[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wyi/wpaper/001990.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Validity of Instruments Revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Berkowitz
  • Mehmet Caner
  • Ying Fang
Abstract
Valid instrumental variables must be relevant and exogenous. However, in practice it is difficult to find instruments that are exogenous in that they satisfy the knife-edged orthogonality condition and at the same time are strongly correlated with the endogenous regressors. In this paper we show how a mild violation of the exogeneity assumption affects the limit of the Anderson-Rubin test (1949). This test statistic is frequently used in economics due to the fact that it is robust to identification problems. However, when there is mild violation of exogeneity the test is oversized and with larger samples the problem gets worse. In order to correct this problem, we introduce the fractionally resampled Anderson-Rubin test (FAR) that is derived by modifying the resampling technique introduced by Wu(1990). We show the FAR test does not overreject the null hypothesis when we use half of the sample without replacement as the block size from the original sample. As a novel scheme, we treat the block size as a random variable and prove that this choice recovers the limit of the Anderson-Rubin (1949) test. We also prove that this optimal choice of block size converges in probability to 1/2. Simulations show that in finite samples the FAR is conservative; thus, we propose a range of block size choices that has very good size and power when there are possible violations of the exogeneity assumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Berkowitz & Mehmet Caner & Ying Fang, 2013. "The Validity of Instruments Revisited," Working Papers 2013-10-14, Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics (WISE), Xiamen University.
    • Handle: RePEc:wyi:wpaper:001990
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econpub.xmu.edu.cn/research/repec/upload/20081023102047055475115776.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrews, Donald W.K. & Guggenberger, Patrik, 2009. "Validity Of Subsampling And “Plug-In Asymptotic” Inference For Parameters Defined By Moment Inequalities," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 669-709, June.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson & James A. Robinson & Pierre Yared, 2008. "Income and Democracy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 808-842, June.
    3. Hall, Alastair R. & Inoue, Atsushi, 2003. "The large sample behaviour of the generalized method of moments estimator in misspecified models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 361-394, June.
    4. Guggenberger, Patrik & Smith, Richard J., 2005. "Generalized Empirical Likelihood Estimators And Tests Under Partial, Weak, And Strong Identification," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 667-709, August.
    5. Berkowitz, Daniel & Caner, Mehmet & Fang, Ying, 2008. "Are "Nearly Exogenous Instruments" reliable?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 20-23, October.
    6. Frank Kleibergen, 2002. "Pivotal Statistics for Testing Structural Parameters in Instrumental Variables Regression," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1781-1803, September.
    7. K. Newey, Whitney, 1985. "Generalized method of moments specification testing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 229-256, September.
    8. James H. Stock & Jonathan Wright, 2000. "GMM with Weak Identification," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1055-1096, September.
    9. Mehmet Caner & Dan Berkowitz & Ying Fang, 2006. "Are Nearly Exogenous Instruments Reliable?," Working Paper 207, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2006.
    10. Andrews, Donald W.K. & Guggenberger, Patrik, 2010. "ASYMPTOTIC SIZE AND A PROBLEM WITH SUBSAMPLING AND WITH THE m OUT OF n BOOTSTRAP," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 426-468, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:wyi:journl:002149 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Cheng, Xu, 2015. "Robust inference in nonlinear models with mixed identification strength," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 207-228.
    3. Caner, Mehmet, 2014. "Near exogeneity and weak identification in generalized empirical likelihood estimators: Many moment asymptotics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 182(2), pages 247-268.
    4. Jondeau, Eric & Le Bihan, Hervé, 2008. "Examining bias in estimators of linear rational expectations models under misspecification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 143(2), pages 375-395, April.
    5. repec:bla:ecorec:v:91:y:2015:i::p:1-24 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Alastair R. Hall, 2015. "Econometricians Have Their Moments: GMM at 32," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 91(S1), pages 1-24, June.
    7. Guggenberger, Patrik & Ramalho, Joaquim J.S. & Smith, Richard J., 2012. "GEL statistics under weak identification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 170(2), pages 331-349.
    8. Mehmet Caner, 2006. "Near Exogeneity and Weak Identification in Generlized Empirical Likelihood estimators : Fixed and Many Moment Asymptotics," Working Paper 212, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2006.
    9. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin Sabro, 2012. "Specification Tests with Weak and Invalid Instruments," MPRA Paper 40185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Whitney K. Newey & Frank Windmeijer, 2005. "GMM with many weak moment conditions," CeMMAP working papers CWP18/05, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. Timothy B. Armstrong & Michal Kolesár, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis using approximate moment condition models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 77-108, January.
    12. Joel L. Horowitz, 2018. "Non-Asymptotic Inference in Instrumental Variables Estimation," Papers 1809.03600, arXiv.org.
    13. Firmin Doko Tchatoka & Wenjie Wang, 2020. "Uniform Inference after Pretesting for Exogeneity," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2020-05, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    14. Andrews, Donald W.K. & Guggenberger, Patrik, 2010. "Applications of subsampling, hybrid, and size-correction methods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 285-305, October.
    15. Marcellino, Massimiliano & Kapetanios, George & Khalaf, Lynda, 2015. "Factor based identification-robust inference in IV regressions," CEPR Discussion Papers 10390, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Andrews, Donald W.K. & Cheng, Xu & Guggenberger, Patrik, 2020. "Generic results for establishing the asymptotic size of confidence sets and tests," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 496-531.
    17. Xu, Ke-Li, 2020. "Inference of local regression in the presence of nuisance parameters," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 532-560.
    18. Aviv Nevo & Adam M. Rosen, 2012. "Identification With Imperfect Instruments," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 659-671, August.
    19. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin, 2011. "Testing for partial exogeneity with weak identification," MPRA Paper 39504, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Mar 2012.
    20. Rosen, Adam M., 2008. "Confidence sets for partially identified parameters that satisfy a finite number of moment inequalities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 107-117, September.
    21. Moreira, Humberto & Moreira, Marcelo J., 2019. "Optimal two-sided tests for instrumental variables regression with heteroskedastic and autocorrelated errors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 213(2), pages 398-433.
    22. McCloskey, Adam, 2017. "Bonferroni-based size-correction for nonstandard testing problems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 17-35.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Berry-Esseen Bound; Finite Sample of Random Variables; Near-Exogeneity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C3 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C30 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - General

    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:wyi:wpaper:001990. 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: WISE Technical Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.wise.xmu.edu.cn/english/ .

    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.