Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T03:06:42.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Model Specification in Instrumental-Variables Regression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2008

Thad Dunning
Thad Dunning*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Yale University, PO Box 208301, New Haven, CT 06520, e-mail: thad.dunning@yale.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many applications of instrumental-variables regression, researchers seek to defend the plausibility of a key assumption: the instrumental variable is independent of the error term in a linear regression model. Although fulfilling this exogeneity criterion is necessary for a valid application of the instrumental-variables approach, it is not sufficient. In the regression context, the identification of causal effects depends not just on the exogeneity of the instrument but also on the validity of the underlying model. In this article, I focus on one feature of such models: the assumption that variation in the endogenous regressor that is related to the instrumental variable has the same effect as variation that is unrelated to the instrument. In many applications, this assumption may be quite strong, but relaxing it can limit our ability to estimate parameters of interest. After discussing two substantive examples, I develop analytic results (simulations are reported elsewhere). I also present a specification test that may be useful for determining the relevance of these issues in a given application.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , Summer 2008 , pp. 290 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angrist, Joshua D., and Krueger, Alan B. 2001. Instrumental variables and the search for identification: From supply and demand to natural experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 2–16.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., Imbens, Guido W., and Rubin, Donald B. 1996. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 444–55.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1991. Instrumental and ‘Quasi-Instrumental’ Variables. American Journal of Political Science 35: 777–800.Google Scholar
Bound, John, Jaeger, David, and Baker, Regina. 1995. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variables is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90: 443–50.Google Scholar
Collier, Paul, and Hoeffler, Anke. 1998. On economic causes of civil war. Oxford Economic Papers 50: 563–73.Google Scholar
Collier, Paul, and Hoeffler, Anke. 2001. Greed and grievance in civil war Policy Research Paper no. 2355. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Cox, David R. 1958. Planning of experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, D. M., and Speed, T. P. 1990. On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments: Essay on principles. Statistical Science 5: 465–80 (with discussion). English translation of Jerzy Neyman (1923), Sur les applications de la théorie des probabilités aux experiences agricoles: Essai des principes. Rocznici Nauk Rolniczych 10:1-51, in Polish.Google Scholar
Doherty, Daniel, Green, Donald, and Gerber, Alan. 2005. Personal income and attitudes toward redistribution: A study of lottery winners. Field Experiment Initiative, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University. http://www.yale.edu/isps/publications/field.html (accessed January 8, 2008).Google Scholar
Doherty, Daniel, Green, Donald, and Gerber, Alan. 2006. Personal income and attitudes toward redistribution: A study of lottery winners. Political Psychology 27: 2006.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad. 2005. Strengthening causal inference: Practical and statistical perspectives on natural experiments. Presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 31 to September 5, 2005.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad. 2007. Improving causal inference: Strengths and limitations of natural experiments. Political Research Quarterly. http://intl-prq.sagepub.com/pap.dtl (accessed October 3, 2007).Google Scholar
Fearon, James, and Laitin, David. 2003. Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review 97: 75–90.Google Scholar
Freedman, David. 2005. Statistical models: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freedman, David. 2006. Statistical models for causation: What inferential leverage do they provide? Evaluation Review 30: 691–713.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. 2003. Econometric analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hanushek, Eric A., and Jackson, John E. 1977. Statistical methods for social scientists. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Harcourt Brace & Company.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. 2000. Causal parameters and policy analysis in economics: A twentieth century retrospective. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115: 45–97.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J., and Robb, R. 1986. Alternative methods for solving the problem of selection bias in evaluating the impact of treatments on outcomes. In Drawing inferences from self-selected samples, ed. Wainer, Howard, 63–107. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J., Urzua, Sergio, and Vytlacil, Edward. 2006. Understanding instrumental variables in models with essential heterogeneity. Review of Economics and Statistics 88: 389–432.Google Scholar
Holland, Paul W. 1986. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 8: 945–70 (with discussion).Google Scholar
Imbens, Guido W., and Angrist, Joshua D. 1994. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 62: 467–75.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Peter. 1985. A guide to econometrics. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kocher, Matthew Adam. 2007. Insurgency, state capacity, and the rural basis of civil war. Paper prepared for presentation at the Program on Order, Conflict, and Violence, Yale University, October 26, 2007. Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE).Google Scholar
Miguel, Edward, Satyanath, Shanker, and Sergenti, Ernest. 2004. Economic shocks and civil conflict: An instrumental variables approach. Journal of Political Economy 122: 725–53.Google Scholar
Neyman, Jersey. 1923. Sur les applications de la théorie des probabilités aux experiences agricoles: Essai des principes. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych 10: 1–51, in Polish. English translation by D. M. Dabrowska, and T. P. Speed (1990), Statistical Science 5:465-80 (with discussion).Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, Mark R., and Wolpin, Kenneth I. 2000. Natural ‘Natural Experiments' in Economics. Journal of Economic Literature 38: 827–74.Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66: 688–701.Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald. 1978. Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization. The Annals of Statistics 6(1): 34–58.Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald. 1980. Comment on randomization analysis of experimental data: The Fisher randomization test. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75: 591–3.Google Scholar
Weinstein, Jeremy M. 2007. Inside rebellion: The politics of insurgent violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar