Binary outcomes and endogenous explanatory variables: Tests and solutions with an application to the demand for contraceptive use in tunisia
Tóm tắt
Many demographic studies examine discrete outcomes, and researchers often suspect that some of the explanatory variables may be influenced by the same unobserved factors that determine the discrete outcome under examination. In linear models, the standard solution to this potential endogeneity bias is an estimator such as two-stage least squares. These methods have been extended to models with limited dependent variables, but there is little information on the performance of the methods in the types of data sets typically used in demographic research. This paper helps to fill this gap. It describes a simple analytic framework for estimating the effects of explanatory variables on discrete outcomes, which controls for the potential endogeneity of explanatory variables. It also discusses tests for exogeneity and joint determination of the outcomes and the explanatory variables. It summarizes the results of a Monte Carlo study of the performance of these techniques and uses these results to suggest how researchers should approach these problems in practice. We apply these methods to the examination of the impact of fertility intentions on contraceptive use, based on data from the 1988 Tunisia Demographic and Health Survey.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Amemiya, T. 1977. “The Maximum Likelihood and the Nonlinear Three-Stage Least Squares Estimator in the General Nonlinear Simultaneous Equation Model.” Econometrica 45:955–68.
Bollen, K.A. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.
Cochrane, S.H. and O.K. Guilkey. Forthcoming. “How Access to Contraception Affects Fertility and Contraceptive Use in Tunisia.” Economic Development and Cultural Change.
Guilkey, O.K., T.A. Mroz, and L. Taylor. 1992. “Estimation and Testing in Simultaneous Equations Models with Discrete Outcomes Using Cross Section Data.” Unpublished manuscript.
Hansen, L. 1982. “Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators.” Econometrica 50:1029–54.
Johnston, J. 1984. Econometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Joreskog, K. and D. Sorbom. 1993. LISREL 8. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kmenta, J. 1986. Elements of Econometrics. New York: Macmillan.
Lee, L. 1979. “Identification and Estimation in Binary Choice Models with Limited (Censored) Dependent Variables.” Econometrica 47:977–96.
Lee, S., W. Poon, and P.M. Bender. 1992. “Structural Equation Models with Continuous and Polytomous Variables.” Psychometrika 57:89–106.
Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mariano, R.S. 1982. “Analytical Small-Sample Distribution Theory in Econometrics: The Simultaneous Equations Case.” International Economic Review 23:503–34.
Mroz, T. and D. Guilkey. 1992. “Discrete Factor Approximations for Use in Simultaneous Equation Models with Both Continuous and Discrete Endogenous Variables.” Mimeographed document, University of North Carolina, Department of Economics, Chapel Hill.
Muthen, B. 1984. “A General Structural Equation Model with Dichotomous, Ordered Categorical and Continuous Latent Variable Indicators.” Psychometrika 49:115–32.
Newey, W. 1985. “Maximum Likelihood Specification Testing and Conditional Moments Tests.” Econometrica 53:1047–70.
Phillips, P.C.B. 1983. “Exact Small Sample Theory in the Simultaneous Equations Model,” Chapter 8 in Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 1. edited by Z. Griliches and M.D. Intriligator. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Rivers, D. and Q. Vuong. 1988. “Limited Information Estimators and Exogeneity Tests for Simultaneous Probit Models.” Journal of Econometrics 39:347–66.
Tauchen, G. 1985. “Diagnostic Testing and Evaluation of Maximum Likelihood Models.” Journal of Econometrics 30:415–43.