://media.adelaide.edu.au/economics/papers/doc/wp2016-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wu, De-Min, 1973. "Alternative Tests of Independence Between Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 733-750, July.
    2. Smith, Richard, 1983. "On the classical nature of the Wu-Hausman statistics for the independence of stochastic regressors and disturbance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 357-364.
    3. Kiviet, Jan F. & Niemczyk, Jerzy, 2007. "The asymptotic and finite sample distributions of OLS and simple IV in simultaneous equations," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(7), pages 3296-3318, April.
    4. Kiviet, Jan F. & Pleus, Milan, 2017. "The performance of tests on endogeneity of subsets of explanatory variables scanned by simulation," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 1-21.
    5. Smith, Richard J., 1994. "Asymptotically Optimal Tests Using Limited Information and Testing for Exogeneity," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 53-69, March.
    6. Firmin Doko Tchatoka, 2015. "On bootstrap validity for specification tests with weak instruments," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 18(1), pages 137-146, February.
    7. Firmin Doko Tchatoka & Jean‐Marie Dufour, 2014. "Identification‐robust inference for endogeneity parameters in linear structural models," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 17(1), pages 165-187, February.
    8. Irwin, Douglas A. & Tervio, Marko, 2002. "Does trade raise income?: Evidence from the twentieth century," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 1-18, October.
    9. Carolina Caetano, 2015. "A Test of Exogeneity Without Instrumental Variables in Models With Bunching," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83(4), pages 1581-1600, July.
    10. Ruud, Paul A., 2000. "An Introduction to Classical Econometric Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195111644.
    11. Wu, De-Min, 1974. "Alternative Tests of Independence between Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances: Finite Sample Results," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(3), pages 529-546, May.
    12. Engle, Robert F., 1982. "A general approach to lagrange multiplier model diagnostics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 83-104, October.
    13. Joshua D. Angrist & Alan B. Krueger, 1993. "Split Sample Instrumental Variables," Working Papers 699, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    14. Farebrother, R W, 1976. "A Remark on the Wu Test," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(3), pages 475-477, May.
    15. Lance Lochner & Enrico Moretti, 2015. "Estimating and Testing Models with Many Treatment Levels and Limited Instruments," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(2), pages 387-397, May.
    16. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    17. Wu, De-Min, 1983. "A remark on a generalized specification test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 365-370.
    18. Jeong, Jinook & Yoon, Byung, 2007. "The Effect of Pseudo-exogenous Instrumental Variables on Hausman Test," MPRA Paper 9792, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Tchatoka, Firmin Doko, 2015. "Subset Hypotheses Testing And Instrument Exclusion In The Linear Iv Regression," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(6), pages 1192-1228, December.
    20. Jan F. Kiviet, 2013. "Identification and inference in a simultaneous equation under alternative information sets and sampling schemes," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 16(1), pages 24-59, February.
    21. Blundell,Richard & Newey,Whitney K. & Persson,Torsten (ed.), 2007. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521871532, September.
    22. David H. Romer & Jeffrey A. Frankel, 1999. "Does Trade Cause Growth?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 379-399, June.
    23. N. Gregory Mankiw & David Romer & David N. Weil, 1992. "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 407-437.
    24. Davidson, Russell & Godfrey, Leslie & MacKinnon, James G, 1985. "A Simplified Version of the Differencing Test," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(3), pages 639-647, October.
    25. Angrist, Joshua D & Krueger, Alan B, 1995. "Split-Sample Instrumental Variables Estimates of the Return to Schooling," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 225-235, April.
    26. Nakamura, Alice & Nakamura, Masao, 1981. "On the Relationships among Several Specification Error Tests Presented by Durbin, Wu, and Hausman," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1583-1588, November.
    27. Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2006. "Monte Carlo tests with nuisance parameters: A general approach to finite-sample inference and nonstandard asymptotics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 443-477, August.
    28. Hausman, Jerry A. & Taylor, William E., 1981. "A generalized specification test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 239-245.
    29. Chmelarova, Viera & Hill, R. Carter, 2010. "The Hausman pretest estimator," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 96-99, July.
    30. Richard Blundell & Joel L. Horowitz, 2007. "A Non-Parametric Test of Exogeneity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(4), pages 1035-1058.
    31. Smith, Richard J, 1984. "A Note on Likelihood Ratio Tests for the Independence between a Subset of Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 25(1), pages 263-269, February.
    32. Blundell,Richard & Newey,Whitney & Persson,Torsten (ed.), 2007. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521871549, September.
    33. Hwang, Hae-Shin, 1980. "Test of Independence between a Subset of Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 21(3), pages 749-760, October.
    34. Smith, Richard J., 1985. "Wald tests for the independence of stochastic variables and disturbance of a single linear stochastic simultaneous equation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 17(1-2), pages 87-90.
    35. Stock, James H & Wright, Jonathan H & Yogo, Motohiro, 2002. "A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 518-529, October.
    36. Nakamura, Alice & Nakamura, Masao, 1985. "On the performance of tests by Wu and by Hausman for detecting the ordinary least squares bias problem," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 213-227, September.
    37. Blundell,Richard & Newey,Whitney & Persson,Torsten (ed.), 2007. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521692106, September.
    38. Revankar, Nagesh S, 1978. "Asymptotic Relative Efficiency Analysis of Certain Tests of Independence in Structural Systems," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 19(1), pages 165-179, February.
