Uniform Inference after Pretesting for Exogeneity

Doko Tchatoka, Firmin and Wang, Wenjie (2020): Uniform Inference after Pretesting for Exogeneity.

Abstract

Pretesting for exogeneity has become a routine in many empirical applications involving instrumental variables (IVs) to decide whether the ordinary least squares (OLS) or the two-stage least squares (2SLS) method is appropriate. Guggenberger (2010) shows that the second-stage t-test– based on the outcome of a Durbin- Wu-Hausman type pretest for exogeneity in the first-stage– has extreme size distortion with asymptotic size equal to 1 when the standard asymptotic critical values are used. In this paper, we first show that the standard residual bootstrap procedures (with either independent or dependent draws of disturbances) are not viable solutions to such extreme size-distortion problem. Then, we propose a novel hybrid bootstrap approach, which combines the residual-based bootstrap along with an adjusted Bonferroni size-correction method. We establish uniform validity of this hybrid bootstrap in the sense that it yields a two-stage test with correct asymptotic size. Monte Carlo simulations confirm our theoretical findings. In particular, our proposed hybrid method achieves remarkable power gains over the 2SLS-based t-test, especially when IVs are not very strong.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: DWH Pretest; Instrumental Variable; Asymptotic Size; Bootstrap; Bonferroni-based Size-correction; Uniform Inference
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C12 - Hypothesis Testing: General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C13 - Estimation: General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C26 - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation

References

Anderson, T. W., Rubin, H., 1949. Estimation of the parameters of a single equation in a complete system of stochastic equations. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 20(1), 46–63.

Andrews, D. W. , Guggenberger, P. , 2009a. Hybrid and size-corrected subsampling methods. Econometrica 77(3), 721–762.

Andrews, D. W., Guggenberger, P., 2009b. Incorrect asymptotic size of subsampling procedures based on post-consistent model selection estimators. Journal of Econometrics 152(1), 19–27.

Andrews, D. W. , Guggenberger, P. , 2010a. Applications of subsampling, hybrid, and size-correction methods. Journal of Econometrics 158(2), 285–305.

Andrews, D. W., Guggenberger, P., 2010b. Asymptotic size and a problem with subsampling and with the m out of n bootstrap. Econometric Theory 26(2), 426–468.

Andrews, I., Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J. M., 2017. Measuring the sensitivity of parameter estimates to estimation moments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 132(4), 1553–1592.

Angrist, J. D., Krueger, A. B. , 1991. Does compulsory school attendance affect schooling and earning?. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4), 979–1014.

Berkowitz, D., Caner, M., Fang, Y., 2008. Are nearly exogenous instruments reliable?. Economics Letters 101, 20–23.

Berkowitz, D., Caner, M., Fang, Y., 2012. The validity of instruments revisited. Journal of Econometrics 166, 255–266.

Conley, T. G., Hansen, C. B., Rossi, P. E., 2012. Plausibly exogenous. Review of Economics and Statistics 94(1), 260–272.

Doko Tchatoka, F., 2015. On bootstrap validity for specification tests with weak instruments. The Econometrics Journal 18(1), 137–146.

Doko Tchatoka, F., Dufour, J.-M., 2008. Instrument endogeneity and identification-robust tests: some analytical results. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 138(9), 2649–2661.

Doko Tchatoka, F., Dufour, J.-M., 2014. Identification-robust inference for endogeneity parameters in linear structural models. The Econometrics Journal 17(1), 165–187.

Doko Tchatoka, F., Dufour, J.-M., 2018. Instrument endogeneity and identification-robust tests: some analytical results. Journal of Econometrics Forthcoming.

Doko Tchatoka, F., Dufour, J.-M., 2020. Exogeneity tests and weak identification in IV regressions: asymptotic theory and point estimation. Technical report, Department of Economics, McGill University Montréal, Canada.

Dovonon, P., Gonçalves, S., 2017. Bootstrapping the GMM overidentification test under first-order underidentification. Journal of Econometrics 201(1), 43–71.

Durbin, J., 1954. Errors in variables. Review of the International Statistical Institute 22, 23–32.

Gonçalves, S. , White, H., 2004. Maximum likelihood and the bootstrap for nonlinear dynamic models. Journal of Econometrics 119(1), 199–219.

Guggenberger, P., 2010a. The impact of a hausman pretest on the asymptotic size of a hypothesis test. Econometric Theory 26(2), 369–382.

Guggenberger, P., 2010b. The impact of a hausman pretest on the size of a hypothesis test: The panel data case. Journal of Econometrics 156(2), 337–343.

Guggenberger, P., 2012. On the asymptotic size distortion of tests when instruments locally violate the exogeneity assumption. Econometric Theory 28, 387–421.

Guggenberger, P., Kumar, G., 2012. On the size distortion of tests after an overidentifying restrictions pretest. Journal of Applied Econometrics 27(7), 1138–1160.

Hahn, J., Ham, J., Moon, H. R., 2010. The Hausman test and weak instruments. Journal of Econometrics 160, 289–299.

Han, S., McCloskey, A., 2019. Estimation and inference with a (nearly) singular Jacobian. Quantitative Economics 10(3), 1019–1068.

Hansen, B. E., 2005. Challenges for econometric model selection. Econometric Theory 21(1), 60–68.

Hansen, C., Hausman, J., Newey, W., 2008. Estimation with many instrumental variables. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 26(4), 398–422.

Hausman, J., 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46, 1251–1272.

Kabaila, P. , 1995. The effect of model selection on confidence regions and prediction regions. Econometric Theory 11(3), 537–549.

Kabaila, P., Leeb, H., 2006. On the large-sample minimal coverage probability of confidence intervals after model selection. Journal of the American Statistical Association 101(474), 619–629.

Kabaila, P., Mainzer, R., Farchione, D., 2015. The impact of a hausman pretest, applied to panel data, on the coverage probability of confidence intervals. Economics Letters 131, 12–15.

Kleibergen, F., 2002. Pivotal statistics for testing structural parameters in instrumental variables regression. Econometrica 70(5), 1781–1803.

Leeb, H., Pötscher, B. M., 2005a. Model selection and inference: Facts and fiction. Econometric Theory 21(1), 21–59.

Leeb, H., Pötscher, B. M., 2005b. Model selection and inference: Facts and fiction. Econometric Theory 21(1), 21–59.

Leeb, H. , Pötscher, B. M. , 2009. Model selection. In: Handbook of Financial Time Series. Springer,, pp. 889–925.

McCloskey, A., 2017. Bonferroni-based size-correction for nonstandard testing problems. Journal of Econometrics 200(1), 17–35.

McCloskey, A., 2019. Asymptotically uniform tests after consistent model selection in the linear regression model. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics Forthcoming, 1–33.

Moreira, M. J. , 2003. A conditional likelihood ratio test for structural models. Econometrica 71(4), 1027–1048.

Moreira, M. J., Porter, J., Suarez, G., 2009. Bootstrap validity for the score test when instruments may be weak. Journal of Econometrics 149(1), 52–64.

Staiger, D., Stock, J. H., 1997. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 65(3), 557–586.

Wang, W. , Doko Tchatoka, F. , 2018. On bootstrap inconsistency and bonferroni-based size-correction for the subset anderson–rubin test under conditional homoskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 207(1), 188–211.

Wu, D.-M. , 1973. Alternative tests of independence between stochastic regressors and disturbances. Econometrica 41, 733–750.

Wu, D.-M. , 1974. Alternative tests of independence between stochastic regressors and disturbances: Finite sample results. Econometrica 42, 529–546.

Young, A., 2019. Consistency without inference: Instrumental variables in practical application. Technical report, London School of Economics.