    39. Reynolds, Roger A, 1982. "Posterior Odds for the Hypothesis of Independence between Stochastic Regressors and Disturbances," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 23(2), pages 479-490, June.
    40. Dufour, Jean-Marie & Taamouti, Mohamed, 2007. "Further results on projection-based inference in IV regressions with weak, collinear or missing instruments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 133-153, July.
    41. Poskitt, D. S. & Skeels, C. L., 2013. "Inference in the Presence of Weak Instruments: A Selected Survey," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 6(1), pages 1-99, August.
    42. Hwang, Hae-shin, 1985. "The equivalence of Hausman and Lagrange Multiplier tests of independence between disturbance and a subset of stochastic regressors," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 17(1-2), pages 83-86.
    43. Revankar, Nagesh S & Hartley, Michael J, 1973. "An Independence Test and Conditional Unbiased Predictions in the Context of Simultaneous Equation Systems," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 14(3), pages 625-631, October.
    44. Pesaran, M. Hashem & Smith, Richard J., 1990. "A unified approach to estimation and orthogonality tests in linear single-equation econometric models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 41-66.
    45. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2014. "Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation and testing for nonlinear models with endogenous explanatory variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 182(1), pages 226-234.
    46. Rivers, Douglas & Vuong, Quang H., 1988. "Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 347-366, November.
    47. Blundell,Richard & Newey,Whitney K. & Persson,Torsten (ed.), 2007. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521692090, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kiviet, Jan F. & Pleus, Milan, 2017. "The performance of tests on endogeneity of subsets of explanatory variables scanned by simulation," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 1-21.
    2. Firmin Doko Tchatoka & Lauren Slinger & Virginie Masson, 2020. "Revisiting empirical studies on the liquidity effect: An identication-robust approach," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2020-02, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    3. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin & Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2020. "Exogeneity tests, incomplete models, weak identification and non-Gaussian distributions: Invariance and finite-sample distributional theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 390-418.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin & Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2020. "Exogeneity tests, incomplete models, weak identification and non-Gaussian distributions: Invariance and finite-sample distributional theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 390-418.
    2. Firmin DOKO TCHATOKA & Jean-Marie DUFOUR, 2016. "Exogeneity Tests, Incomplete Models, Weak Identification and Non-Gaussian Distributions : Invariance and Finite-Sample Distributional Theory," Cahiers de recherche 14-2016, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    3. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin Sabro, 2012. "Specification Tests with Weak and Invalid Instruments," MPRA Paper 40185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Firmin Doko Tchatoka & Jean‐Marie Dufour, 2014. "Identification‐robust inference for endogeneity parameters in linear structural models," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 17(1), pages 165-187, February.
    5. Firmin Doko Tchatoka, 2015. "On bootstrap validity for specification tests with weak instruments," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 18(1), pages 137-146, February.
    6. Kiviet, Jan F. & Pleus, Milan, 2017. "The performance of tests on endogeneity of subsets of explanatory variables scanned by simulation," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 1-21.
    7. Firmin Doko Tchatoka & Wenjie Wang, 2015. "On Bootstrap Validity for Subset Anderson-Rubin Test in IV Regressions," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2015-01, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    8. Nakamura, Alice & Nakamura, Masao, 1998. "Model specification and endogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1-2), pages 213-237.
    9. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin, 2011. "Testing for partial exogeneity with weak identification," MPRA Paper 39504, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Mar 2012.
    10. Dufour, Jean-Marie & Taamouti, Mohamed, 2007. "Further results on projection-based inference in IV regressions with weak, collinear or missing instruments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 133-153, July.
    11. P. Dorian Owen, 2017. "Evaluating Ingenious Instruments for Fundamental Determinants of Long-Run Economic Growth and Development," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-33, September.
    12. Jean-Marie Dufour & Mohamed Taamouti, 2005. "Projection-Based Statistical Inference in Linear Structural Models with Possibly Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1351-1365, July.
    13. Manuel Denzer & Constantin Weiser, 2021. "Beyond F-statistic - A General Approach for Assessing Weak Identification," Working Papers 2107, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    14. Paulo Parente & Richard Smith, 2012. "Exogeneity in semiparametric moment condition models," CeMMAP working papers 30/12, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    15. Parente, Paulo M.D.C. & Smith, Richard J., 2017. "Tests of additional conditional moment restrictions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 1-16.
    16. Don S. Poskitt, 2020. "On GMM Inference: Partial Identification, Identification Strength, and Non-Standard," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 40/20, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    17. Chesher, Andrew, 2013. "Semiparametric Structural Models Of Binary Response: Shape Restrictions And Partial Identification," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 231-266, April.
    18. Guilhem Bascle, 2008. "Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research," Post-Print hal-00576795, HAL.
    19. Christopher F Baum & Mark E. Schaffer & Steven Stillman, 2003. "Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(1), pages 1-31, March.
    20. Yingying Dong & Arthur Lewbel, 2015. "A Simple Estimator for Binary Choice Models with Endogenous Regressors," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1-2), pages 82-105, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Exogeneity; Durbin-Wu-Hausman test; weak instrument; incomplete model; non-Gaussian; weak identification; identification robust; finite-sample theory; pivotal; invariance; Monte Carlo test; power;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C3 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables
    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:adl:wpaper:2016-01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Qazi Haque (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decadau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.